You are here

Guile's Content is no longer available for redistribution...

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Genisys
Guile's Content is no longer available for redistribution...

I have officially pulled my content as open source, it is not allowed to be redistributed or uploaded at all by anyone other than me.

 

All of my content now requires a license, which the nwn players may acquire at the download link provided in the download's original post.

 

Thank you, that is all.

All of my work has been moved to this community....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nwnopencommunity/

 

  • up
    0%
  • down
    100%
Andarian

I don't know how widespread the use of your content may be, Guile, or whether your decision may create an undue hardship for those who may have already used and/or built with it. But I would like to remind everyone that any such decision should be made while bearing in mind point six of the Neverwinter Vault's Custom Content Guidelines (which I helped to write):

  • 6. If someone has, in accordance with your content's permissions settings at the time, created content that is dependent on your work, then please do not attempt to rescind that permission after the fact, or to prevent that use by removing it from the Vault.
  • If for some reason you must remove it, understand that we will not persecute these authors if they choose to incorporate your work in their own so that theirs may continue functioning, until a proper legal ruling in the matter is brought before us.

There is a very good reason to get permission settings for one's work right the first time, especially when it comes to CC. Once someone has integrated your work into theirs, on the premise and understanding that they have permission to do so, rescinding that permission can devastate everything they've done and render it unusable and undistributable.  

Andarian

 

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
TheStoryteller01

@Andarian:

I don't see a problem for builders, the updated ReadMe (from 5 hours ago at the time of this post) still says:

Anyone may download and use these files in the Neverwinter Nights Game to play or build modules with.

You can check out my NWN2 downloads at www.thestoryteller01.wordpress.com

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
niv

Fair warning: This is one of those pet peeves of mine that so many people get intuitively wrong.

 

Depending on the terms what you published your work under initially, this is not how licencing works at all.

You cannot retroactively change the licence of a piece of work you put out for everyone to see and then change the terms under their butts for that very same work/version.

More specifically, you cannot retroactively pull distribution permission from a work you offered previously, if that licence granted users the unconditional right to use and distribute them in the first place.

This is a huge part of all those "freedom" licences like CC and GPL and so on.

You can, of course, pull your projects from the vault (because we offer the mechanisms for this), but this is not something you can enforce other people to do as well, (depending on the original licence use/distribution terms as mentioned above).

Now, you didn't really specify a explicit licence in your texts, but you did check "Open - Free & open only if project also open" as permissions type, which is, while terse, pretty clear on what it means.

The canonical thing to do in such a case (has happened many times before) is simply release the same work, or any new/following version, under a new, more restrictive licence. This still doesn't invalidate the current free licence for the current version.

You can just ignore this and do whatever you want.  I'm pretty sure no one is going to cry wolf about your scripts and sue you. I just want to make it pretty clear that this approach to handling such matters is factually wrong, and that people that already downloaded it are free to continue using it under the original terms.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
kamal

The code is on github under the GPL.

The GPL can't be revoked.

All your work from now on can not be under GPL, though you need to stop including the GPL license on your Github page, because that supercedes your readme.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Genisys

"Open - Free & open only if project also open" is checked by default when anyone uploads stuff here, which it shouldn't be....

(I wasn't even aware of it being like that till I read further on my post.)

 

As far as the license, I'll look into that further.

 

Everyone is still free to download & use my content in the Neverwinter Nights Game, they are just not free to distribute it or use it without my permission outside of the game.  (Meaning assuming ownership of it in anyway.)

 

  • up
    0%
  • down
    100%
niv

The reason this is the default checkmark is that - and I don't think I'm leaning too far out of the window here - is that we, as a community, want to host stuff people can reuse as they see fit.  There's no point in putting up proprietary stuff, at our cost no less, if people can't even use it when they want to.  A small community as this one can only grow through permissive licencing.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Genisys

I just don't want people assuming ownership of my work.

 

I alone retain the rights to my content, I will allow players to use it, just not take ownership of it or redistribute it without permission.

 

There's no problem with what I've done, I just don't want people assuming control over my content, at all.

(The content is still available for fair usage, but they must obtain it from the GitHub.)

  • up
    0%
  • down
    100%
niv

Sigh.

You are mixing up terms. Licencing has nothing to do with owner- or authorship. As the creator of something, you always retain copyright (unless it was paid for and agreed upon, etc).

The licence you have given your stuff on Github explicitly allows anyone to re-host your code anywhere else they wish to, as long as they stick to the other terms of that licence (author attribution, full code distribution, and so on). That's what the GPL is about.

There's really nothing to differentiate here.

If you don't want to see your content here, remove the licence from your github repository or pick one that brings it in line with your README, otherwise you have no leverage to claim as you do.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
HorrorByGaslight

My bigger intruigue is how copyright law applies to an open source game. Wouldn't Bioware retain rights (violate retain tights? Really iPhone autocorrect!!?') Can I actually seek copyright protection on things I make for this game???

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
niv

That's really easy. NWN1 isn't licenced under any open source licence that allows to do so, so you don't have the right to distribute any part of it!

As far as I remember, the EULA that (used to, before GOG?) ship with NWN1 defaulted copyright to Bioware/WotC for all usermade content. I'm not sure if that's the case or if I misremember, but it does not matter much. However, assuming that's the case:

But as to your own code and content, that depends on where you live and if EULAs are a valid law contract at all (see what is bundled with NWN1 to get an idea of that). Generally speaking, sane-ish countries let you keep copyright on stuff you wrote even if the EULA says otherwise, because local law trumps whatever any click-through EULA says.

Following that: If you do not explicitly licence something you wrote, you automatically have the sole copyright to your violated tights. You do not need to "seek" it, it's already yours. Even if you posted it on Github, as long as you do not give explicit permission (through freeform text or a valid LICENCE file), no one can actually use it.

Edit: word clarifications

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Proleric

Bioware doesn't own fan-made works.

The EULA merely places some reasonable restrictions on how we can use their products (as anyone can verify by reading it for themselves).

NWN and DAO adventures at http://proleric.com/

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Genisys

Correct, they can never assume ownership of code written by other coders, especially copyright work.

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
niv

They used typical language, you should have a careful read if you are terminally bored: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/End-User_License_Agreement

Edit: This bears no relation to how things are handled in practice and the EULA argument sidetracked from the discussion at hand - Sorry about that. You can still read the text but keep in mind that lawyer speak is not how things turn out in reality; and there are good arguments to be made that EULAs are unenforcable in the EU (where the Vault is hosted).

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Proleric

Back on topic, Andarian has correctly explained how the site guidelines work. Ignorance is no excuse.

Authors are free to restrict the use of original work (on a forward basis).

However, authors are not entitled to place restrictions on works made from open content provided by other people.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Soul_Thievery

Not to be an ass, but: Back pedaling much?

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Andarian

If the purpose of the default licensing checkmark is to encourage "hosting stuff people can reuse as they see fit," then I think it fails in that intent. As I've stated here before, "Open - Free & open only if project also openis itself a restrictive license that prohibits use in a project that is not also open. This was not the default on the IGN Vault, where content was presumed available for re-use without restriction unless it was posted with specific license terms to the contrary. I am very familiar with those guidelines, since Maximus and I wrote them.

This is the primary reason why I have issues with the default licensing terms for the Neverwinter Vault. It's also why I insisted on including the "Reasonable and Customary" clause in point 3 (particularly the sub-bullet) when we re-wrote the guidelines for the new VaultSince most content here was in fact migrated from the IGN Vault, the new "default" license essentially added a usage restriction to nearly all of it, without the authors' permission, and in disregard of whether it had already been used in projects (such as mine) that are not "open."

As niv points out, you can't just do that. When I pointed this out in discussion of the new guidelines, it was agreed that the effort involved in trying to correct that mistake on all of the affected projects made it impractical to do so. That is the reason for the sub-bullet under point 3's "Reasonable and Customary" clause, which essentially overrides the (incorrect) default license terms specified on all of that migrated content.

Speaking personally, I don't think that the threatened "stick" of "Free and Open only if the project is also open" makes any difference from the perspective of whether projects are posted as open are not. Those not posted as open are typically done so for specific reasons that won't yield to such pressure. In my case, for example, 
I'm writing novels based on the story told in my mods, and cannot make my project "open" without undercutting my copyright. All that's accomplished by the attempt at a ubiquitous default license that specifies a usage restriction is to make the Neverwinter Vault seem a less friendly place to me than the IGN Vault was -- and I doubt that was the intent.

Now in Guile's case, it sounds like the terms he wants to add won't actually prevent any use of his content going forward that wasn't already accepted and intended -- which is good. But I think it's important, from the perspective of maintaining the viability of the NWN Modding community here on the Neverwinter Vault, that we keep these kinds of issues in mind.

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Proleric

@soul thievery - not sure what point you're making?

@Andarian - agreed, most works on the old vault had no formal terms. 

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
rjshae

"Open - Free & open only if project also open" is checked by default when anyone uploads stuff here, which it shouldn't be....

Yes, the most open license should be the default (and encouraged) if we want to maintain a mutually supportive modding community. Personally I'll rather not include content that has a too restrictive use license (i.e. non-CC), as that just creates problems down the road.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Soul_Thievery

@Proleric - What Genisys say in this thread is the opposite of what he said in the GamingIO one.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
niv

@rjshae - I agree, the licencing situation is snafu; but fixing that will require rebooting that particular discussion elsewhere and is something that will need serious thought.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Vanya Mia

Personally I have no issues with "Open and free" as being the default and a large part of my reasoning is that, in reality, a great deal of what is released here owes something in part to the work of others.

Yes, we have a people who produce absolutely new and completely unique work, people whom I a grateful to and applaud, but a great many do not. Is your work sufficiently unique to place a copyright on it if you used a tileset and adapted it into something new? Or took creatures and made their heads into masks? Or combined/adapted script sets to do something in a different fashion? Personally I don't think so. Talented? Yes. Useful? Yes. Worthy of credit? Most certainly. Unique enough to claim ownership? Not in my opinion, and I doubt it would be in others. Not least those who may have worked on the earlier versions of the adapted content.

Having worked on D20 Modern for about 10 years now, first as part of the team and eventually solo, there's a great deal of my work (to say nothing of blood, sweat and tears) within the haks. But is it enough to call it my work? Not by any stretch of the imagination. I doubt I've heard mutterings in the past of once there is a degree of innovation withing old work that it can be claimed as your own but frankly I'd say by now that it's very hard to find that line in most work on the vault. At least one of the works uploaded by the original poster adverstises itself as including updated versions of extensively used systems.

In my book it would be very welcome if we can acknowledge the giants who own the shoulders upon which we stand by retaining that very simple tip of the hat and keeping Open and Free as the default.

"I took Skill Focus: Craft Disturbing Mental Image as my feat last level." Belkar, OOTS

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
DrA

As a builder, I prefer "Open & Free" but with credits to CC creators, whose work I use. As a CC creator I upload my works "Open & Free" as well. While I do understand someone's need to be recognized and rewarded as The Author, I see no point to upload CC (exception - modules) so restricted, that people cannot ever use it or are afraid to use it on account of some authorship infringement. What's the point? Advertising? Fishing for accolades?

There's also another issue worth mentioning - sometimes author leaves the community, without lifting those restrictions, and there's no way to contact him/her. And this hard work is totally useless, if it still needs permission to use.

So I steer clear of such CC.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Genisys

Well, Soul_Thievery, it is on the internet still yes?

 

So, how is that back pedaling?

 

Think a little bit harder there will ya?

 

I just said it's no longer available for redistribution...

 

Will that stop anyone??? PROBABLY NOT! :D

  • up
    0%
  • down
    100%
Vanya Mia

I think the problem is that unless other creators can redistribute at need it's inhibiting. With restrictions on distribution in place they cannot then distribute their own work that uses it.

For example, if they can't redistribute one of your scripts Genisys then if they include it in their module they can't upload that module for distribution. Your requirements have effectively cut them off from doing so. So what's the point of using your work?

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
niv

Mmm, I don't think this topic needs further discussion. Licence law is not on Genisys side. Anyone having picked up his stuff under the old licence can reuse it under those terms; and with the handcrafted new one on github currently, anyone caring about his own work needs to THINK very carefully to come to a good conclusion; but ultimately, it's not a vault issue anymore.

The only thing left to think about on this matter is, imo, if we want to host project pages without hosted files linking to external repositories under these terms.

However, the general vault licencing discussion could be reanimated. Seeing as we want people to be able to use and reuse custom content, a good case could be argued that the current choices for permissions aren't really good enough and do not represent the kind of content we want to host adequately.  But I realise that's a prickly situation.  If nothing else, we should add a selector for an actual licence and not just simple terms matched to a guidelines document, just to avoid more hiccups like this one.  I have too many projects at hand at the moment to really make this my focus, but if anyone else wants to, do it in a new thread maybe?

  • up
    75%
  • down
    25%
rjshae

The only thing left to think about on this matter is, imo, if we want to host project pages without hosted files linking to external repositories under these terms.

A concern there would be for sites that go down at some point and become inaccessible. I also think that locally available content should get priority in all considerations -- external content probably shouldn't receive Vault awards, for example. But otherwise, as long as the material is relevant, not deceptive, non-commercial, and inoffensive, I don't have an issue with it.

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Tarot Redhand

I personally, on the whole,  do not download stuff that is not on the site that advertises it. I am not just talking this site here, I do the same for other sites such as deviantArt. If nothing else there are security considerations that come into play. I do make exceptions but I have to really trust where I am getting stuff from.

So, as you can probably guess, my preference is for anything advertised on here to be available here.

TR

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Proleric

Indeed, it's good to be careful. Not a reason to prohibit external links, of course, but authors using them risk fewer downloads. 

Personally, I take a chance when the author and/or external link seem reputable, though malicious activity on the net seems to be running way out of control these days.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
niv

The point I was making: Why allow advertising of externally linked content, the licence of which disallows us to mirror and keep safe for people to use?  It goes against the spirit of what this community embodies.

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Andarian

"Why allow advertising of externally linked content, the licence of which disallows us to mirror and keep safe for people to use?"

This was an explicitly protected option on the IGN Vault, and for good reason. Without it, projects over which authors have an interest in controlling distribution would be kicked out of the community.

For example: since I insist on hosting part of my project (the module files, which contain copyrighted story content) on my own site and linking to it, you are essentially proposing to remove me from the Vault. Would you really want to do that?

I think that any talk of disallowing Vault projects that link to files on external sites should be a non-starter. Reversing the terms under which most of our content was made available for hosting on the IGN Vault in the first place doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Addendum: See point 8 of the CC Authorship Guidelines. This is why it was included. For those interested I also elaborated on the reasons here, and in the following discussion.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%
Soul_Thievery

@ Genisys (post #24), in that thread, you were making fun of what you are adamantly defending here.

@ niv (#30), I am guessing you don't know how modders on Steam and NexusMods see bethesda(dot)net.

  • up
    100%
  • down
    0%