Is there a need for a modding netiquette?

The_J

Say No 2 Net Validations
Administrator
Supporter
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
42,140
Location
DE/NL/FR
Recently someone asked how it's dealt in this forum with credits, permission, and other things when you deal with stuff from other people.
Some of the regulars here told him how we handle this here (thanks guys ;)).
Now the question: Should this maybe be written down in a sticky? And what should be in? A half year ago I wrote a modding netiquette down for Civ4 (link, text also below in the spoiler).
Spoiler :

Introduction

This modiquette is the compilation of all the unwritten rules, which the modders here have essentially followed already. They show the essential spirit of this community, to help one another develop and enjoy the Civilization game. If you want to be a good member of this community, then please follow them too.

The Modiquette
  1. When you upload content, you automatically grant permission for it to be used by all members of this community.
  2. Therefore no permission is required to use content that is uploaded.
  3. However, the modder should give credit for any content used in their mod.
  4. If you identify another modder's content being used in a mod, notify the mod's modder.
  5. If someone notifies you about another modder's non-credited content, you should then add the credit.
  6. If you modify the game's source code or another modder's source code, you should release the new source code as part of your mod.
Background on permissions, credits and source code

No permission required
Requiring permission to use something here on the forums is not workable. This forum has existed for more than 10 years. It will probably also exist in 10 years or more. You don't know if you'll be here in 10 years, but what you've uploaded will still be here. If you left the forum, who should be asked? If you see something uploaded in 2002, 2005, 2008, and the modder has left, who should you ask? Working with permissions is therefore not realistic. We therefore consider that you imply with your upload that what you've uploaded is free to use. Else...what would be the point of an upload?

Give credit if you use something
Since no permissions are required, there is the need to honour someone's hard work. This is done with a "credit list", or "credits", which means that you name the persons whose work you used in your mod. A simple list at the end of your mod will do it. If you don't know who did something specific, then credit the mod team with a list of their members (Mod XY (user A, user B and others)), ... and a generic thank you to the all many unknown modders won't go amiss either.

Why is this important?
People do all sorts of things and upload them. Some things were made for fun, some because somebody requested them. People put time, creativity and nerves into these things, and sometimes they don't even use them themselves, but are only done for the other modders around. The only thing which is requested is that you put their name into your mod. Everyone who worked for that mod will then take a look at that list, and will get some satisfaction that their work is useful, and that other people can see it. If no credits are given, it will discourage these people. Why create something for someone else, if you then claim this work for yourself and don't honour the original creators? So please put the names there. It's not a difficult thing, it doesn't require much work, and it will make your fellow modders happy.​

Another point of view
Mods are big. They require lots of work. Different art is needed, different code is needed, different maps are needed. Nobody can do a big mod alone. Nobody can make all the needed units, leaderheads, buildings, maps and code parts. Everyone uses stuff from other people. If you have a long credit list, it shows that you have put much effort into finding the best art and the best code around to create a good mod for the players. Who would trust you if you claimed to have a great mod, but none of the master artists, nobody from the coding people is listed? A credit list is not something to be ashamed of. It shows that you put all possible work into your mod to make it great.​

Missing credits
Most people who have worked longer than a week on a mod will know this situation: You dig through your folders of downloaded stuff, and you find something which you really need at this moment...but you have no clue who made it. Should you not use it? No, that would be a waste of good art, code or maps. But now, if you've uploaded your mod and someone points out that you missed a person on your credit list, then please add them to the list. Like already said, please honour the people who did the work.​

The view from the other side:
If you see that someone didn't credit you, but used your work, then there's no need to be outraged. The organization of a big mod can be a mess. You forget stuff. It's like that. There's no malicious intent behind it. What to do? Point it out, but be nice. Especially new modders will be happy to see a "senior" drop by and comment on their mod. And while you leave a note ("nice work here" is something which you should be able to say for other mods), just say that XY is from you and that you'd like to be on the credit list. And like explained above, it should be a non-issue to do that.​

Modified code
The only point in Civ4 modding where you can release things which cannot be reused is the .dll. Some people might think now "great, my exclusive features, nobody can use them". Does this make you smart? Maybe. Does this make you to a prick? Sure. This community here relies on sharing things. Art is shared, maps are shared, code is shared. And if you're here, you too have probably taken things from the community, in form of the mentioned things or as advice. So not releasing your source code is not fair. Give something back to the community, so that everyone can benefit from it. Share your source code (if not in the direct download, then as a separate file), so that nobody will have a problem with redoing the same stuff and that the idea is not lost (...and this includes that you comment your code). Would be a shame if you did something great, but nobody is able to use it. It might even get lost, which would be an even bigger shame.



And since I have to be a good role model here:
Credits for formatting and suggestions go to kiwitt, as well as to everyone else who contributed to the discussion here.


Do you think this would also work here? If yes, what should be added/removed? I think somebody expressed concerns regarding copycat mods/repackaging, and this netiquette doesn't describe anything regarding that. The .dll part is also not relevant for Civ5.
If no, does anybody have suggestions what should be included, and what not?

So please, tell me if it's needed/wanted or not :religion: :).
Would like to have this basic answer figured out within a week or so :).
 
Not only does this guideline keep a friendly environment but it creates an Ethos we can all adhere to. Less of a rule and more of a guideline. This would be helpful for newbie modders who want to avoid plagiarizing the work of others - while indeed using that work.

There is a grey area about how one should conduct oneself when the desire is to incorporate the work of others into your own project.

This is already in the Civ4 creation and customization forum, it is a conflict to have it "only there". It should be where everyone can see it - once i read it, i contacted a few other modders and i was impressed - i got permission to use a few utilities in an upcoming work, and i even passed on my government buildings to Cyrrino who mastered it, turning it into "Monarchy Plus+".

That mod exists because i read the modiquette and made contact. Now i am working on a city districts project and i only hope someone as talented as him wants to use it.
 
I think it is a good initiative. But the "no permission required" disturbs me. Here are some examples:
  • Someone takes something from me after I advised him to look at my code. My permission was implicit.
  • Someone takes a five lines function from my code. I just don't care, he doesn't even have to credit me or inform me.
  • Someone takes hundred lines of delicate code from me. Well, I would have appreciated at least a notice. And, if it's really a big part of my work and/or something that is substantial for his own mod, a proper request would be nice (and I will very likely answer positively). But aside of extreme cases, a notice is enough.
  • I tend to put my code under GPL (which is not a problem since as the copyright holder I can still grant exceptions for public domaine, etc). If someone uses my code in a way I very don't like under a different license, or under no license (i.e. copyrighted) and tell me "to look at the netiquette", I think it will make me angry.
  • If someone who's gone since a long time does not answer to a sincere permission request (email when available, PM otherwise, wait more than 10 mins), it's fine to consider you got the permission, unless he explicitly wrote somewhere (mod description) that he insists on his copyright.

So let's sum up my griefs against the current netiquette.
  • Not everyone considers his work as public-domain or cc-by equivalent. Some people even put specific licenses, some others have a very restrictive attitude and you should respect that even if it pisses you off.
  • Size matters. Is it an important fragment of my work? Is it an important fragment of your work? (sure, take that function but, no, I do not want you to bundle my 10k loc mod and your 100loc mod under your name)
  • You do not always have to ask for permission but it is almost always appropriate to inform the author at the moment you include his work and before it is released.
  • If a sincere request gets no answer, consider you got a permission.

At the very least I think the netiquette should not convey the idea that every one considers his work as free to pillage.
 
I think it's better to have a reference than not, and yes I do think those guidelines apply here. They are kind of part of CFC custom.

Not only does this guideline keep a friendly environment but it creates an Ethos we can all adhere to. Less of a rule and more of a guideline. This would be helpful for newbie modders who want to avoid plagiarizing the work of others - while indeed using that work.

Good to hear that others think that too :).



I think it is a good initiative. But the "no permission required" disturbs me. Here are some examples:
[...]
Someone takes a good chunk of delicate code from me. Well, I would have appreciated at least a notice. And, if it's really a big part of my work and/or something that is substantial for his own mod, a proper request would be nice (and I will very likely answer positively). But aside of extreme cases, a notice is enough.

I guess something like that should not be a problem.
I would agree with you.
What do the others think?

I tend to put my code under GPL (which is not a problem since as the copyright holder I can still grant exceptions for public domaine, etc). If someone uses my code in a way I very don't like under a different license, or under no license (i.e. copyrighted) and tell me "to look at the netiquette", I think it will make me angry.
[...]
Not everyone considers his work as public-domain or cc-by equivalent. Some people even put specific licenses, some others have a very restrictive attitude and you should respect that even if it pisses you off.

I don't think applying an open license should be a problem overall.
(most people will not know about it, so if such a thing really happens, you have to explain it, and not get angry about it)

Side note: Is it not in Civ5 also the case that you normally attach your code to something which Firaxis has provided? I mean I assume that every LUA code, which is released here, is released in a form of a modified Firaxis script. And you can't apply a license to something if you don't have the copyright.

Size matters. Is it an important fragment of my work? Is it an important fragment of your work? (sure, take that function but, no, I do not want you to bundle my 10k loc mod and your 100loc mod under your name)

I think we generally assume that if you release something, that you then also put a considerable amount of work into it yourself (unless in specific cases; I'd have some, if someone likes to hear that).
Could be written down if somebody wants it.

You do not always have to ask for permission but it is almost always appropriate to inform the author at the moment you include his work and before it is released.

Oh, that again is a problem.
I'm a modder myself. I have a Civ4 mod.
And in that mod, there's stuff from...I have no idea how many people, but probably more than 100. I would have serious problems even finding a good amount of these threads where I got the stuff from. I don't think you can really work with that, due to this and due to the same reason why you cannot work with permissions.
On the other hand, I've also released code snippets/mod components myself. I like if I get sometimes comments in my thread, but really...everyone who used it? Might be a bit too much.
 
Side note: Is it not in Civ5 also the case that you normally attach your code to something which Firaxis has provided? I mean I assume that every LUA code, which is released here, is released in a form of a modified Firaxis script. And you can't apply a license to something if you don't have the copyright.
Well, licenses are sometimes abusively attached to Firaxis code (including in my own mod since some files are slightly modified versions of Firaxis' ones) but many source files (most of mine for example) are still written from scratch and the fact that we consume the Firaxis API does not change anything to how we can license them.

Now if you want to look at the legal side... Well, Valve's and Take Two's TOS are as abusive and likely illegal as you may imagine.
* You grant to Valve about every possible right. Steam may even decide to suddenly make your mod non-free (they will then grant you 25% of the benefits, my lord is generous). It also imposes you to name every contributor but allows you to bundle whatever you want without any permission.
* You grant to Take Two about every possible right AND you waive every possible right you might get, including paternity. That is, Firaxis can suddenly put his copyright over your mod and sue you if you continue to distribute it or request your name to be displayed! So, technically, every modder who wants to borrows something from a mod should ask Firaxis, not the modder, since this one no longer has any right (at least in T2's wet dreams, maybe not in a court, and certainly not in every country).

Still it's best to just ignore those TOS unless you have no choice to do so. Besides a modiquette is not about legal matters, or incidentally, it's about courtesy.

And in that mod, there's stuff from...I have no idea how many people, but probably more than 100. I would have serious problems even finding a good amount of these threads where I got the stuff from. I don't think you can really work with that, due to this and due to the same reason why you cannot work with permissions.
Firs of all, I was advising for notices ("hello I just included your work in..."), not permission requests. :)
Second of all, not everyone has borrowed 100 contributions, it is quite an extreme case. ;)
And it may be complex to trace them back now, but not at the time you found the piece in question.
Finally, I wasn't trying to put "rules that should be written and obeyed under death sentence", I was only advising for notices and insisting on the fact that not every mod should be considered as free to salvage as long as you credit people. It would be fine to warn people that some authors will welcome that while some others would refuse and that in doubt it's best to at least inform them before the release.
 
I would like that it doesn't come to such a situation :D.

Well, licenses are sometimes abusively attached to Firaxis code (including in my own mod since some files are slightly modified versions of Firaxis' ones) but many source files (most of mine for example) are still written from scratch and the fact that we consume the Firaxis API does not change anything to how we can license them.

[...]

Still it's best to just ignore those TOS unless you have no choice to do so. Besides a modiquette is not about legal matters, or incidentally, it's about courtesy.

Oh, you forgot CFCs own abusive TOS (because everything you post here is ours ;)).

But you're right, this should not be about legal things, was just curious if I missed anything.

The point was more: If somebody puts his stuff under a license, and the license grants the ability to use the stuff (under whatever conditions), then it should not be a problem to respect that.
We just need to write that down. We also might maybe need a thread to explain that :hmm:.

Firs of all, I was advising for notices ("hello I just included your work in..."), not permission requests. :)

Ah, okay.
Maybe add a section like "Give feedback if you use something"?

Second of all, not everyone has borrowed 100 contributions, it is quite an extreme case. ;)

Oh, in Civ5 there are just not yet enough assets available.
If more people were able to do units (besides danrell and bernie), then the numbers would also go up ;).

Finally, I wasn't trying to put "rules that should be written and obeyed under death sentence", I was only advising for notices and insisting on the fact that not every mod should be considered as free to salvage as long as you credit people. It would be fine to warn people that some authors will welcome that while some others would refuse and that in doubt it's best to at least inform them before the release.

mmhh...
You mean complete mods, don't you?
(the rest what is uploaded is basically meant to be used in other mods, therefore the question)
 
Oh, you forgot CFCs own abusive TOS (because everything you post here is ours ;)).
Yeah, I forgot those ones. :lol:
Who knows, if things go on like this Google will probably claim intellectual property over anything it indexed. :crazyeye:
And I am sure they would find some US court to tell them they are right to do so.

We just need to write that down. We also might maybe need a thread to explain that :hmm:.
Ouch! This would be painful and not small. Also, there are already tons of good links on the web and about everyone heard the names GPL, CC-By & such, enough to know it means something they may have to google. Besides, as we discussed, mods licensing is legally screwed up (and exceptions can always be granted - except for public domain where it's irrelevant anyway). So people should rather stick to the spirit: if someone licensed his mod under an open-source license or released it in public domain, he probably wants derivative works to share that spirit rather than strictly adhering to the rules. Tell people to see mod licenses as safety measures against jackasses and an informal declaration of intention and wills.

Ah, okay.
Maybe add a section like "Give feedback if you use something"?
Well, feedback implies some constructive argumentation and such. I actually just want people to inform the source (through their mod's thread, or PM, or..). Basically I just want them to come and say "thank you" or "hey, it's great, I am going to use that for my mod". It's just a small personal attention. :)

Oh, in Civ5 there are just not yet enough assets available.
If more people were able to do units (besides danrell and bernie), then the numbers would also go up ;).
Yeah. ^^
I never modded for civ4 but I have a huge folder full of icons for open-source projects and sometimes it's hard to trace them back to their source. There is theory and practice.

You mean complete mods, don't you?
(the rest what is uploaded is basically meant to be used in other mods, therefore the question)
Ah! Yeah. I guess for those ones the authorization is almost explicit, it makes sense. The credit and personal notice, however, are still relevant.
 
I agree with J's proposal and feeback from others.

Leave nothing to assumption, but at the same time it also comes down to 'etiquette' and common sense.

Probably a short guide on appropriate way to post scenarios/mods might also help as it feels like everything is all over the place at times.

Maybe use a template header that indicates requirements, genre and additional links. This way your not digging through countless posts on the popular mods to find a specific 'you must do this for it to work' piece of instruction.
 
I've been modding the various iterations of Civ for about 10 years now - mainly CivIII. I totally agree with the above and it's actually quite nice to see mods uploaded containing work I've done. People would stop by the threads containing the artwork and ask, "is it okay for me to use this?" My first reaction (in my head) was always, "well that's the reason I uploaded it!"

In terms of CiV, in order to get my own mod off the ground, I took elements of other people's work, such as Putmalk, Numitor+Ambrox62 and Hulfgar; they were all happy for me to do so - and likewise, I have the same attitude towards anyone using (and abusing) my own work.

There is one no-no, though. I've uploaded Anno Domini some time ago. If someone else uploaded a modified version of Anno Domini and stated this was "Anno Domini II - a bigger and better Anno Domini" then I wouldn't be best pleased. Someone tried to do this with a Civ III mod once and the community was outraged. There's a difference between using elements of a mod and crediting the author and adding a couple of things to an existing mod that would suit your preferences and calling it a better version than the original.
 
For me a good conduct his :

Mod parts or artworks put to download : they are here to be used just give credit to the author.

Mod : if you want to use something embedded (code, artworks) be polite : ask the author first.
One thing authors should keep in mind : it is easy to tell that an artwork has been taken from a mod. It's something else for code because 2 people can have the same idea and I don't think that there is 10 solutions to put an idea in code.

Now to use a whole mod as a basis is something else : behind a mod there is more than code and artworks : ideas, imagination and creation. It's personal and it's not because Firaxis takes the right to use your work/time and sell it that people should not ask before modifying it.

But here : if an author doesn't want his mod to be used he should write it in the description to make it clear.

Last : behave with people as you want them to behave with you and remember what your mother teached you about politeness :-)
 
Oh my, what have I done? I have to address this all :D.
-> attention, longer post.

Ouch! This would be painful and not small. Also, there are already tons of good links on the web and about everyone heard the names GPL, CC-By & such, enough to know it means something they may have to google. Besides, as we discussed, mods licensing is legally screwed up (and exceptions can always be granted - except for public domain where it's irrelevant anyway). So people should rather stick to the spirit: if someone licensed his mod under an open-source license or released it in public domain, he probably wants derivative works to share that spirit rather than strictly adhering to the rules. Tell people to see mod licenses as safety measures against jackasses and an informal declaration of intention and wills.

Yeah, that's more or less what I also think.
Now I have to phrase that somehow :ack:.

Might maybe have to consider again to create a thread explaining CC, public domain, and other relevant stuff.

Well, feedback implies some constructive argumentation and such. I actually just want people to inform the source (through their mod's thread, or PM, or..). Basically I just want them to come and say "thank you" or "hey, it's great, I am going to use that for my mod". It's just a small personal attention. :)

Oh, I'd have considered this feedback.
Saying that something is nice is somehow feedback (at least it tells you that it's not ugly).
-> I think we mean the same :).


Probably a short guide on appropriate way to post scenarios/mods might also help as it feels like everything is all over the place at times.

Maybe use a template header that indicates requirements, genre and additional links. This way your not digging through countless posts on the popular mods to find a specific 'you must do this for it to work' piece of instruction.

I agree with you, but I can't contribute here.
Having such instructions would be sure very good. But I don't own Civ5, so I can't say "yeah, let's do it", and how to rely on that somebody else sees the need to write it down.
:/

There is one no-no, though. I've uploaded Anno Domini some time ago. If someone else uploaded a modified version of Anno Domini and stated this was "Anno Domini II - a bigger and better Anno Domini" then I wouldn't be best pleased. Someone tried to do this with a Civ III mod once and the community was outraged. There's a difference between using elements of a mod and crediting the author and adding a couple of things to an existing mod that would suit your preferences and calling it a better version than the original.

-> so I guess we need a section which says what counts as mod.
Or at least add somewhere the sentence that if you want to call it your mod, you must have put some significant work into it (not necessarily amount; updating a mod to the latest patch is also significant work, but it's not in all cases much work).


Ah! Yeah. I guess for those ones the authorization is almost explicit, it makes sense. The credit and personal notice, however, are still relevant.

Mod : if you want to use something embedded (code, artworks) be polite : ask the author first.

The problem: This supports jerks.
Just imagine there was a person who published a mod.
That person has taken a big amount of stuff from other people for his mod (...and followed the netiquette).
Else the person minds his own bussiness. Doesn't contribute to the forum by answering questions, nor does he release anything separately for the community.
Now, he has also put a bit work in his mod, and you would really like to have something out of it. But he refuses.
That person is a parasite of the community, and really the only sort of people who would really benefit from such a "regulation".

hhmm...but I also agree somehow on it. What about e.g. a guideline that you should give something back to the community if it's possible? Phrased together with that you should ask for stuff, which is only available embedded.
So that you can say "no, this is mine", but only in the case that you're already a good community member.

I assume here that if somebody wants to make a mod, then he wants to make something distinct and would not e.g. rip out a significant art part (e.g. all dawn of man images) from another mod to make a "better" version of this mod (that was already mentioned above).


Now to use a whole mod as a basis is something else : behind a mod there is more than code and artworks : ideas, imagination and creation. It's personal and it's not because Firaxis takes the right to use your work/time and sell it that people should not ask before modifying it.

But here : if an author doesn't want his mod to be used he should write it in the description to make it clear.

mmhh...so you're against "modmods"?
You're sure right that ideas and imagination are behind a mod.
But should someone, who has nearly the same imagination have to redo your (general your, not you personally) stuff?
I know, some people fear that this might drag players away, but in the other hand it's also a possibility to make some more people happy.
e.g. most people here know it: Players like to suggest civs. Sometimes people want nearly every minor tribe on this planet as a civ. But you don't want it, you don't like the ideas, you don't have the time, and a Sealand civ would be ridicilous in your opinion. I totally agree. But what if no someone is so enthusiastic about it that he creates an addon to your mod? Adding a bunch of civs to it. That might bring maybe more players to your mod, and it's also based on your mod.
Is this a bad idea? A good idea? Somewhere in between?

Last : behave with people as you want them to behave with you and remember what your mother teached you about politeness :-)

:D
But you don't know some people's mothers...
 
mmhh...so you're against "modmods"?

no, sure not :)
I was more in the idea from Rob : if you take a mod, add a small amount of stuff in it and claim you did a better version whithout speaking with the author I don't see it as correct.

Some of the best mods for Civ4 had a lot of contributors and modmods, it is a good support for a mod. So I don't see anything wrong in using a whole mod as a work basis it's just that I find it polite and correct to speak with the person who gave you this basis.

The problem: This supports jerks.
Just imagine there was a person who published a mod.
That person has taken a big amount of stuff from other people for his mod (...and followed the netiquette).
Else the person minds his own bussiness. Doesn't contribute to the forum by answering questions, nor does he release anything separately for the community.
Now, he has also put a bit work in his mod, and you would really like to have something out of it. But he refuses.
That person is a parasite of the community, and really the only sort of people who would really benefit from such a "regulation".

Yes but how many persons may really be in this case?
You can start modding by borrowing stuff from people. Sooner or later you will do your own stuff and once you have caught the virus you will bring something in this forum.

Maybe it will just be flooding The_J with opinions and ideas :)
 
I was more in the idea from Rob : if you take a mod, add a small amount of stuff in it and claim you did a better version whithout speaking with the author I don't see it as correct.

Even if you speak with the author, or are willing to acknowledge them, I'd say it's still a problem. Again, it goes to level of effort; if someone spent a year writing and balancing that mod and you spent a week tweaking it to your own tastes, then I don't think you should call it your own work, period. Even if you've felt like you've done significant work on it, there's still the question of at what point it goes from being "your variant of their mod" to being "your mod". The "modmod" label gets thrown around too freely for my tastes; there's no absolute cutoff we can give, but it all comes down to the point of the thing you're using.

Just ask yourself, what are the key elements of the mod I'm taking material from? Is it the setting and artwork? The added mechanics? The underlying code? The balance tweaks? If you're copying any one of those things verbatim, with no work on your part at all, then you definitely need to be acknowledging the source, and if you're copying all but one of those things and replacing the last bit with your own, then it's not YOUR mod, it's their mod with your tweaks. It's one thing to use a Mod Component in its entirety, as those are intended to be used as parts of a greater whole (although you should still credit the original creator, of course), but just because a modpack's been given to the public doesn't mean the original work should become meaningless.
 
Small items in Components or Utilities subforums should be assumed to be available (with acknowledgement, of course). I do remember one author objecting to a request to use some code for a UI element. It seemed like a rather awkward situation, as it was an obvious UI enhancement and I had already looked at the code. A link to a modding netiquette might have been nice, since the author was probably just ignorant of tradition.

Small or even quite large modification of an existing "whole mod" is basically a modmod. There were many of these for FFH -- I even made a modmodmod myself. I didn't ask the mod or modmod author for permission. But since FFH had a subforum for this, I took it as implicit. (This situation changes a little with Steam download, however.)

Personally, I would be flattered if someone wants to do this with my mod, but only if it was quite clearly identified as a modmod. I would like to be asked first, at least until such a time when there is a subforum called "Éa Modmods, Scenarios and Maps";).
 
Shorter this time, because the 3 recent posts are mainly about the same things (that's at least my impression; correct me if I missed something).

So, okay, the main deal is now
a) modmods and/or copycat mods
b) embedded objects
but else there don't seem to be any real objections, right?

I think for the former, an encouragement to create something distinct would probably be good. So that you don't put yourself in direct competition with the person from whom you maybe took the base mod, but that the purpose or target group might be different.
Besides that it's sure also a good idea if you create a mod (to look around what else is there, and not make something totally similar), an emphasis on it might maybe be good to write down.

I'd be also okay to say that modmods of full modpacks (not considering anything else) should require permission, in case the base mod is still under development.


Yes but how many persons may really be in this case?
You can start modding by borrowing stuff from people. Sooner or later you will do your own stuff and once you have caught the virus you will bring something in this forum.

Believe me: I know at least one person who doesn't :ack:. The described situation was not purely hypothetical. And I don't think it's really fair that someone benefits from this community, but refuses to contribute to it, even if it doesn't result in any work for him.
 
I think for the former, an encouragement to create something distinct would probably be good. So that you don't put yourself in direct competition with the person from whom you maybe took the base mod, but that the purpose or target group might be different.

Basically, yes, although I also feel it clear from the outset how much of the mod is your own work compared to that taken from others. I know it's often hard to quantify, but it should be fairly obvious when you've crossed the thresholds from original work to modmod to outright plagiarism, as anyone who's had to deal with Intellectual Property disputes can attest. Even if you can't easily tell how long it took someone to make something, you should be able to tell how well your mod could function without what you've copied.

Also, if you're making a modmod of some kind, then it should AT THE VERY LEAST be explicitly stated in the description of your mod AND at the start of your thread that you've based it primarily on someone else's work, preferably with a link to the original version, so that it is clear to anyone who takes the time to figure out what parts you should be credited with. I personally feel that sort of thing should go further, and be acknowledged in the mod's name; if I take Thal's Unofficial Patch and make a bunch of changes to it, I shouldn't advertise it as "Spatz's Balance Mod", because that makes it seem like it was primarily my own work no matter how well I document the original sources. Something more like "Spatz's variant of Thal's Unofficial Patch" or "Spatz's Balance Mod: a Thalassicus 'Unofficial Patch' Joint" would seem more appropriate. (Not that I'd ever do that sort of mod in the first place, of course.) The community might not feel the same way on the naming, but I do hope they'd have a problem with using his mod to create something in direct competition with the original.
 
Back
Top Bottom