[Request] Vassal

[Soultwister]

Since people are argueing if it is legal or not, I will put back the gist of what I said.


I was wondering if someone could make a mod that added vassals to vanilla, that the AI uses too. That is the only feature from Warlords that interests me, and spending $30 for the expansion isn't working. (FYI, I don't mean copying the code from Warlords and modifying it work)

 

[TheLopez]

That would completely illegal and bad... shame on you

 

[Spartan117]

however warlords for $30 is worth when you thuink of the mods that will be available+new features

 

[Soultwister]

That would completely illegal and bad... shame on you

I was thinking it might be illegal, I was just asking......

 

[Déja]

I have to admit, that I was considering implementing a vassal-like state to my mod because I didn't want to have to require players to purchase an expansion pack to play my mod, but in the end I decided on a totally different direction for it.

 

[Jeckel]

I have to disagree with TheLopez on this one. Civ4 was released as a fully modable game, they used this idea of modableity as one of their main selling points for the game. Then they release what amounts to a pretty decent mod and even get to charge 30 dollars for people to get it.

But bottom line Warlords is just a mod made for Civ4. The one great thing about Civ4 is the fact that is just out their and, as long as we don't charge for it, we are free to code and recode it all we want. That is the true purpose of the internet, the free makeing, changeing, and remaking of ideas.

It isn't like Fraxis invented the vassal states idea, it was floated around the community way before Warlords was even talked about, just noone with the skills acually took the time to code it. But now that someone has coded vassal states, it is just one more codeblock in the big pool of Civ4 mod code, and just because it was a person at Fraxis that wrote it doesn't mean it getts some sort of special exemption from being copied. In fact it would be the opposite, because a person at Fraxis wrote it, that gives it a destinct and inharent permission to copy, change, and reuse its code, as long as no profit is made for the final mod product.

That is all rather philisophical, but the bottom line legal issue is this. Civ4 is written, advertised, and generally intended as an open soursed game. Only the exe itself is implyed and considered private property and can not be reproduced or changed. Warlords being an extension to Civ4 and not an independent product and does not get to write its own use agreement, it must fall under Civ4's advertised and implyed product agreement. There for all of Warlords code that is not in the exe itself is open sourced, advertised, written, and intended to be reused, copied, and altered for the purposes of making Civ4 mods.

The idea and inital reaction of thinking that taking an aspect from Warlords and putting it in Civ4 would be illegal is completely natural and understandable. The legal idea behind this idea that you can't use Warlords concepts and code boils down to Fraxis being able to sell its Warlords Civ4 Expansion product.

If you were to wholesale copy the functionality of Warlords and then mass distrubute it, either for money or for free, to the point that people are getting your free copy INSTEAD of buying the commercial version, this would be illegal and you would most likely, and rightly so, get sued. The reason you would get sued is the fact that you are depriving Fraxis of money they would have gotten from people buying their product. But when comparing offical expansions will all the new stuff it adds and a Vassal Mod someone makes, anyone that uses the mod instead of buying Warlords wasn't going to buy Warlords anyway.

Also if you were to earn any profit from the distributing of a Civ4 mod, without the express permission of Fraxis, you would be in violation of intelectual property rights and again you could, rightly so, get sued.

To use any of the functionality of Warlords in vanilla Civ4 would require rewriteing of the vanilla SDK and/or python beyound simple cut/pasting, and in that prosess the mod maker is going to put their own destinctive twists on the code. And this very act of rewriting puts it squarly under the heading of a mod and is completly exceptable and legal and is no different then useing code from vanilla Civ4 in Warlords.

So, like I said, don't make Bob's Warlords Clone, but don't feel like Warlords code and concepts are banned from being in vanilla Civ4.

 

[Gerikes]

But bottom line Warlords is just a mod made for Civ4.

IANAL, but it's always fun to pretend to be one, so here I go. Then it'll be someone elses turn to take my statements and put them to the grill. Oh, what fun!

As much as I enjoy your idealist spirit, you can make the argument that "Warlords is just a mod made for Civ4" as a fan-based argument, but I don't think a legal one. Civ4 and Civ4 Warlords are two seperate entities, with Warlords being a derivative work of vanilla. As a derivative work, Warlords holds the same abilities to copyright it's content.

Because the code that is used in WL to create the Vassal states is code from completely another game than vanilla Civ4, the code cannot be used in Vanilla Civ4, because it would break the EULA's agreement that your mod must necessitate the full, registered copy to run the game. Someone might have the full, registered copy of Civ4 vanilla, but they don't have it of Warlords, and therefore you are illegally distributing the Warlords code. It would be the exact same thing if you took the vanilla SDK and modified it so that instead of using the 3D system it used your own 2D system that didn't require the executable to run, or if instead it ran on the FreeCIV or C-evo graphics engine.

The one great thing about Civ4 is the fact that is just out their and, as long as we don't charge for it, we are free to code and recode it all we want. That is the true purpose of the internet, the free makeing, changeing, and remaking of ideas.

And they allow that. So long as you keep in mind that you can mod Civ4 so long as the person owns the version of Civ4 you're modding for, than that still applys.

It isn't like Fraxis invented the vassal states idea, it was floated around the community way before Warlords was even talked about, just noone with the skills acually took the time to code it. But now that someone has coded vassal states, it is just one more codeblock in the big pool of Civ4 mod code, and just because it was a person at Fraxis that wrote it doesn't mean it getts some sort of special exemption from being copied. In fact it would be the opposite, because a person at Fraxis wrote it, that gives it a destinct and inharent permission to copy, change, and reuse its code, as long as no profit is made for the final mod product.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. Whether or not Firaxis "invented" the idea, whether or not they were the first to make it into a reputable product, they really can't go around saying it's their's. You can copyright art, code, and music and trademark names and such, but you can't copyright ideas (well, you CAN, but that's more a matter of a messed up copyright system). That's why FreeCIV is legal (and hopefully, the same with Civcraft ) So, IMO, if you can create Vassal states, WITHOUT using the WL source, then I see no reason why that would be illegal. I think it falls within the same line of the fact that if someone goes about and makes a Trebuchet unit (which has already been done, before WL) that doesn't bear resemblence (i.e. it has original or otherwise legally reusable skins, artwork, animations, XML, etc.) then I see no reason why that cannot be legally done. The problem would come if someone took all the Trebuchet art and data from Warlords and just copy and pasted it into a vanilla Civ mod.

That is all rather philisophical, but the bottom line legal issue is this. Civ4 is written, advertised, and generally intended as an open soursed game.

Not really, it's just a game that has many components whose sources are available for modifying. A true open-source game is fully open-sourced. I think the "bottom line" is whether WL is a new work or "just a mod". Then again, even if it is "just a mod", all the new content is still copywritten, which means they reserve the right to let people use it as they may, and if that means they only want people to use it in Warlords, then that's their call.

Only the exe itself is implyed and considered private property and can not be reproduced or changed. Warlords being an extension to Civ4 and not an independent product and does not get to write its own use agreement, it must fall under Civ4's advertised and implyed product agreement. There for all of Warlords code that is not in the exe itself is open sourced, advertised, written, and intended to be reused, copied, and altered for the purposes of making Civ4 mods.

I guess what we disagree on is whether Warlords is an entirely new game or "just a mod." Although some people would say that there isn't a "significant" change from the original, and even I think that the overall substance is IMO lacking, it would still be considered enough to be a derivative work, especially since changes to the exe were made. Because of that, it could be allowed it's own EULA.

Of course, I also say that because you can slap a EULA on anything anyway, I don't think that there are any laws saying that they're legally binding or not.

To use any of the functionality of Warlords in vanilla Civ4 would require rewriteing of the vanilla SDK and/or python beyound simple cut/pasting, and in that prosess the mod maker is going to put their own destinctive twists on the code.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If you are rewriting the code from scratch, then because you're using your own "twists" as you say, then that's different. But if you take existing code and change it here and there, you're creating a derivative work for Warlords which doesn't require Warlords to play, simply because you used copywritten code, even if you decide to use an array rather than a linked list.

The grey area is somewhere in the middle of not looking at the code and doing an outright copy. What happens when you glance at pieces of the code and say, "Yeah, that's a good idea, I'll do it that way." How much code do you have to use as your "influce", if any at all?

And this very act of rewriting puts it squarly under the heading of a mod and is completly exceptable and legal and is no different then useing code from vanilla Civ4 in Warlords.

There's a huge difference. People that own Warlords by design also own Civ4. Thus, using any Civ4 content is acceptable because the user also holds the rights to the original game.

Of course, this all comes down to with approval from the copyright owners.

So, like I said, don't make Bob's Warlords Clone, but don't feel like Warlords code and concepts are banned from being in vanilla Civ4.

I agree. I'm happy modders have decided on rather than porting WL to Civ4 that they're making original mods.

 

[Jeckel]

I guess what we disagree on is whether Warlords is an entirely new game or "just a mod." Although some people would say that there isn't a "significant" change from the original, and even I think that the overall substance is IMO lacking, it would still be considered enough to be a derivative work, especially since changes to the exe were made. Because of that, it could be allowed it's own EULA.

While I can admit using the term "just a mod" was a little dramatic, some more common terms would be expansion or addon. But it is most certainly not its own entire game. I must own and have installed vanilla Civ4 in order to use Warlords, therefor it is not a standalone entatiy, it is an extension of Civ4. I site the title on the CD, "Civilization IV: Warlords".

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If you are rewriting the code from scratch, then because you're using your own "twists" as you say, then that's different. But if you take existing code and change it here and there, you're creating a derivative work for Warlords which doesn't require Warlords to play, simply because you used copywritten code, even if you decide to use an array rather than a linked list.

The grey area is somewhere in the middle of not looking at the code and doing an outright copy. What happens when you glance at pieces of the code and say, "Yeah, that's a good idea, I'll do it that way." How much code do you have to use as your "influce", if any at all?

Of course, I also say that because you can slap a EULA on anything anyway, I don't think that there are any laws saying that they're legally binding or not.

You bring up several good points that go to the heart of the legal issue. Most of it is grey area. EULAs themselves are really meaningless, true legally binding contracts require more then simplly clicking a button.

EULAs are the equivalent of the copyright warnings you see at the beginning when you rent a movie, telling you that you can be imprisioned and fine thousands of dollars if you copy the movie. Its not a legal agreement it is a notification that missuse can be prosecuted.

In the rented movie example, even though by the technical word of the law you can be prosecuted for copying a tape at all, your not going to get in trouble if you copy the movie and just watch with a few friends. Though it technically riolates some laws, their is no intent of malaice, intention of commiting a criminal act, or loss of revenue by the copyright holder or the licensed rental distributor. What you could term a "victumless crime" or the grey area. As such it is kind of thing that would get tossed out of court, if it made it their at all.

You are right in your assurtions about the importance of weather or not you own Warlords. But I feel you are mistaken in putting the responseablity of Mod Users' ownership on the Mod Makers.

For argument sake, lets say I made a VassalMod for vanilla Civ4. Since I own both Civ4 and Warlords, I am well within my rights as I am simply useing licensed products that I legally own. Then I release this mod to the general modding public as "a version of Warlords Vassal States for vanilla Civ4". If I understand what you are saying, this is the point were I have broken the agreement, but that is not the case. Any other mod player or maker that owns Warlords (and by default Civ4) can download and use the mod completely legally as they also are licensed and have payed for both products.

If other people that own vanilla Civ4, but not Warlords download and use the VassalMod then they may be in violation of copyright infringments, but I as the mod maker hold no liability.

If it was the other way around then any of us mod makers could get introuble if someone that doesn't own civ at all dowloaded one of our mods and got it working without the Civ4 exe. The point being that the responsiblity falls on the one commiting the unlicensed act, not those that have complied to the law at higher levels.

In the end, while it would be good to cloak yourself in a nice disclaimer like...

This Civilization 4 v1.61 product uses code/systems/concepts from Civilization 4: Warlords expansion product. In order to comply with Federal Copyright Laws and End User License Agreements you must own legal copies of both the origonal Civilization 4 v1.61 and the Civilization 4 expansion Warlords.

The Mod Creater(s), Designer(s), Coder(s), Contributer(s), and those assosiated, both directly or indirectly, with the creation and/or upkeep of this mod inherit no liablity for the miss use of the Mod by any and all End Users.

Both Civilization 4 and Civilization 4: Warlords are Trademarks of Fraxis Games.

... that would be the most you would need to do to protect yourself.

In a more philosophical sense..
I own Warlords, I payed for it.
I still own vanilla Civ4, I payed for it also.
If I want to straight copy code from it and use that in Civ4 v1.61 that is my right.
The chair company can't tell me that I'm not allowed to take the leg off one of my chairs and put it on another chair.
I payed for both them chairs and those chairs are mine and mine alone.
After all, I am an American and I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibilty for someone elses actions..

The whole information industry wants to make it seem like they still have control or power over what you do with the products you purchase from them. The Ford company can't tell you not to take the seats out of one car and put it in another. the gun company can't sue you if you if you make your own bullets for their guns or even your own guns, and you can even give them away all day long as long as you don't sell them. Why does the coputer information industry think it is different then every other product for all of history? .

Bottom line (.. I've been saying that alot lately, I think I'll mention that to my shrink.. ) you can't reproduce and sell/rent a company's product, even under a different name, without express permission, but that is where the companies rights stop. Weather its a cd, car, pencil, or group of electrons on a computer chip, it is a product that you own and that implies the right to resell, give, trade, alter, and generally use as you see fit. When the product is a direct to download program, a vcr tape, cd, or any other form or data ownership also implies the right to save, copy, upload, and download the product for personal use.

I have several dozen games on 3.5 inch disks that I can't play any more because I don't have a 3.5 drive on my computer. But can I, a legal, licensed, and even register owner of the product, download the program somwhere? No because if the company exists it has closed all the places that had the file for download, even though they don't support the game at all anymore. Sorry, I'm starting to ramble, time to take the meds

I am not rich, but I payed the 60 bucks at the mall the day Civ4 came out because I'd been learning python for like a year before just to mod Civ. I bought Warlords the day it came out and shucked out another 30 dollars. I'm not pour, but 70 bucks is not nothin. I play both games about equall (Civ4 wins just because I do all my mod playtesting in vanilla). If vanilla had every single function and fluff of Warlords i would stil play vanilla all the time. The two versions play very different, vanilla is more of a laid back building game and Warlords is alot more on the agressive side (heh, imagine that with a name like Warlords ). Fraxis job and area of control is the differenses they put in the exe and create for us to work off of.

Sorry if I get a little passionate, but I am highly interested in this topic as one of my future projects is to take the functionality of Warlords Barbarian Scenario and remake it into a normal mod with a config.ini and useing Dr Elmer Jiggle's CustomEventManager setup. Now I intend to rewrite as little of the code as possible, but because of how unusally slopply it was written and the change of structure probably half or more of the code will need rewriting or be written for the first time.

The glitch comes in that, in the rewriting it is going to become Civ4 v1.61 compatable. It doesn't do anything that requires Warlords, other then the small part that deals with Warlords GG and that part will use the v1.61 GG mods' general unit just fine. I mean should I have to worry about someone without Warlords downloading and useing the mod? Should I error on the side of caution and not make the mod? The answers are No and No. I should make the mod because it is what interests me to mod and I own the parts I need to make it. Should I then, having made it, just hoard it to myself? Definetly not, that flies in the face of everything the internet and Civ4 are ment to be. Besides that it would be nice to give those without warlords a small taste of what is in Warlords and it would just be rude not to give other legal owners the right to share in the barbarian fun. Will people forsake buying Warlords because they now have a VassalMod or my scenario? No, heck they might like it and get the drive to acually buy Warlords.

I guess to say all that in a few lines. Us modders that own Civ4 and Warlords should feel free to use whatever content we see fit, in whatever form, between the two versions. As always, it is up to the users to deside what mods they use and don't use. We are just here to create what we want to use. And in the end, we are only following the Fraxian example by then providing our private mods to other legal users of Civ, except we don't even charge for our time.

Hehe, that was fun, thanx for reading if anyone read all that.. I've killed enough time, better get back to work.

 

[Teg_Navanis]

Even though I've never seen the original post, I want to add my two cents to the matter.

In a more philosophical sense..
I own Warlords, I payed for it.
I still own vanilla Civ4, I payed for it also.
If I want to straight copy code from it and use that in Civ4 v1.61 that is my right.
The chair company can't tell me that I'm not allowed to take the leg off one of my chairs and put it on another chair.
I payed for both them chairs and those chairs are mine and mine alone.
After all, I am an American and I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibilty for someone elses actions..

The code of Civ4 and Warlords is intellectual property of the programmers (or the programming company, Firaxis) and copyrighted accordingly. While you are free to destroy any chairs you buy, the Civ4 code is not your own and you cannot do what you want with it without the programmers' consent. Gladly, they've given us the permission to modify the code and distribute our modifications, but they have every right to tell you where this permission ends.

(e) Customized Game Materials must be used alone and can be created if the Customized Game Materials will be used exclusively in combination with the commercially released retail version of the Software.

I'm not any more a lawyer than Gerikes is, but I agree with him on the point that Warlords is a retail product on its own and you can't simply take content from it and release it for another product (Vanilla Civ4).

But to make this less of a legal debate (I'm not overly interested in the question whether the modder or the user will be held accountable for any copyright infringements):

I heartily disagree with your rant about the information industry, at least in respect to Civ4: Please remember that it is in the programming company's power to release or not release the source code of their games. One should not disrespect this generosity by abusing the source code to damage the company (and a free distribution of central features of the Warlords expansion pack certainly is not in the interest of Firaxis). And if this isn't reason enough, bear in mind that they might simply cease to release any code in future games if they feel like their code is misused in any way.

From a non-legal point of view, I support converting bug fixes from Warlords to Vanilla (such as the AI combat odds calculator), but requesting/converting whole features/scenarios for those who do not want to buy Warlords is out of the question.

 

[Gerikes]

While I can admit using the term "just a mod" was a little dramatic, some more common terms would be expansion or addon. But it is most certainly not its own entire game. I must own and have installed vanilla Civ4 in order to use Warlords, therefor it is not a standalone entatiy, it is an extension of Civ4. I site the title on the CD, "Civilization IV: Warlords".

Looks like we're pretty split on this issue, so I'll just let it go.

You are right in your assurtions about the importance of weather or not you own Warlords. But I feel you are mistaken in putting the responseablity of Mod Users' ownership on the Mod Makers.

If that's how you feel, you can ask the copyright owner of the code how they feel, since after all they can dictate how others use it. In the EULA, one thing is that in order to play the mod is that the person who plays it is "required to own a full, registered copy of the software to run". That is, in effect, putting responsibility of the mod maker, although it's a responsibility that is so easy to adhere to that you don't even realize you're being responsible by doing it.

For argument sake, lets say I made a VassalMod for vanilla Civ4. Since I own both Civ4 and Warlords, I am well within my rights as I am simply useing licensed products that I legally own. Then I release this mod to the general modding public as "a version of Warlords Vassal States for vanilla Civ4". If I understand what you are saying, this is the point were I have broken the agreement, but that is not the case.

Out of all of the analogies we're both making, I like this one best, since it ensures that it actually has all the functionality of the original argument.

The question I would have in the above analogy is this: is the mod simply you taking the SDK code from Warlords, copying it to Vanilla, and perhaps making changes here and there? Or is the mod something that you completely coded on your own? Of course, I would argue that there's a grey area inbetween the two positions where one could lie, but I believe that if you used any portion of the code you would be officially using one applications copywritten code into another application.

Any other mod player or maker that owns Warlords (and by default Civ4) can download and use the mod completely legally as they also are licensed and have payed for both products.

If other people that own vanilla Civ4, but not Warlords download and use the VassalMod then they may be in violation of copyright infringments, but I as the mod maker hold no liability.

If it was the other way around then any of us mod makers could get introuble if someone that doesn't own civ at all dowloaded one of our mods and got it working without the Civ4 exe. The point being that the responsiblity falls on the one commiting the unlicensed act, not those that have complied to the law at higher levels.

Since the SDK requires some sort of change to how the files are used, whether it be in modifying the exe (which I'm sure we'll both agree is expressedly illegal) or writing a new program written to use the dll. Obviously, someone can make a mod and "get it working without the Civ4.exe", and obviously the person who is breakin the law is the person who got it working without the Civ4.exe. So long as you don't give out code or a compiled application for how to do it, you obviously can't be held responsible.

However, just because it's possible for someone to take a Civ4 mod and somehow use it for some 3rd party application, that doesn't make it right for us to use this code outside the boundaries in which we have "agreed" upon the EULA.

In a more philosophical sense..
I own Warlords, I payed for it. :cool: 
I still own vanilla Civ4, I payed for it also. :king: 
If I want to straight copy code from it and use that in Civ4 v1.61 that is my right. :ar15:

The chair company can't tell me that I'm not allowed to take the leg off one of my chairs and put it on another chair.

I payed for both them chairs and those chairs are mine and mine alone. :P
After all, I am an American and I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibilty for someone elses actions.. :lol:

The whole information industry wants to make it seem like they still have control or power over what you do with the products you purchase from them. The Ford company can't tell you not to take the seats out of one car and put it in another. the gun company can't sue you if you if you make your own bullets for their guns or even your own guns, and you can even give them away all day long as long as you don't sell them. Why does the coputer information industry think it is different then every other product for all of history?  :confused: .

I think we get into the old software patent debate, which I think getting into would just waste too much of our time. Besides, we probably agree on that anyway, patentable software stifles creativity and innovation.

Bottom line (.. I've been saying that alot lately, I think I'll mention that to my shrink.. ) you can't reproduce and sell/rent a company's product, even under a different name, without express permission, but that is where the companies rights stop. Weather its a cd, car, pencil, or group of electrons on a computer chip, it is a product that you own and that implies the right to resell, give, trade, alter, and generally use as you see fit. When the product is a direct to download program, a vcr tape, cd, or any other form or data ownership also implies the right to save, copy, upload, and download the product for personal use.

Copyright laws are different everywhere, but in the US it's probably too early to see where all the little grey areas will pan out. I remember how Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman (laywers who help defend people against the RIAA in their massive suings, and also maintainers of RIAA vs the People) were interviewed on slashdot and said:

The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc.

As much as I think that's silly, if it's the law it's the law, and I've always believed that if one disagrees with the law, that the law should be changed, not broken.

Of course, that is if we live in my perfect world. Really, laws only get changed when people or groups of people with money change them. Thus, the laws that many people think should be changed but whose opponents are vastly not in the "wealthy" minority are going to have a tough time getting those laws changed.

I have several dozen games on 3.5 inch disks that I can't play any more because I don't have a 3.5 drive on my computer. But can I, a legal, licensed, and even register owner of the product, download the program somwhere? No because if the company exists it has closed all the places that had the file for download, even though they don't support the game at all anymore.

And yet another place where we probably agree upon copyright law, that copyright lengths should be shortened dramatically, especially with how fast items become obsolete.

I am not rich, but I payed the 60 bucks at the mall the day Civ4 came out because I'd been learning python for like a year before just to mod Civ. I bought Warlords the day it came out and shucked out another 30 dollars. I'm not pour, but 70 bucks is not nothin. I play both games about equall (Civ4 wins just because I do all my mod playtesting in vanilla). If vanilla had every single function and fluff of Warlords i would stil play vanilla all the time. The two versions play very different, vanilla is more of a laid back building game and Warlords is alot more on the agressive side (heh, imagine that with a name like Warlords ). Fraxis job and area of control is the differenses they put in the exe and create for us to work off of.

I think your idea of area of control is a bit flawed. They are the copyright owners, and thus have the copyright to all their code. Making a mod does not mean that you inherit any of the rights that Firaxis has on their code, only to the code you have wrote.

Really, we're just lucky that people like Sid Meier's and Soren Johnson believed that making incredible mods is something that should be allowed to be done, and thus they give us a ton of leeway, more than some other games. But, I'm willing to bet that because all of our mods use their software (and thus, their copywritten material), they can at any time they want pull the plug on any mod. Like I said before, we're just lucky that they're very liberal and allow basically anything, so this never happens.

Sorry if I get a little passionate

No apologies necessary. If only more Americans would try to defend the right to create and the ability to innovate rather than concentrate on what Britney's baby ate for breakfast...

I guess to say all that in a few lines. Us modders that own Civ4 and Warlords should feel free to use whatever content we see fit, in whatever form, between the two versions. As always, it is up to the users to deside what mods they use and don't use. We are just here to create what we want to use. And in the end, we are only following the Fraxian example by then providing our private mods to other legal users of Civ, except we don't even charge for our time.

And I'll support you 100%, simply because I'd like to see Firaxis look at this work and say, "Yeah, that's fine, go ahead," just like when the EFF or ACLU goes to Washington and says the RIAA is using unbelievably intrusive tactics to try to stop online music piracy, I want the judge to say, "Yeah, you're right, they've gone too far."

That doesn't mean I support software piracy, but hey, I'm young and idealistic and think that there's a perfectly reasonable solution to all these problems.

I've killed enough time, better get back to work.

I know what you mean. How about we declare a truce? You can go ahead and make a few last comments if you'd like so I don't get the last word

 

[The Great Apple]

As Gerikes has mentioned there is a grey area between directly copying and mimicing. Taking the AI combat odds as an example, while somebody could just grab the code for Warlords and stick it straight into the Vanilla SDK I'm not sure it would be legal, however, if somebody were to look at the way combat works and write a more accurate way of calculating odds and it happened to be similar to the way that it's done in Warlords nobody would be able to tell the difference between that, and somebody who just pasted Warlords code in and fiddled around with the code so that it looked different.

In other words, if it is illegal then it's very hard to enforce. I would, however, be sad to see modders start doing things like this. Once it starts happening people will just make a Walords for Vanilla mod - I'm fairly sure that most of the changes are available for modders to see. The art might be tricky, but that is the only sticking point I can see.

Thinking about it images and sounds are just strings of numbers which can be interpreted by the game...