Back on topic, I had a few thoughts about situations that could become.. lets say... interesting.
If a mod is incompatible with another mod, and their code is at fault, but is required for the mod to function, would that be considered malicious?
If a developer has his art assets stolen and used on another website, say, Second Life or IMVU or any of those user submitted content marketplaces, where if you lodge a legitimate copyright claim under any other circumstance those items can be removed, in this instance could that be considered invalid according to the above anti-mod-eula arguments? (Or certainly how they are worded. You make it seem modders have absolutely no rights to their content.)
And finally, is a malicious code considered a code that stops your mod from functioning, without compromising integrity of any other data, when used in circumstances that the developer didn't want it in?
I think you need to familiarize yourself with what 'malicious' means. The subtext is both act and intent. That should clarify your situations for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Mod Spotlights and Let's Play series! - https://www.youtube....?feature=vmdshb
Taking requests - PM me if you want me to spotlight your mod.
Mojang makes the game so Mojang makes the rules surrounding its use, including its extension through mods. By modding Minecraft you agree to be bound by its EULA, which explicitly lets them claim mods and redistribute them. Don't like the terms? Don't agree to them, by not using Minecraft.
I far prefer the idea of the Samson Option. Heavily obfuscate the code, never leave in comments, add code that makes the mod unable to load under certain conditions, code that makes it quit working unless fully updated, and never release source, generally make it prohibitive for people such as Mojang to steal your work, and theft probably won't end up being an issue.
In light of recent events, I am going to give a clear answer to everyone who ever had a question about mod copyrights. Please make sure to read the whole post before writing some sort of rage to me as you may see your argument already destroyed.
No EULA can circumvent, or override, copyright law; in this case, the applicable laws revolve around derivative works. the larger mods can certainly be covered as their own, separate, copyrightable content, because they meet all the requirements of being a derivative work- which is a separate copyrightable work that does not belong to the creator of the original work, nor does the owner of the copyright on that original work have any claim on the copyright of the derived work; nor can they dictate how that derived work is created, reproduced, maintained, or distributed; because they do not own the copyright to that derived work. The creation of a derivative work is also not something that can be "prevented" by the copyright owner of the work being used to create that derived work, either.
This line means that if a player legitimately bought the game then the player is free to play it and mod it to the player’s desire no matter what anyone but Mojang says.
A player that legitimately bought the game is free to play it, mod it, and do whatever they want with it- again, the EULA does not override local laws. For example, I'm in Canada, so regardless of what the Minecraft EULA would say, I have certain rights in terms of what I can do with the Minecraft software through the Fair Dealing clause. Any part of a contract (or EULA) which violates or attempts to remove my rights as given through Canadian parliamentary legislation is invalid. (I think it's similar for other countries).
No EULA can circumvent, or override, copyright law; in this case, the applicable laws revolve around derivative works. the larger mods can certainly be covered as their own, separate, copyrightable content, because they meet all the requirements of being a derivative work- which is a separate copyrightable work that does not belong to the creator of the original work, nor does the owner of the copyright on that original work have any claim on the copyright of the derived work; nor can they dictate how that derived work is created, reproduced, maintained, or distributed; because they do not own the copyright to that derived work. The creation of a derivative work is also not something that can be "prevented" by the copyright owner of the work being used to create that derived work, either.
A player that legitimately bought the game is free to play it, mod it, and do whatever they want with it- again, the EULA does not override local laws. For example, I'm in Canada, so regardless of what the Minecraft EULA would say, I have certain rights in terms of what I can do with the Minecraft software through the Fair Dealing clause. Any part of a contract (or EULA) which violates or attempts to remove my rights as given through Canadian parliamentary legislation is invalid. (I think it's similar for other countries).
I think you highly misunderstand the nature of derivative works and how copyrights extend to them as well as how you claim copyrights on derivative works. For the most part, I have a higher opinion of Mojang's paid copyright lawyers writing an actual binding legal document than some unknown such as yourself disagreeing with their licsence agreement.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with what 'malicious' means. The subtext is both act and intent. That should clarify your situations for you.
I am aware of what malicious means, it's just I foresee a situation of internet crusaders going on quests of 'justice' just because their favorite mod doesn't work with their other favorite mods. I'm not very good at explaining myself, am I?
Also, could someone with some authority clarify the EULA section here:
and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content. If you don‘t want to give us this permission, do not make content available on or through our Game. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like.
As this is the most argued point in this topic, and no one can give a legitimate answer, I think it will end some discussion and clarify a few things.
Does this section mean that content made available though Minecraft is made available to everyone, everyone who brought Minecraft, or just who Mojang gave permission to. If it's the latter, does Mojang give permission to everyone, or everyone who brought a copy of Minecraft, to use that content in anyway they want, or in a specific way, either defined by Mojang or the Creator (e.g. Modpacks)? And if this is the case, is this an implied clause? or is it stated somewhere else that's been overlooked.
I might as well put my word in; as a modder the minecraft community is pretty childish it looks like they are only in it so they can stroke their ego's instead of making something for people to enjoy.
No EULA can circumvent, or override, copyright law; in this case, the applicable laws revolve around derivative works. the larger mods can certainly be covered as their own, separate, copyrightable content, because they meet all the requirements of being a derivative work- which is a separate copyrightable work that does not belong to the creator of the original work, nor does the owner of the copyright on that original work have any claim on the copyright of the derived work; nor can they dictate how that derived work is created, reproduced, maintained, or distributed; because they do not own the copyright to that derived work. The creation of a derivative work is also not something that can be "prevented" by the copyright owner of the work being used to create that derived work, either.
Considering the vast majority of even the big mods add stuff that a layman would not be able to discern from normal minecraft content, I highly doubt most mods would be considered original works.
But that's for the courts to decide if it ever got to that point.
Here's the thing. Most of the backlash against the changes/clarifications to the EULA are portraying Mojang as a clone of Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache while plotting to steal the work right from under the feet of the Dudley Modrights as they try to valiantly hold up the Minecraft stage for people to enjoy.
In actuality the EULA can be translated as thus: "If you children keep hitting others with your toys you won't get to play with them."
I far prefer the idea of the Samson Option. Heavily obfuscate the code, never leave in comments, add code that makes the mod unable to load under certain conditions, code that makes it quit working unless fully updated, and never release source, generally make it prohibitive for people such as Mojang to steal your work, and theft probably won't end up being an issue.
Do you remember Eloraam? She wrote, in my opinion, the most professional Minecraft mod ever and kept the source closed. Then real life pulled her away from modding. Now Redpower is just a nostalgic memory, and anyone who used it has had to start a new world. Compare this to Buildcraft: IIRC it's about the same age as Redpower, but Buildcraft is still going strong, even after a year without its original developer. The difference: Buildcraft is open-source.
DRM, obfuscation, closed source - things like that are selfish and screw over the people who matter, the ones who'll get enjoyment out of your mod - the players. Technic has 3 different strains of Tekkit, and each change started after a major closed-source mod got unstable (EE2 died with Classic and Redpower and Industrialcraft with Lite). DRM is a losing proposition for ordinary users and developers alike, and even people selling their programs have to give it up.
Do you remember Eloraam? She wrote, in my opinion, the most professional Minecraft mod ever and kept the source closed. Then real life pulled her away from modding. Now Redpower is just a nostalgic memory, and anyone who used it has had to start a new world. Compare this to Buildcraft: IIRC it's about the same age as Redpower, but Buildcraft is still going strong, even after a year without its original developer. The difference: Buildcraft is open-source.
DRM, obfuscation, closed source - things like that are selfish and screw over the people who matter, the ones who'll get enjoyment out of your mod - the players. Technic has 3 different strains of Tekkit, and each change started after a major closed-source mod got unstable (EE2 died with Classic and Redpower and Industrialcraft with Lite). DRM is a losing proposition for ordinary users and developers alike, and even people selling their programs have to give it up.
As someone who's mods are all available openly to mod packs. I disagree with this logic.
I never agreed with Eloraam, she was the far right in terms of mod rights (as opposed to open source far left), but the fact of the matter is we spend a good chunk of our lives on these modifications solely so other people can enjoy them. I've personally spent into the thousands of hours over 5 years creating artwork and designing mods, its ruled my life. I've taken off work, I've spent full days doing nothing but working so I can put joy in other people's lives. I can't hate her for protecting what was hand crafted by her, but if someone wanted to base a mod on her ideas that's something else entirely.
And what do I ask of this?
"Metallurgy by Shadowclaimer (Forum Link)" if you're going to post it anywhere else, so new players can know where to find information and report bugs.
And now we can't even do that. That's what's frustrating. We ask so freaking little of the community yet apparently we ask way too much according to Mojang.
Now any of my artwork I've painstakingly crafted for my fans and mod users can be hijacked, reposted anywhere, reclaimed as theirs, anything and I have zero say in the matter. That's extremely distressing and borderline enough to push me to quit modding.
Now any of my artwork I've painstakingly crafted for my fans and mod users can be hijacked, reposted anywhere, reclaimed as theirs, anything and I have zero say in the matter. That's extremely distressing and borderline enough to push me to quit modding.
No, Mojang (not just anyone) can redistribute mods and can allow others to. There's reason to think they won't; rumour is that the Optifine dev turned down an offer to include his mod into Minecraft, and Mojang knows that the community would be furious if they used it without permission. For this reason they don't.
That isn't what I am unhappy about. People have been known to add code to their mods to crash modpacks whose makers refuse to grovel to them, and this is now a violation of the Minecraft EULA. I want to be able to throw together a modpack and play modded Minecraft with my friends in ten minutes, and if each mod requires a PM to a mod author so that it'll start up properly in my pack, I'll be stuck for days waiting on them.
No, Mojang (not just anyone) can redistribute mods and can allow others to.
I'll definitely agree on that matter ^
I find it hard that so few people realize that "let us permit others" actually means Mojang has to permit others to redistribute etc. mods, not everyone, because it actually says they have to permit it. That's at least what I've managed to interpret.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
I'm glad you clarified that you are not a lawyer because you are talking rubbish. The EULA may be a bit murky at times but in this instance, it reads just fine. Think about what you just said. "Mojang can explicitly permit other people". Hello! Mojang are a games development company and have no time to go around explicitly telling people what they can and cannot use. Therefore, it stands to reason the EULA says that 3rd parties, aka "other people", are granted permission to use, copy, adapt and modify that content as much as they like, or was the next line not clear?
No, it's not clear. The line you're referring to - "Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like." - there's nothing in there stating that people can distribute it freely. Using it in a way one doesn't like could mean a lot else than people distributing it - people can decompile to obtain source code, use it as a tool to bother other people or get unfair advantages, or in some cases use mods to spy on whoever has the mod installed, say by sending logs to someone.
Also, size of company doesn't matter. Look at the big movie companies - they produce a lot of movies each year. They manage perfectly fine to say who may distribute content and who may not. Basically what you're saying is that since Mojang has no time to go around saying who may distribute this or who may decompile that, big companies like Universal Music, who aren't able to respond to all requests about someone wanting to use the music they release, shouldn't have any rights over their music and let everyone distribute it freely. This also applies to small companies, if I made a very popular piece of software independently, there's no one around to tell me that "hey, it's so popular that you can't possibly respond to all the requests you get about redistributing it, so you no longer have the rights to say that it cannot be distributed and the software is therefore automatically put in the public domain."
Let's say we ignore that quote, even though it clearly shows that I have the correct interpretation, and look at your referenced one more closely. From an English Language point of view, 'let us permit other people', is present progressive aspect, which demonstrates that the action of 'permitting' is continuous and implied. I surely do not have to take you back to school. If they had meant it in another way, they would have written it differently. 3rd parties is "other people", so breaking it down, this quote means that "Mojang have permitted 3rd parties to use, copy, adapt or modify your content." All I've done is converted it into past tense; it still means exactly the same thing.
I'll break up the sentence. Here it is again: "[...] you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content."
"Let us" is simply a synonym of "allow us to". You're right about saying "other people" refers to "3rd parties", e.g. everyone else. Essentially this sentence could be written as "You must also allow us to permit anyone [...]" and still retain the same meaning. I do find it a little shameful that you actually decided to drop the "let us" part completely in your final, past tense sentence, because "You must also let us permit other people" does in no way mean the same thing as "We have permitted 3rd parties".
The big difference is that the original sentence implies that Mojang, at their discretion, can let anyone do as they wish to a mod, and your sentence implies that anyone can do as they wish to a mod without consulting with Mojang first. I don't know if you see the difference here. Certainly I do.
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
Does this section mean that content made available though Minecraft is made available to everyone, everyone who brought Minecraft, or just who Mojang gave permission to. If it's the latter, does Mojang give permission to everyone, or everyone who brought a copy of Minecraft, to use that content in anyway they want, or in a specific way, either defined by Mojang or the Creator (e.g. Modpacks)? And if this is the case, is this an implied clause? or is it stated somewhere else that's been overlooked.
No, it's not clear. The line you're referring to - "Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like." - there's nothing in there stating that people can distribute it freely. Using it in a way one doesn't like could mean a lot else than people distributing it - people can decompile to obtain source code, use it as a tool to bother other people or get unfair advantages, or in some cases use mods to spy on whoever has the mod installed, say by sending logs to someone.
The big difference is that the original sentence implies that Mojang, at their discretion, can let anyone do as they wish to a mod, and your sentence implies that anyone can do as they wish to a mod without consulting with Mojang first. I don't know if you see the difference here. Certainly I do.
This is not a point of contention anymore. There is nothing "vague" about this section of the EULA and people need to stop trying to argue over it.
I say this because Marc Watson, the head of Mojang's Customer Support, and official mouth piece of Mojang in fielding questions in clarifying sections of the EULA has gone out and answered this question multiple times, both on his twitter and on these forums.
The clarification is that any mod for Minecraft that is released publicly (with publicly being defined released on the internet for others to download) is released as a fully public piece of work. That Mojang expressively gives all owners of Minecraft the right to do whatever they want with said mods and the only way to prevent this is to not release your mod.
I give the following quotes from Marc.
From this thread, Marc confirms that mods are subject to the EULA.
From another thread on these forums, this one stating that mods cannot demand permission, that mods cannot prevent a player from playing them and that modders do not get to dictate their own terms of use for their mods.
I've gotten a few reports of this mod possibly acting maliciously if installed without "permission". Per the Minecraft terms of use: "Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like."
There will also be a future update to the terms that will address malicious code, which is to say anything that intentionally prevents someone from playing the game, or purposefully negatively affects the game experience.
Modders receive permission to play the game and distribute mods from Mojang, just like other players, through the terms of use. They do not get to dictate their own terms of use for content that is created for Minecraft.
Again, from this thread, again, clarifying that users will do whatever they want with your mods, even if it is putting said mods into modpacks.
I can tell you that the EULA is fairly clear about most of this, and I'm awaiting further clarification on the "malicious code" bits.
What I can say though, is what the spirit of the EULA is supposed to be: don't be a jerk, and we won't either. Mojang likes modding because it's good for the community. We don't allow people to sell mods. If you're going to make a mod, know that people will probably use it in ways that you didn't necessarily anticipate or intend for. Once you release a mod, it's out there, and all you can do is update that mod with some measure of consistency, and know that most people who enjoy the mod will go to you for the download/info/etc.
You shouldn't put malicious code in your mod that shuts down the game, or somehow infringes upon someone else enjoying the game. If you're butthurt about your mod, that you released to the public, being included in a mod pack, you may be in this for the wrong reasons. That being said, people who release modpacks also shouldn't be jerks, and in my opinion should correctly attribute the individual mods to their authors with some sort of contact info (Twitter, website, MCF post link, etc).
From his twitter account, where Marc is asked if mods can have their access and method of distribution restricted. https://twitter.com/...466903909859328
So yeah, literally several locations on these forums within this week clarifying the point that users have direct permission by Mojang to do what they please with mods released for Minecraft. If you still do not believe this, instead of sitting their crossed arm refusing what has been said already (because people are going to do as they please now regardless how you personally feel), then you can ask Marc to clarify for you personally over twitter. The answer is still going to be the same though.
Doesn't say anything about distribution... but does make it clear that open source is not required just that people can't charge money for the mod. (I find it interesting anyway)
Doesn't say anything about distribution... but does make it clear that open source is not required just that people can't charge money for the mod. (I find it interesting anyway)
When did anyone say a mod had to be open source? The argument has been about copyright itself.
its ruled my life. I've taken off work, I've spent full days doing nothing but working so I can put joy in other people's lives.
This is unhealthy and you shouldn't be doing this. "I did all these things for you, now here are my expectations of what I want in return."
"But... I never asked you to do any of those things and it's kind of disturbing that you did. And I never agreed to do any of the things that you're asking in return so why do you think I owe them to you?"
Like, I agree that attribution is a pretty basic thing to ask for, but expecting it and quitting modding over the possibility of not getting it? Calm. Down.
When did anyone say a mod had to be open source? The argument has been about copyright itself.
This. A lot of this drama appears to be based around this. Where has this been stated by Mojang themselves? It appears to have been 'suggested' by people on Reddit, and just snowballed from there.
I have no idea why so many people are up in arms about the EULA clarifications. It seems to be a non-issue.
Modders, such as myself, should be able to do whatever they want with the source. They should be able to have it closed or open, left up to them. They should be able to obfuscate their code, (some mods do, most don't). I have my stuff that I'm working on obfuscated, but in the topic's there'll be a link to the GitHub source page. (Obfuscation can have other benefits besides pure unreadability BTW). Modders should be able to use adf.ly on their mods.
However, I don't think that writing code specifically designed to stop compatibility with packs should be allowed. (Either by rule on this forum, or by Minecraft ToS / EULA). But if the mod just doesn't work with a pack, unintentionally, they should not be required to fix it.
People are looking at this like Mojang are taking something away from modders...and technically they aren't. I've never been in another modding community where it wasn't taken as a given that, ultimately, the company owns the game and gets to dictate terms. However, I don't think that this is really an "Us and Them" argument. It doesn't have to be either letting mod creators do whatever they like, or letting everyone else do whatever they like. There's something else to factor in.
When I go around town, I have every legal right to wear an offensive t-shirt and sing crass songs at the top of my lungs. So does everyone else. However, you don't really see it all that much. There's a reason for that...respect. Manners. So, that's the thing. Someone might have a right to decompile and modify, or even to reproduce without directly copying code. However, it is generally in poor taste to do so. Take for example, the "Better With Forge" fiasco a while back. Someone made a modification that allowed Better With Wolves to work under forge, even though Flower Child didn't want them to. Yes, technically they had every right to do this. Ultimately, though, the plug was pulled on it...not because Flower Child had a legal recourse to have it taken down, but because the person creating it received backlash, realized how disrespectful it had been, and willingly took it down. Now, I have seen sites in the past that say, "Yes, you can create derivative and unpermissioned content, but we don't have to host it.". That's different, though. That's the site's rules, and those people are free to put their modifications elsewhere. However...and this is the big point...most people will go to the most respectable and well-known sources first, so modders who want to be popular and recognized understand the importance of showing good manners, even when it's not, strictly speaking, required of them.
Bottom line? Being a respectful modder earns you a good reputation and positive attention. Being disrespectful gets you the opposite. That cuts both ways, though. Being vindictive, hostile, and petty is just as bad as being a "thief", and I know mods that I've thought had great concepts, but couldn't persuade people to try, just because they didn't care for the creator's bad attitude.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with what 'malicious' means. The subtext is both act and intent. That should clarify your situations for you.
Taking requests - PM me if you want me to spotlight your mod.
I far prefer the idea of the Samson Option. Heavily obfuscate the code, never leave in comments, add code that makes the mod unable to load under certain conditions, code that makes it quit working unless fully updated, and never release source, generally make it prohibitive for people such as Mojang to steal your work, and theft probably won't end up being an issue.
I make textures and stuff.
Current maintainer of the 3x texture pack.
Abandonware artist of Manely Little Horses.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumNo EULA can circumvent, or override, copyright law; in this case, the applicable laws revolve around derivative works. the larger mods can certainly be covered as their own, separate, copyrightable content, because they meet all the requirements of being a derivative work- which is a separate copyrightable work that does not belong to the creator of the original work, nor does the owner of the copyright on that original work have any claim on the copyright of the derived work; nor can they dictate how that derived work is created, reproduced, maintained, or distributed; because they do not own the copyright to that derived work. The creation of a derivative work is also not something that can be "prevented" by the copyright owner of the work being used to create that derived work, either.
A player that legitimately bought the game is free to play it, mod it, and do whatever they want with it- again, the EULA does not override local laws. For example, I'm in Canada, so regardless of what the Minecraft EULA would say, I have certain rights in terms of what I can do with the Minecraft software through the Fair Dealing clause. Any part of a contract (or EULA) which violates or attempts to remove my rights as given through Canadian parliamentary legislation is invalid. (I think it's similar for other countries).
I think you highly misunderstand the nature of derivative works and how copyrights extend to them as well as how you claim copyrights on derivative works. For the most part, I have a higher opinion of Mojang's paid copyright lawyers writing an actual binding legal document than some unknown such as yourself disagreeing with their licsence agreement.
I am aware of what malicious means, it's just I foresee a situation of internet crusaders going on quests of 'justice' just because their favorite mod doesn't work with their other favorite mods. I'm not very good at explaining myself, am I?
Also, could someone with some authority clarify the EULA section here:
As this is the most argued point in this topic, and no one can give a legitimate answer, I think it will end some discussion and clarify a few things.
Does this section mean that content made available though Minecraft is made available to everyone, everyone who brought Minecraft, or just who Mojang gave permission to. If it's the latter, does Mojang give permission to everyone, or everyone who brought a copy of Minecraft, to use that content in anyway they want, or in a specific way, either defined by Mojang or the Creator (e.g. Modpacks)? And if this is the case, is this an implied clause? or is it stated somewhere else that's been overlooked.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumConsidering the vast majority of even the big mods add stuff that a layman would not be able to discern from normal minecraft content, I highly doubt most mods would be considered original works.
But that's for the courts to decide if it ever got to that point.
Here's the thing. Most of the backlash against the changes/clarifications to the EULA are portraying Mojang as a clone of Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache while plotting to steal the work right from under the feet of the Dudley Modrights as they try to valiantly hold up the Minecraft stage for people to enjoy.
In actuality the EULA can be translated as thus: "If you children keep hitting others with your toys you won't get to play with them."
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumDo you remember Eloraam? She wrote, in my opinion, the most professional Minecraft mod ever and kept the source closed. Then real life pulled her away from modding. Now Redpower is just a nostalgic memory, and anyone who used it has had to start a new world. Compare this to Buildcraft: IIRC it's about the same age as Redpower, but Buildcraft is still going strong, even after a year without its original developer. The difference: Buildcraft is open-source.
DRM, obfuscation, closed source - things like that are selfish and screw over the people who matter, the ones who'll get enjoyment out of your mod - the players. Technic has 3 different strains of Tekkit, and each change started after a major closed-source mod got unstable (EE2 died with Classic and Redpower and Industrialcraft with Lite). DRM is a losing proposition for ordinary users and developers alike, and even people selling their programs have to give it up.
As someone who's mods are all available openly to mod packs. I disagree with this logic.
I never agreed with Eloraam, she was the far right in terms of mod rights (as opposed to open source far left), but the fact of the matter is we spend a good chunk of our lives on these modifications solely so other people can enjoy them. I've personally spent into the thousands of hours over 5 years creating artwork and designing mods, its ruled my life. I've taken off work, I've spent full days doing nothing but working so I can put joy in other people's lives. I can't hate her for protecting what was hand crafted by her, but if someone wanted to base a mod on her ideas that's something else entirely.
And what do I ask of this?
"Metallurgy by Shadowclaimer (Forum Link)" if you're going to post it anywhere else, so new players can know where to find information and report bugs.
And now we can't even do that. That's what's frustrating. We ask so freaking little of the community yet apparently we ask way too much according to Mojang.
Now any of my artwork I've painstakingly crafted for my fans and mod users can be hijacked, reposted anywhere, reclaimed as theirs, anything and I have zero say in the matter. That's extremely distressing and borderline enough to push me to quit modding.
Lead designer and artist of Team Metallurgy (Metallurgy, Aquaculture, and Atum)
Join me on Discord, watch me on Twitch (every night!), or support me on Patreon.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumNo, Mojang (not just anyone) can redistribute mods and can allow others to. There's reason to think they won't; rumour is that the Optifine dev turned down an offer to include his mod into Minecraft, and Mojang knows that the community would be furious if they used it without permission. For this reason they don't.
That isn't what I am unhappy about. People have been known to add code to their mods to crash modpacks whose makers refuse to grovel to them, and this is now a violation of the Minecraft EULA. I want to be able to throw together a modpack and play modded Minecraft with my friends in ten minutes, and if each mod requires a PM to a mod author so that it'll start up properly in my pack, I'll be stuck for days waiting on them.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI'll definitely agree on that matter ^
I find it hard that so few people realize that "let us permit others" actually means Mojang has to permit others to redistribute etc. mods, not everyone, because it actually says they have to permit it. That's at least what I've managed to interpret.
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumNo, it's not clear. The line you're referring to - "Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like." - there's nothing in there stating that people can distribute it freely. Using it in a way one doesn't like could mean a lot else than people distributing it - people can decompile to obtain source code, use it as a tool to bother other people or get unfair advantages, or in some cases use mods to spy on whoever has the mod installed, say by sending logs to someone.
Also, size of company doesn't matter. Look at the big movie companies - they produce a lot of movies each year. They manage perfectly fine to say who may distribute content and who may not. Basically what you're saying is that since Mojang has no time to go around saying who may distribute this or who may decompile that, big companies like Universal Music, who aren't able to respond to all requests about someone wanting to use the music they release, shouldn't have any rights over their music and let everyone distribute it freely. This also applies to small companies, if I made a very popular piece of software independently, there's no one around to tell me that "hey, it's so popular that you can't possibly respond to all the requests you get about redistributing it, so you no longer have the rights to say that it cannot be distributed and the software is therefore automatically put in the public domain."
I'll break up the sentence. Here it is again: "[...] you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content."
"Let us" is simply a synonym of "allow us to". You're right about saying "other people" refers to "3rd parties", e.g. everyone else. Essentially this sentence could be written as "You must also allow us to permit anyone [...]" and still retain the same meaning. I do find it a little shameful that you actually decided to drop the "let us" part completely in your final, past tense sentence, because "You must also let us permit other people" does in no way mean the same thing as "We have permitted 3rd parties".
The big difference is that the original sentence implies that Mojang, at their discretion, can let anyone do as they wish to a mod, and your sentence implies that anyone can do as they wish to a mod without consulting with Mojang first. I don't know if you see the difference here. Certainly I do.
I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL MINECRAFT MOD SUPPORT AGENT, SO PLEASE DO NOT PM ME ABOUT PROBLEMATIC MODS THAT ARE NOT MINE. If you're having trouble/crashes with a mod, you'll have better luck resolving it in this forum section than PMing me. If you already made a topic, be patient about responses. If you have troubles with anything non-Minecraft related on your PC, I might be able to help, though, but no promises. Even though I could wish to be, I'm not a wizard.
This is not a point of contention anymore. There is nothing "vague" about this section of the EULA and people need to stop trying to argue over it.
I say this because Marc Watson, the head of Mojang's Customer Support, and official mouth piece of Mojang in fielding questions in clarifying sections of the EULA has gone out and answered this question multiple times, both on his twitter and on these forums.
The clarification is that any mod for Minecraft that is released publicly (with publicly being defined released on the internet for others to download) is released as a fully public piece of work. That Mojang expressively gives all owners of Minecraft the right to do whatever they want with said mods and the only way to prevent this is to not release your mod.
I give the following quotes from Marc.
From this thread, Marc confirms that mods are subject to the EULA.
From another thread on these forums, this one stating that mods cannot demand permission, that mods cannot prevent a player from playing them and that modders do not get to dictate their own terms of use for their mods.
Again, from this thread, again, clarifying that users will do whatever they want with your mods, even if it is putting said mods into modpacks.
From his twitter account, where Marc is asked if mods can have their access and method of distribution restricted.
https://twitter.com/...466903909859328
So yeah, literally several locations on these forums within this week clarifying the point that users have direct permission by Mojang to do what they please with mods released for Minecraft. If you still do not believe this, instead of sitting their crossed arm refusing what has been said already (because people are going to do as they please now regardless how you personally feel), then you can ask Marc to clarify for you personally over twitter. The answer is still going to be the same though.
https://twitter.com/...967409467998208
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumhttps://twitter.com/notch/status/427013796796702720
Doesn't say anything about distribution... but does make it clear that open source is not required just that people can't charge money for the mod. (I find it interesting anyway)
When did anyone say a mod had to be open source? The argument has been about copyright itself.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis is unhealthy and you shouldn't be doing this. "I did all these things for you, now here are my expectations of what I want in return."
"But... I never asked you to do any of those things and it's kind of disturbing that you did. And I never agreed to do any of the things that you're asking in return so why do you think I owe them to you?"
Like, I agree that attribution is a pretty basic thing to ask for, but expecting it and quitting modding over the possibility of not getting it? Calm. Down.
Note. This account is deprecated due to past bigotry in posts that cannot be deleted.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis. A lot of this drama appears to be based around this. Where has this been stated by Mojang themselves? It appears to have been 'suggested' by people on Reddit, and just snowballed from there.
I have no idea why so many people are up in arms about the EULA clarifications. It seems to be a non-issue.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffModders, such as myself, should be able to do whatever they want with the source. They should be able to have it closed or open, left up to them. They should be able to obfuscate their code, (some mods do, most don't). I have my stuff that I'm working on obfuscated, but in the topic's there'll be a link to the GitHub source page. (Obfuscation can have other benefits besides pure unreadability BTW). Modders should be able to use adf.ly on their mods.
However, I don't think that writing code specifically designed to stop compatibility with packs should be allowed. (Either by rule on this forum, or by Minecraft ToS / EULA). But if the mod just doesn't work with a pack, unintentionally, they should not be required to fix it.
When I go around town, I have every legal right to wear an offensive t-shirt and sing crass songs at the top of my lungs. So does everyone else. However, you don't really see it all that much. There's a reason for that...respect. Manners. So, that's the thing. Someone might have a right to decompile and modify, or even to reproduce without directly copying code. However, it is generally in poor taste to do so. Take for example, the "Better With Forge" fiasco a while back. Someone made a modification that allowed Better With Wolves to work under forge, even though Flower Child didn't want them to. Yes, technically they had every right to do this. Ultimately, though, the plug was pulled on it...not because Flower Child had a legal recourse to have it taken down, but because the person creating it received backlash, realized how disrespectful it had been, and willingly took it down. Now, I have seen sites in the past that say, "Yes, you can create derivative and unpermissioned content, but we don't have to host it.". That's different, though. That's the site's rules, and those people are free to put their modifications elsewhere. However...and this is the big point...most people will go to the most respectable and well-known sources first, so modders who want to be popular and recognized understand the importance of showing good manners, even when it's not, strictly speaking, required of them.
Bottom line? Being a respectful modder earns you a good reputation and positive attention. Being disrespectful gets you the opposite. That cuts both ways, though. Being vindictive, hostile, and petty is just as bad as being a "thief", and I know mods that I've thought had great concepts, but couldn't persuade people to try, just because they didn't care for the creator's bad attitude.