There aren't any guidelines or material. We don't have a script to read from. I have the EULA like you guys do, and I can always send an email to someone if I have a question. I answered a question based on my knowledge, and Grum has now said that I was incorrect and "content" may not cover mods. I defer to him on this, and apologize if I've upset anyone.
I would also like to add that the questions have come in fast and furious, and while I've answered a number of things correctly, the issue became so convoluted that it almost immediately became difficult to track. There is clearly a history of baggage and drama, and almost anything will set off a flurry of related and unrelated arguments, some that people have been having for years. I've even got modders telling me that people are using my words incorrectly, for their own agendas. So, at this point, if someone has a question about the EULA, they can email support. If we don't have a definitive answer, we'll pass the email along. I want to be as precise as possible, and Twitter (and in many cases, MCF) is not the most appropriate means for this.
Thank you for not only doing your best to clarify issues to the best of your knowledge, but also for continuing to display such patience with everyone's questions. I can see why you hold the position you do.
Now let's all sit back, enjoy a beer or three, and most importantly of all, despite whatever legal rights one may or may not have with respect to someone else or someone else's work, let's follow Mojang's lead and just not be jerks about it.
EDIT: To the post above me, though I am no authority on the matter, the answer to all of your points should most certainly be a resounding 'no', though I am unsure about restricting where the mod may be obtained from (certainly should not force ad.fly links as the only download). However, mod authors do have the right to respectfully request that users only use their mod in a certain way, though the user is under no legal obligation to respect said request.
They also are under no obligation to provide others access to and use of their code, whether for for new mods or otherwise, but have no legal authority to prevent another person from re-implementing a feature, unless the mod author somehow procured a copyright for that particular idea, which I don't think is even possible. Depending on the nature of the idea, I could see this swinging either way in terms of how I would view either party: if the mod author created something fairly unique and didn't wish for others to copy that cool idea in their own mods, so long as the original mod was kept updated I would hope people respect those wishes; on the other hand, mods like mine that borrow heavily from content that is certainly not my own original idea, well, it would just be ridiculous to even suggest that others shouldn't be able to implement their own versions of it.
Authors who exhibit the behaviors you've described surely have no legal basis for doing so, and though that doesn't stop them from making such demands, it does prevent them from pursuing legal action against anyone who does not cater to their whims. As for malicious content / interfering with Minecraft, I think that has been pretty clearly stated that it is entirely unacceptable and in violation of the EULA, to say the least.
These are just my personal views on the matter, of course, and should not be construed as an attempt to speak authoritatively on anyone's behalf other than my own. Time for that beer...
EDIT: To the post above me, though I am no authority on the matter, the answer to all of your points should most certainly be a resounding 'no', though I am unsure about restricting where the mod may be obtained from (certainly should not force ad.fly links as the only download). However, mod authors do have the right to respectfully request that users only use their mod in a certain way, though the user is under no legal obligation to respect said request.
They also are under no obligation to provide others access to and use of their code, whether for for new mods or otherwise, but have no legal authority to prevent another person from re-implementing a feature, unless the mod author somehow procured a copyright for that particular idea, which I don't think is even possible. Depending on the nature of the idea, I could see this swinging either way in terms of how I would view either party: if the mod author created something fairly unique and didn't wish for others to copy that cool idea in their own mods, so long as the original mod was kept updated I would hope people respect those wishes; on the other hand, mods like mine that borrow heavily from content that is certainly not my own original idea, well, it would just be ridiculous to even suggest that others shouldn't be able to implement their own versions of it.
Authors who exhibit the behaviors you've described surely have no legal basis for doing so, and though that doesn't stop them from making such demands, it does prevent them from pursuing legal action against anyone who does not cater to their whims. As for malicious content / interfering with Minecraft, I think that has been pretty clearly stated that it is entirely unacceptable and in violation of the EULA, to say the least.
These are just my personal views on the matter, of course, and should not be construed as an attempt to speak authoritatively on anyone's behalf other than my own. Time for that beer...
That's why I'm asking for an official response. I've been arguing that they've said No to those questions this whole thread and yet the ones arguing against me are now claiming they're backed up by Marc and I'm wrong.
Frankly I know the legalities and what the answers are in an actual court of law, I just want to hear the "word from on high."
I have no problems waiting till they've had a chance to make an official declaration. I just want to make sure it covers those points with no ambiguity.
May I please get a clarification of this clarification of your clarification of a clarification?
Are modders allowed to:
1: Dictate where users are allowed to obtain their mod from, including force an adfly download?
2: Dictate who can and cannot use their mod via various forms of digital rights management (DRM) code?
3: Collect information on users by having their mods check in with a certral server, ranging from a simple "check this file online for an updated list" that by default will log IP addresses to recording MC user names?
4: Dictate which mods can and cannot be used in an install alongside their mod?
5: Interfere with the function of minecraft and/or the users computer based on install directory or logged in user?
6: Dictate who can and cannot re-implement features present in their existing mod in a new mod?
Is there any modder who would agree to sue me if I put out a modpack containing their "copyrighted" content? I could also claim the work as my own and require the use of Adfly if you believe it would help your case.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
Is there any modder who would agree to sue me if I put out a modpack containing their "copyrighted" content? I could also claim the work as my own and require the use of Adfly if you believe it would help your case.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
Is there any modder who would agree to sue me if I put out a modpack containing their "copyrighted" content? I could also claim the work as my own and require the use of Adfly if you believe it would help your case.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
If such a suit were taken, it would only be a binding precedent in the jurisdiction of that court - judicial decisions in America cannot bind courts in NZ, for example. As such, there is really no point, as not all modders etc live in a single country.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Angels are bright, though the brightest fell. Though all things foul would wear the brows of grace; Still grace must look so.
And by the way; Who is John Galt?
If such a suit were taken, it would only be a binding precedent in the jurisdiction of that court - judicial decisions in America cannot bind courts in NZ, for example. As such, there is really no point, as not all modders etc live in a single country.
That only makes these debates even more meaningless.
Is there any modder who would agree to sue me if I put out a modpack containing their "copyrighted" content? I could also claim the work as my own and require the use of Adfly if you believe it would help your case.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
CJ of railcraft fame has issued at least one DMCA claim. I also believe SirSengir, creator of Forestry, and FlowerChild, Better than Wolves, have both threatened legal action in the past against that sort of thing.
While it's great to have a court case to reference in these kinds of threads, and as passionate as some people get, I don't think any modder would care enough to serve you court papers even if you ripped them off wholesale. I actually don't think they can even sue for anything since damages would equate to fractions of pennies; at the most you're just looking at getting whatever hosting page taken down.
There aren't any guidelines or material. We don't have a script to read from. I have the EULA like you guys do, and I can always send an email to someone if I have a question. I answered a question based on my knowledge, and Grum has now said that I was incorrect and "content" may not cover mods. I defer to him on this, and apologize if I've upset anyone.
I would also like to add that the questions have come in fast and furious, and while I've answered a number of things correctly, the issue became so convoluted that it almost immediately became difficult to track. There is clearly a history of baggage and drama, and almost anything will set off a flurry of related and unrelated arguments, some that people have been having for years. I've even got modders telling me that people are using my words incorrectly, for their own agendas. So, at this point, if someone has a question about the EULA, they can email support. If we don't have a definitive answer, we'll pass the email along. I want to be as precise as possible, and Twitter (and in many cases, MCF) is not the most appropriate means for this.
Marc, thanks so much for having the balls to step up and admit at the end of the day you're human, you made a good faith effort and you make mistakes like the rest of us. Also having the balls to jump in on such a difficult issue (since this is a topic akin to religion & politics). These are things I see less and less of in the workplace as the years go by so it's something I need to comment on when I see it (unlike the rest of us, this is Marc's day-job).
For the rest of us. Yes US. Community. Myself included. There are people (modders and users) on both sides of this that just disgust me.
The "crybaby" parlour side (going to quote my old friend Wyre). Get over yourselves. Sorry to break it to you, but your mod isn't a piece of art. It isn't sacred. It's a mod. If you are putting a lot of yourself into modding because you love it and you want to share what you made great. If you feel that you are putting so much of yourself into this that everyone owes you more than a thank you, then maybe you need to re-access your priorities. If you feel like everyone puts too much pressure on you then maybe you should open the source and get some help so others in the community can pick up some slack. If you really just must have total control and ownership and you lie awake at night thinking of ways to dictate how others can use your mod then maybe you should just keep your mod to yourself, but don't think you own the idea and noone else can go code their own mod that does exactly what yours does, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Sad truth, but none of us are irreplaceable.
To the cathedral side. Really the modmakers don't owe you (or me) anything. There is nothing wrong with talking to people, trying to get them to change their mind, but some people you just need to walk away from. Are there really any mods that you MUST have that there isn't an equivilant made by someone who isn't a douchebag? Just walk away. I simply will not use mods by certain authors. While there are some unique mods that I would like to use, I am not going to be held hostage by programmers with Napoleon complexes. Do I respect their creativity? Yes. Their programming skills? Absolutely. Which bottom line is why I am not going to trust any of their software. The fanbois who stand behind the modders who think 2 wrongs make a right and actually encourage this sort of behavior make it only more likely that not only will said modder do this again, but that more and more will jump on the bandwagon.
I didn't want to name names, but let's face it, had everyone shunned Forestry when Sengir pulled his first cute little stunt, we wouldn't be where we are today. Maybe Sengir's attitude would have changed, maybe he would have just taken his ball and gone home. Too many people were afraid he was going to take his ball and go home.
Incidentaly, I never would have even heard of Forestry or probably tried it if it weren't for Technic (and this is not to say that I didn't greatly enjoy Forestry back in the day, but I haven't used it since). I keep and update my own list of mods, I don't need Technic or FTB to do it for me and I wasn't affected by the worldwipe, but I still from time to time check out packs and lists by people like Fuzzie to see new things I may want to try. So if you think these "evil" packmakers didn't help get your mod get as popular as it did, think again.
The people who think this isn't so bad, it is out of hand enough that Mojang employees need to get involved, how much worse does it need to get before we all admit it's a big problem? Law suits? Jail time?
Yeah, I started rambling and ranting. That's my (not so) humble opinion. Apologies to Sengir for singling him out. It frustrates me a lot, because I can think of a lot of great things that Sengir (and some others who I am not going to name, but face it everyone who has any familiarity with the history of this whole thing knows who the names of the people involved are...you've all got your 15 minutes of (internet) fame...for your stripper-name , super-hero identity , alter-ego - hope you enjoy it) has done for the community...many modders can share stories of how Sengir (and others) have helped them out. It's a shame that so many peoples egos get out of hand.
Getting off my soapbox. And no, I'm not perfect by any means, and I have my biases.
Seriously though, can't we all just try to be decent to each other and have some fun? Didn't we all get into this for fun?
Thank you for not only doing your best to clarify issues to the best of your knowledge, but also for continuing to display such patience with everyone's questions. I can see why you hold the position you do.
Now let's all sit back, enjoy a beer or three, and most importantly of all, despite whatever legal rights one may or may not have with respect to someone else or someone else's work, let's follow Mojang's lead and just not be jerks about it.
Glad to see someone else give kudos to Marc. Actually that was really all I wanted to do before I started venting.
CJ of railcraft fame has issued at least one DMCA claim. I also believe SirSengir, creator of Forestry, and FlowerChild, Better than Wolves, have both threatened legal action in the past against that sort of thing.
You don't seem to get it. I am asking them to not only issue me a DMCA claim, but also take me to court when I refuse to comply with it. Their threats of legal action are exactly what I am challenging. They have no legal basis - a claim I intend to prove if someone takes me up on my offer.
May I please get a clarification of this clarification of your clarification of a clarification?
Are modders allowed to:
1: Dictate where users are allowed to obtain their mod from, including force an adfly download?
Yes
2: Dictate who can and cannot use their mod via various forms of digital rights management (DRM) code?
No
3: Collect information on users by having their mods check in with a certral server, ranging from a simple "check this file online for an updated list" that by default will log IP addresses to recording MC user names?
Check for updates and such? I'm thinking yes, but the rest of the question - no
4: Dictate which mods can and cannot be used in an install alongside their mod?
No
5: Interfere with the function of minecraft and/or the users computer based on install directory or logged in user?
No
6: Dictate who can and cannot re-implement features present in their existing mod in a new mod?
If it breaks their IP and copyright, then of course yes.
Apart from point 1 and 6, this is all just my opinion.
As I've stated, I am only really interested in how Mojang plans to address the conflicts in the community that have, at times, resulted in questionable behavior. I am glad that Mojang has confirmed that they will be fully addressing such things as malicious code in an official way sometime in the future. I have no personal stakes in this outside how it affects my day to day life, any argument outside of holding accountability for people's actions against others really doesn't matter to me: be it arguments about mod developer's rights, rights of those using fair use in regards to software derivative works or the rights to those making packs (though I have been on quote discussing such things in the past, because everyone wants to be an armchair lawyer and there is a fair amount of bickering about equal footing in terms of rights backed by law, but again, this is neither here nor there and was not my concern at this time). I apologize if I came off as pushing a separate agenda, but this is why I was being so strict when I was being asked if I supported a "purge", I do not want to get caught up in ideology which could at any time explode into something I wish to not be part of. My opinions and reasoning are of my own, I am a very argumentative person and strongly opinionated. I do not share some "fantasy land" view on modding, I just want people to be accountable if they choose to attack another person, because in the past no one has been held accountable for their actions and there are those who say that they should not be held accountable and should instead be praised for attacking someone else. And to further iterate before someone calls me out on something like "what about the actions of users", I feel that everyone should be accountable for their actions.
I will officially say that I apologize to Marc if I have taken any of his words out of context and I apologize for any heated discussions I may or may not have started. I will however point that at that time I was going off of what information was provided to me by a representative of Mojang. Since having talked briefly with Grum and Marc has come out as well and admitted that he made a mistake, I have dropped the discussion, mistakes were made, but we are all human after all. Those who have seen me talk at great lengths about Minecraft know that I am a staunch supporter of whatever Mojang decides to do, either through things like their EULA or patches to the game, even if I do not agree with what they do, I support their decision to do so, it is their game after all.
Accountability within the community I think is a good thing to push for, I am glad to see Mojang is going to be addressing it, and I would like to see Mojang give official answers to the questions Nekowulf has asked, however I feel that we might have to wait for the next iteration of the EULA to get these answers. The only personal stake in this situation I can think of is the impact it has on my personal life as I am the "go to computer guy" in the family and lack of accountability has caused issues for my cousins and nieces who play modded Minecraft as well as impacted my real life job, but that is another topic entirely (I do PC repairs and the amount of malware I clean on a monthly basis that can be linked back to adfly is horrendous, great for the companies' profits, bad for the end user, but again, that is another discussion all together).
Again, apologies. For the time being I am going to step out of the discussion as I feel there is nothing left to discuss on this matter until further information is released by Mojang, though I may comment from time to time to express an opinion or to defend myself if people try to quote me from before Mojang stepped forward and issued their clarification.
--
Stratagerm, I am reading your blog and I am requesting that you make a side notation on your page regarding "Purges". As I am being quoted a lot on that page and tied into the idea of a "Purge", I'd like you to clarify that my own words and opinions are separate are of my own and I do not subscribe to any "cause". While you do not explicitly state that I do, the wording you use is a tad vague and the last thing I need is people using the multiple links to my various accounts to yell at something I never said I was part of.
Mostly it is these two lines that follow you talking about my discussion with Grum that I do not agree with and feel that are tying me to a cause I am not part of.
"Thus it's much more understandable how these folks could wander so far off into fantasyland regarding Mojang's mod policy. They were misinformed.
This doesn't excuse anyone who supported the idea of purging modders from the community, however. "
The only thing I wish for is that people be held accountable for their actions, on both sides. If people decide to leave the community because they do not wish to be held accountable for their actions, then that is their decision. That is as close to any agreement with anything I will get.
May I please get a clarification of this clarification of your clarification of a clarification?
Are modders allowed to:
1: Dictate where users are allowed to obtain their mod from, including force an adfly download?
That's what Copyright is, the right to control distribution.
2: Dictate who can and cannot use their mod via various forms of digital rights management (DRM) code?
Use? No. Redistribute or modify? Yes. Copyright only grants the right to control distribution, not use.
3: Collect information on users by having their mods check in with a certral server, ranging from a simple "check this file online for an updated list" that by default will log IP addresses to recording MC user names?
I'm sorry, what? Is that a conspiracy theory?
4: Dictate which mods can and cannot be used in an install alongside their mod?
There will be incompatible mods, for both technical and ideological reasons. Its not a "right", its a "fact". Pretending you can wave a magic wand and fix that is silly. For example, Railcraft frequently dictates which version of Forge you must have to a run specific version of Railcraft (can be for either technical or ideological reasons). Its no different from ExtraBees dictating that Forestry must be installed to run (technical). Or yes, even that TCon and Gregtech cannot be run together (both technical and ideological). You can't ban one example and allow the others.
5: Interfere with the function of minecraft and/or the users computer based on install directory or logged in user?
Interfering with the computer is intolerable. Deleting Minecraft (or worlds) is the same. Preventing the mod from running? Up to the modder, software terminates for any number of reasons. You can't start cherry picking specific cases and saying "bad".
6: Dictate who can and cannot re-implement features present in their existing mod in a new mod?
No, ideas are not copyrightable. Doesn't make it any less of a **** move though.
If by "your opinion" you mean copyright law, then yes - I guess it is just my opinion.
Show me a single instance of this law being enforced in the way you describe it - with regards to a mod to a computer game - and I'll concede the point. Remember, a rule means nothing if it's not being enforced.
CovertJaguar, you are part of the problem. How about that RP2 check to see if any of it was modified? What's your excuse there?
I really hope Mojang just flat out puts a stop to this nonsense and modders like you just end up leaving.
Modified binaries of popular mods were being distributed illegally. As sane responsible modders who care for our users and their data, we should want all our mods to be verified as "safe". Just look at the Google Play Store, all those apps are verified in a similar way. Though admittedly the system provided by FML is far more primitive than the Play Store. The Minecraft mod community lacks a true central repository that everyone can point and say "these mods are safe, download them from here". In that absence, less reputable elements have taken advantage of users and distributed modified binaries containing who knows what. Forgive me for caring about my users. I apologize for caring about their safety.
Note: it was not targeted at "unofficial bugfixes" they were an unfortunate casualty of preventing far less reputable code from being distributed under our names.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThank you for not only doing your best to clarify issues to the best of your knowledge, but also for continuing to display such patience with everyone's questions. I can see why you hold the position you do.
Now let's all sit back, enjoy a beer or three, and most importantly of all, despite whatever legal rights one may or may not have with respect to someone else or someone else's work, let's follow Mojang's lead and just not be jerks about it.
EDIT: To the post above me, though I am no authority on the matter, the answer to all of your points should most certainly be a resounding 'no', though I am unsure about restricting where the mod may be obtained from (certainly should not force ad.fly links as the only download). However, mod authors do have the right to respectfully request that users only use their mod in a certain way, though the user is under no legal obligation to respect said request.
They also are under no obligation to provide others access to and use of their code, whether for for new mods or otherwise, but have no legal authority to prevent another person from re-implementing a feature, unless the mod author somehow procured a copyright for that particular idea, which I don't think is even possible. Depending on the nature of the idea, I could see this swinging either way in terms of how I would view either party: if the mod author created something fairly unique and didn't wish for others to copy that cool idea in their own mods, so long as the original mod was kept updated I would hope people respect those wishes; on the other hand, mods like mine that borrow heavily from content that is certainly not my own original idea, well, it would just be ridiculous to even suggest that others shouldn't be able to implement their own versions of it.
Authors who exhibit the behaviors you've described surely have no legal basis for doing so, and though that doesn't stop them from making such demands, it does prevent them from pursuing legal action against anyone who does not cater to their whims. As for malicious content / interfering with Minecraft, I think that has been pretty clearly stated that it is entirely unacceptable and in violation of the EULA, to say the least.
These are just my personal views on the matter, of course, and should not be construed as an attempt to speak authoritatively on anyone's behalf other than my own. Time for that beer...
That's why I'm asking for an official response. I've been arguing that they've said No to those questions this whole thread and yet the ones arguing against me are now claiming they're backed up by Marc and I'm wrong.
Frankly I know the legalities and what the answers are in an actual court of law, I just want to hear the "word from on high."
I have no problems waiting till they've had a chance to make an official declaration. I just want to make sure it covers those points with no ambiguity.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
MojangI don't know, but I'll try to find out.
Thank you.
Seriously. I'm totally up for establishing some legal precedent here, but I'm not the type of person who would do that stuff for no reason at all, so I need to know if anyone is going to take me up on it. I just think these debates are ridiculous when the only real solution is to actually test the legality of these copyright clauses in a courtroom or other legal setting. (I'd still settle if it turned out I was really screwed.)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI dare you
If such a suit were taken, it would only be a binding precedent in the jurisdiction of that court - judicial decisions in America cannot bind courts in NZ, for example. As such, there is really no point, as not all modders etc live in a single country.
Angels are bright, though the brightest fell. Though all things foul would wear the brows of grace; Still grace must look so.
And by the way; Who is John Galt?
That only makes these debates even more meaningless.
CJ of railcraft fame has issued at least one DMCA claim. I also believe SirSengir, creator of Forestry, and FlowerChild, Better than Wolves, have both threatened legal action in the past against that sort of thing.
While it's great to have a court case to reference in these kinds of threads, and as passionate as some people get, I don't think any modder would care enough to serve you court papers even if you ripped them off wholesale. I actually don't think they can even sue for anything since damages would equate to fractions of pennies; at the most you're just looking at getting whatever hosting page taken down.
Marc, thanks so much for having the balls to step up and admit at the end of the day you're human, you made a good faith effort and you make mistakes like the rest of us. Also having the balls to jump in on such a difficult issue (since this is a topic akin to religion & politics). These are things I see less and less of in the workplace as the years go by so it's something I need to comment on when I see it (unlike the rest of us, this is Marc's day-job).
For the rest of us. Yes US. Community. Myself included. There are people (modders and users) on both sides of this that just disgust me.
The
"crybaby"parlour side (going to quote my old friend Wyre). Get over yourselves. Sorry to break it to you, but your mod isn't a piece of art. It isn't sacred. It's a mod. If you are putting a lot of yourself into modding because you love it and you want to share what you made great. If you feel that you are putting so much of yourself into this that everyone owes you more than a thank you, then maybe you need to re-access your priorities. If you feel like everyone puts too much pressure on you then maybe you should open the source and get some help so others in the community can pick up some slack. If you really just must have total control and ownership and you lie awake at night thinking of ways to dictate how others can use your mod then maybe you should just keep your mod to yourself, but don't think you own the idea and noone else can go code their own mod that does exactly what yours does, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Sad truth, but none of us are irreplaceable.To the cathedral side. Really the modmakers don't owe you (or me) anything. There is nothing wrong with talking to people, trying to get them to change their mind, but some people you just need to walk away from. Are there really any mods that you MUST have that there isn't an equivilant made by someone who isn't a douchebag? Just walk away. I simply will not use mods by certain authors. While there are some unique mods that I would like to use, I am not going to be held hostage by programmers with Napoleon complexes. Do I respect their creativity? Yes. Their programming skills? Absolutely. Which bottom line is why I am not going to trust any of their software. The fanbois who stand behind the modders who think 2 wrongs make a right and actually encourage this sort of behavior make it only more likely that not only will said modder do this again, but that more and more will jump on the bandwagon.
I didn't want to name names, but let's face it, had everyone shunned Forestry when Sengir pulled his first cute little stunt, we wouldn't be where we are today. Maybe Sengir's attitude would have changed, maybe he would have just taken his ball and gone home. Too many people were afraid he was going to take his ball and go home.
Incidentaly, I never would have even heard of Forestry or probably tried it if it weren't for Technic (and this is not to say that I didn't greatly enjoy Forestry back in the day, but I haven't used it since). I keep and update my own list of mods, I don't need Technic or FTB to do it for me and I wasn't affected by the worldwipe, but I still from time to time check out packs and lists by people like Fuzzie to see new things I may want to try. So if you think these "evil" packmakers didn't help get your mod get as popular as it did, think again.
The people who think this isn't so bad, it is out of hand enough that Mojang employees need to get involved, how much worse does it need to get before we all admit it's a big problem? Law suits? Jail time?
Yeah, I started rambling and ranting. That's my (not so) humble opinion. Apologies to Sengir for singling him out. It frustrates me a lot, because I can think of a lot of great things that Sengir (and some others who I am not going to name, but face it everyone who has any familiarity with the history of this whole thing knows who the names of the people involved are...you've all got your 15 minutes of (internet) fame...for your
stripper-name,super-hero identity, alter-ego - hope you enjoy it) has done for the community...many modders can share stories of how Sengir (and others) have helped them out. It's a shame that so many peoples egos get out of hand.Getting off my soapbox. And no, I'm not perfect by any means, and I have my biases.
Seriously though, can't we all just try to be decent to each other and have some fun? Didn't we all get into this for fun?
Glad to see someone else give kudos to Marc. Actually that was really all I wanted to do before I started venting.
Now about that beer....
You don't seem to get it. I am asking them to not only issue me a DMCA claim, but also take me to court when I refuse to comply with it. Their threats of legal action are exactly what I am challenging. They have no legal basis - a claim I intend to prove if someone takes me up on my offer.
Twitter: @Stratagerm
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumApart from point 1 and 6, this is all just my opinion.
Sorry, 1 and 6 are still your opinion, and wrong at that. Nice mod, by the way.
As I've stated, I am only really interested in how Mojang plans to address the conflicts in the community that have, at times, resulted in questionable behavior. I am glad that Mojang has confirmed that they will be fully addressing such things as malicious code in an official way sometime in the future. I have no personal stakes in this outside how it affects my day to day life, any argument outside of holding accountability for people's actions against others really doesn't matter to me: be it arguments about mod developer's rights, rights of those using fair use in regards to software derivative works or the rights to those making packs (though I have been on quote discussing such things in the past, because everyone wants to be an armchair lawyer and there is a fair amount of bickering about equal footing in terms of rights backed by law, but again, this is neither here nor there and was not my concern at this time). I apologize if I came off as pushing a separate agenda, but this is why I was being so strict when I was being asked if I supported a "purge", I do not want to get caught up in ideology which could at any time explode into something I wish to not be part of. My opinions and reasoning are of my own, I am a very argumentative person and strongly opinionated. I do not share some "fantasy land" view on modding, I just want people to be accountable if they choose to attack another person, because in the past no one has been held accountable for their actions and there are those who say that they should not be held accountable and should instead be praised for attacking someone else. And to further iterate before someone calls me out on something like "what about the actions of users", I feel that everyone should be accountable for their actions.
I will officially say that I apologize to Marc if I have taken any of his words out of context and I apologize for any heated discussions I may or may not have started. I will however point that at that time I was going off of what information was provided to me by a representative of Mojang. Since having talked briefly with Grum and Marc has come out as well and admitted that he made a mistake, I have dropped the discussion, mistakes were made, but we are all human after all. Those who have seen me talk at great lengths about Minecraft know that I am a staunch supporter of whatever Mojang decides to do, either through things like their EULA or patches to the game, even if I do not agree with what they do, I support their decision to do so, it is their game after all.
Accountability within the community I think is a good thing to push for, I am glad to see Mojang is going to be addressing it, and I would like to see Mojang give official answers to the questions Nekowulf has asked, however I feel that we might have to wait for the next iteration of the EULA to get these answers. The only personal stake in this situation I can think of is the impact it has on my personal life as I am the "go to computer guy" in the family and lack of accountability has caused issues for my cousins and nieces who play modded Minecraft as well as impacted my real life job, but that is another topic entirely (I do PC repairs and the amount of malware I clean on a monthly basis that can be linked back to adfly is horrendous, great for the companies' profits, bad for the end user, but again, that is another discussion all together).
Again, apologies. For the time being I am going to step out of the discussion as I feel there is nothing left to discuss on this matter until further information is released by Mojang, though I may comment from time to time to express an opinion or to defend myself if people try to quote me from before Mojang stepped forward and issued their clarification.
--
Stratagerm, I am reading your blog and I am requesting that you make a side notation on your page regarding "Purges". As I am being quoted a lot on that page and tied into the idea of a "Purge", I'd like you to clarify that my own words and opinions are separate are of my own and I do not subscribe to any "cause". While you do not explicitly state that I do, the wording you use is a tad vague and the last thing I need is people using the multiple links to my various accounts to yell at something I never said I was part of.
Mostly it is these two lines that follow you talking about my discussion with Grum that I do not agree with and feel that are tying me to a cause I am not part of.
"Thus it's much more understandable how these folks could wander so far off into fantasyland regarding Mojang's mod policy. They were misinformed.
This doesn't excuse anyone who supported the idea of purging modders from the community, however. "
The only thing I wish for is that people be held accountable for their actions, on both sides. If people decide to leave the community because they do not wish to be held accountable for their actions, then that is their decision. That is as close to any agreement with anything I will get.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIf by "your opinion" you mean copyright law, then yes - I guess it is just my opinion.
Show me a single instance of this law being enforced in the way you describe it - with regards to a mod to a computer game - and I'll concede the point. Remember, a rule means nothing if it's not being enforced.
I really hope Mojang just flat out puts a stop to this nonsense and modders like you just end up leaving.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumModified binaries of popular mods were being distributed illegally. As sane responsible modders who care for our users and their data, we should want all our mods to be verified as "safe". Just look at the Google Play Store, all those apps are verified in a similar way. Though admittedly the system provided by FML is far more primitive than the Play Store. The Minecraft mod community lacks a true central repository that everyone can point and say "these mods are safe, download them from here". In that absence, less reputable elements have taken advantage of users and distributed modified binaries containing who knows what. Forgive me for caring about my users. I apologize for caring about their safety.
Note: it was not targeted at "unofficial bugfixes" they were an unfortunate casualty of preventing far less reputable code from being distributed under our names.