Minecraft Forums

Quote from BlueSteelAU

 like its stated the licence can be something that you word yourself or a pre-drawn up kit licence or a paid for licence. so long as its states how your content can be used , distributed etc... stating what licences you acquired to use others content etc... and links to those other authors content pages , be it offsite or on site..

So it sounds like, as long as the user themselves states some sort of terms and conditions... there should be no problem, but it may not hold up as a legal license if it were to go to court?

Because if that's the case, then I think the biggest problem we're going to see here is the retroactive side of things. Since there are mods and texture packs which have been up here for ages without licensing... some of these would then fall into risk of being deleted. Especially if the author is no longer around or active or alive or anything like that, no?

Then again, with as many updates as Minecraft goes through... maybe this is a moot point, as most of those mods would be going un-updated and therefore not be playable.

Quote from BlueSteelAU

never assume anything .. it makes an ass out of you and me {little joke but true.. to lighten the mood }

Unless you're trying Proof by Induction.

Sorry, had to get a maths joke in there.

Good idea. I have amended my licenses to state that permission for use of my work is void unless it is displayed within the thread. That should make some people's job easier.

This is a common problem that pops up in these situations: people don't realize that licenses are only needed to GRANT rights, and without which all rights are reserved to the creator. Requiring creators to include licenses if they want others to be able to redistribute their work makes a lot of sense, but requiring licenses when no further rights will be granted does not.
That said, it has to be up to the artist to demand removal of stuff that infringes their copyright. It cannot be the responsibility of the forum to determine who has the rights to what in the absence of the claims of the copyright holder. That's just asking for trouble.

@BlueSteelAU

Quote from Proloe

I still don't see why we can't just have a requirement that any permissions be visible on the thread. In that case, the rules of permission are broken if they don't display the permission, regardless of whether or not they have it, and the thread can be locked until they display said permission.

I simply added to my licensing that if permission is not stated in the thread, then it is void, regardless of whether I have given it or not. Hopefully, this should mean it can be dealt with faster in a few cases.

I have no idea which admin contacted him, but I thought it was a bit extreme. Good to know that you aren't expecting as much. Granted I spend A LOT of time on the forums (6+ hours a day) but that is mainly because I am currently unemployed.

Thanks for talking things over with us. Last night (pacific standard time) made me feel better about the community.

Quote from kabonos

I feel like a lot of us have that in common.

I'm currently on my summer holidays. I'll hopefully be starting university in October.

Stop complaining about it and just protest it already. This thread is supposed to be "protest against new license policy!" but I've just seen complaining.
I propose a real protest. Nobody update their packs until it has been revised. Pulling a Dustycraft would also be good, removing the download for your pack until it's sorted out.
This could cause people to realize how stupid the new policy is and join our cause.
OR, on the flip side, it could draw people away from said pack because there is no way to get it, just move on to the next.
After thinking about it, it sounds like a bad idea, but I'm still going to just put this out there for discussion.

Quote from Darkkm2021

Stop complaining about it and just protest it already. This thread is supposed to be "protest against new license policy!" but I've just seen complaining.
I propose a real protest. Nobody update their packs until it has been revised. Pulling a Dustycraft would also be good, removing the download for your pack until it's sorted out.
This could cause people to realize how stupid the new policy is and join our cause.
OR, on the flip side, it could draw people away from said pack because there is no way to get it, just move on to the next.
After thinking about it, it sounds like a bad idea, but I'm still going to just put this out there for discussion.

This is exactly why the mods will still get deluged under a wave of ignorant reports. PEOPLE DON'T READ!

Come on. I always read back at least 7 pages before I post on a new thread. It's not that hard and it save you a lot of ridicule.

I just today found out about these rules as I'm not very active here.

I started developing a texture pack, I never offered an upload because I was using placeholders from gerudoku and couldn't get permission, so until gerudoku was TOTALLY GONE (it is now..) I wasn't going to offer it.

The only reason I used that was because the png was already the correct size.. that's it! Is this plaigerism?

So now I need to license my new pack and all my maps..

I don't think so. I've taken my maps down, and I won't be uploading my texture pack here. This is disgraceful. I'm VERY disappointed.

At this point I've given up on sharing any packs I create because of these stupid terms, I just keep it for myself!

Quote from steelfeathers

You don't have to give up entirely-- just go post on planetminecraft.com or something.

That's where I'm planning to go. I hear a lot of people are taking their work there.