Minecraft Forums

How can Mojang enforce a "Changed EULA" without actually providing that changed EULA? I heard about this on the Mindcrack subreddit but I've been just as unsuccessful locating this "Changed EULA".

They are enforcing EULA changes that are still pending. They have NOT released a changed EULA and the only information on what might be changing is in blog posts.

First I don't like being quoted as "an expert". Just for future reference.

Quote from colorfusion

The whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing was not in the original EULA, that's the point.

There was no "original EULA". the closest thing was the "Terms and Conditions" link, found on web.archive.org here. This has the text you describe.
The text in question- and the text that is brought up over and over again in this debate, is text from over ~2 years ago stating that "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."

I concede that this exists.

In fact, using the wayback machine we can even get a good estimate of when it was changed:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120319180325/http://www.minecraft.net/terms

March 19th, 2012. This has the text, "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."

April 19th, 2012. The text is now "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money."

This corresponds around the release of Minecraft 1.2.5. This change took place over two years ago.


So the real question is why it is suddenly an issue now. And even then how, necessarily, the old text would actually allow the things that are being defended/protected.

After all, The general context here- in regards to the EULA- is for Running servers. eg. Server owners can only charge their users in certain ways, and cannot give players items, equipment, or other perks that are not available to non-paying players. So yes- that original EULA allows you to sell plugins. So, if you are creating plugins or mods for Minecraft Alpha versions from a date that would cause it to fall under those Terms of Use, than yes- by all means you can sell your plugins for money. That doesn't really factor into running a server. I'll get ot the changes and how they do or do not apply over time to current versions and mods/plugins built atop those current versions in a moment.

-Donator perks are not selling plugins. What you are selling is having a few options changed in plugins. Not nearly the same thing. It's the difference between charging for a copy of a Software product and charging to change settings in that application.

So while a server owner and/or plugin developer, when acting under the terms of that older ToS (I'll revisit that momentarily) Can sell those plugins for money- installing the plugins on their server and then selling perks is not selling those plugins, so that little snippet isn't even really relevant.

We were told we could do whatever we want with our own server plugins, specifically including making money from them.

By selling them. Not by installing them on a server and charging people for the privilege of having options in that plugin changed for their benefit.

One would assume that "whatever you want" also includes giving advantages or perks to certain people. It said that they belonged to us, and we were free to do whatever.

This has some merit, I think. However at the same time I think this is almost certainly nothing more than a glaring loophole that is a result of that original Terms of Service not being written by a lawyer- and this is almost certainly what prompted a proper rewrite when Notch & Company realized that, hey, if they aren't perfectly clear in the document, That is just going to be trouble. Lawyers and legalese exist for the very purpose of making things like this clear and making all possible interpretations of the text match with the spirit of it. To me, the spirit therein is pretty obvious- and installing a plugin and then charging people who connect to your server to change a few variables in that plugin for their benefit is almost certainly in defiance of that spirit.

Moreso, however, Those Terms of Service only apply if you are applying plugins and mods to versions of the software that actually fell under those Terms of Service. A common argument about this is that, Plugin developers and/or Server administrators didn't have to agree to the new Terms of Use in the meantime, to use the software, therefore, they are still bound only to that previous agreement.


That also has some merit. But it can be picked apart. Let us start with Plugins and Mods.

Mods and plugins are derivative works. There is no escaping this. derivative works, under copyright law, need to be authorized by the original copyright owner if they are to be distributed. That is, If Mojang wants to stop, say, Thaumcraft, from every being distributed, they will win in court because the law is quite clear as to who controls what. Thankfully, they do not do this, but it does lead into my next point, which is that it is the Terms of Service that actually give developers the right to extend, modify, and distribute mods for the game. In a fictituous example, let us imagine a developer who has been making mods since before the EULA change in April 2012 and has not agreed to the changed agreement creates mods. Now, imagine they want to sell those plugins for money? Can they? this is one question (one somewhat and completely different from the one that Server Owners are raising) and is not really central to the debate.

Now, of course- I am not a lawyer, which puts me in the majority of those involved in this discussion. However, in the eyes of the law different versions of software are considered separate works. So in the case of this plugin developer, it does not stand that the pre April 2012 ToS is the only one they need to abide by, because it is in fact the responsibility of the developer to ensure the software they are building is properly licensed and following the appropriate Terms required to create that software. What this means is that a plugin developer that tries to claim ignorance on the issue of a changed EULA is irresponsible and more to the point, wrong- because, particularly in the context of derivative works, new versions constitute a new software product and when creating a derived work you need to get express permission from the original copyright owner in order to distribute and/or sell it. So while a developer could continue to create derived works/mods based on the older version(s) for which the older Terms of Service applied, they could not do the same for current versions which have a different distribution license- claiming "I didn't agree to a new set of terms" doesn't work particularly in that context because the responsibility for the legal insurances of a derived work fall squarely on the creator of that derived work.

Now, that applies to developers. A developer cannot build a derived software product for Version 1.0, then update that derived software for version 1.2 and release it without ensuring that release is expressly permitted by the original author; a ToS or other document that gives those permissions does not apply for all future versions of that product- each version has it's own ToS/EULA, and they give you the ability to create and distribute mods in the first place. The logic some have expressed about the EULA being invalid is entirely sound, as I mentioned, but the problem is that if you were to throw that out, you haven't got a leg to stand on because that was the only thing giving you the express permission to create/distribute/use those derived works in the first place.

"I don't care because I don't play on multiplayer anyway" doesn't seem like the best basis on which to be making an argument for a controversial matter.

The laws and facts are pretty clear to me on this issue. Additionally, being that I have no vested interest either way I would argue my perspective would be more unbiased. In contrast, many of those who are against the changes are Server owners. I've seen and read their arguments around the internet where I've encountered them, and I've yet to find one that doesn't clearly show that they are trying to support a conclusion that they had already decided on. That's fair enough- naturally they are going to try to support their own point of view and naturally their own point of view is going to want to maintain the current status quo where they are able to charge people for the privilege of having a few variables flipped to give their character special abilities. However the ones that I have seen have had very weak actual arguments but very strong on appeals to emotion- for example, "The EULA doesn't apply because we never agreed to the new one since it was changed- Now what are going to do for jobs, how will I buy my children christmas presents, Do I have to tell them there is no Santa" etc. (ok, hyperbole, but that is the sort of affectation common in such posts- basically, they are asserting that their livelihood and the maintenance thereof is somehow Mojangs responsibility, because they were ignorant that it was theirs. I've found such arguments, frankly, a bit pathetic.

I don't like pay to win servers, and there were a lot of them. But there were even more legitimate servers just trying to pay the costs of running a server.

This is also common. Basically, a "are you going to let a few bad apples spoil the batch".

And when it comes to law, the answer is yes. In fact that is effectively how it works- it applies to same to everybody with no exceptions. One could argue that there should be some way to allow those current "legitimate" servers to keep running. That has some additional problems:

-Who is going to ensure they are "legitimate"
-By what measures are they determined to be legitimate or illegitimate?
-What action is taken if they are found to be illegitimate?
-How often are they checked? Should servers get a license? etc.

That sort of thing. And no matter what requirements are put in place those shady individuals will find a way to make their servers apply but still be shady at their core, and the end result is even worse for those actual, well-intentioned servers, who now have to go through a certification process. And consider how such a system could be exploited- rival servers could easily make complaints about the server, or join a server and pretend to be a staff member when the "official Mojang server checker" logs in, or whatever system they have in place.

The best way to avoid a privilege from being exploited is to deny it to begin with. Sad but true.

All major servers will take a hit from the change, yet the ropey underground servers that charge $1000 for a rank will most likely continue, because there's no way that Mojang can go around investigating every server, especially whitelisted ones.

This is conjecture, and the aim is to remove the idea of gameplay perks from the general population of servers- it's not going to get them all but it's going to get rid of the large number of servers that have a few plugins and "charge" you to do things such as build, claim areas of land, open chests, etc. And what you are effectively paying for is to have your permissions flags changed for your player. That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of goods and services, At least not IMO. The servers that are less accessible to any official checking are going to be less accessible to players as well.

Again, the EULA used to allow this. They didn't base their jobs off of "ignorance of copyright law", they tried to set up a sustainable server for the community in a way that was allowed at the time, and could now end up in debt because Mojang changed their EULA overnight.

A significant minority of servers active today have remained unchanged since April 2012. I would surmise perhaps a handful. The majority of servers active today that have things such as donation benefits, perks, etc. Are typically very young. This also kinda raises the issue- I covered how the ToS/EULA affects developers- and how developers are responsible for ensuring their software as a derived work is properly licensed lest they fact litigation, but how does this apply to Server owners.

Well, from where I'm standing, it could be argued that the EULA is not even for Server owners. It is, after all, in the name- "End User". A Server administrator is not necessarily an End-User, that would, instead, be the Clients connecting. What this means is that Server administrators are not End Users, but instead, they are Brokers, and the software they are Brokering is a Minecraft server or a piece of software derived from a Minecraft Server. A Broker, legally, is responsible for providing a service or merchandise from one party (in this case, the Developers of the plugins) to another (in this case, the end users). It is also their responsibility to ensure everything is above-board. This includes ensuring that any and all users are aware of the EULA, that the software developers are aware of the EULA of the software that they built (well, that is more on them than any brokerage after the fact), and most importantly, a broker cannot add stipulations.

What this means is that, say, a plugin developer creates a plugin that allows a player to teleport. They code the plugin in a configurable manner to use Permissions. Alright.

A Server owner then uses that software and installs it on their server.

Their "Clients" are people connecting to the server. The "Brokerage" is allowing people to use that Plugin and Minecraft itself, while, to the best of their ability, demonstrating that they can ensure the End Users understand the stipulations of the software they are using.

Where this falls apart is that a broker is usually a middleman.

Where we have a standard broker setup:

Manufacturer->Broker->End User

The End User might pay the Broker some amount of money, the Broker takes 10% off of that as a commission and the rest goes to the Manufacturer.

When it comes to servers, There are a lot of servers that use Open Source plugins and reap a mometary profit off of it- they are not really brokers, instead they would, in true Linux fashion, market themselves as "support professionals" they aren't responsible for the software, just making sure it works for you. That is usually how Open Source profitability works so I guess that would make sense.

Other servers will work more similarly to the broker-deal, with the server admin basically delegating tasks such as plugin development or whatever else they want to others.

"old old" was not 2011, the "original" EULA was from 2009. It said you could do whatever you want including selling them for money. Not "all you can do with plugins is sell them for money". As I said further up, "whatever you want" really allows pretty much anything, especially when it has been clarified that commercial things are fine too.

Yes that is why they changed it. As I mentioned the change occured between March 16th and April 16th in 2012. They were not EULAs, but Terms of Service. (Which can also apply as the former for the purpose of disclosing rights for the creation of derivative works).

Good point; if you aren't under any EULA, you don't really have a right to the software.

However people had agreed to a EULA, the old one. It allows full access to all "features of all future versions", so people did have the right to do what they are doing.

I cannot find that. "Features of all future versions" is not in any of the EULA's/ToS's I was able to read via web.archive.org. Of additional note is this passage, in the ToS/EULA from Nov 28th 2011 (probably going back earlier also):

We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect.

What this means is that in agreeing to this agreement you also agree that it is now your responsibility to ensure you are aware of the latest changes and that you essentially agree to be bound to the terms of any future EULA as long as you use the software.

Contracts often have this sort of verbiage- ironically, it is to prevent people from exploiting loopholes in earlier, more lax versions of an agreement in order to get away with something with a more recent version- practically what we are looking at here.

To add on to this, since that is in fact in the older agreement (going back at least to 2011, at least, possibly older) that means that even according to the standard logic, the entire house of cards comes down.

That is, if you agreed to that version of the EULA, you also agreed to the retroactive effect and that you were responsible for being made aware and abiding by any changes. So ignorance of changes in later versions on the presumption that "I never agreed to those changes" is already cut off- you need to be aware of changes made that affect you and either agree to the new terms or terminate your use of the software.

I Can't help find the response to this both hilarious as well as disheartening.

Now my first response was that "hmm, that's a fairly silly thing to post as Minecraft news. No biggie, it's a pretty cool game and it's not surprising that games inspired by Minecraft might be mentioned here, like with Terraria".

But reading the responses- holy crap. I can't believe the sheer ignorance and lack of cohesive arguments that people come up with- "It's minecraft forums so it should only be about minecraft". Even a "Minecraft News" item doesn't have that rule. The news has to be Minecraft related, and this is Minecraft related because Cube World is inspired by Minecraft. The reason it is provided as a news item here is because it's likely that players of Minecraft may like the game.

Quote from X_angelz_X

Just saying, this is not the place whatsoever for this post at all

I don't know when you became able to decide what belongs here and what doesn't. You can always start your own website devoted to Minecraft; with an Iron Fist you can make sure all content is related to Minecraft.

nor is it any right to go out and make a Wiki on the Curse Website when curse has no affiliation whatsoever with CubeWorld

You don't need to have permission to create content about a game. Anybody can do it.

the only place which currently has affiliation with it is the CubeWorldForum.

What is your point? If you want news about Microsoft, do you have to go to Microsoft.com? Do news websites not have "affiliation" with Microsoft and therefore are they not allowed to write anything about it? No, of course not. The advantage of a wiki or other resource that isn't directly affiliated with the game is that they have no need to suck up to the creators. Criticisms can be unabashed. On the other hand, of course, it also means that they will be less likely to learn more about upcoming features through direct dev communication.

The reason why I am making a big deal about this is because, I come here to view Minecraft and Mojang news, not Picroma news!

Following your very own argument, this site should not have Mojang news either.

Well, it's a completely different aspect as for it was colbat, something owned by the same company as Minecraft. | Mojang

That doesn't mean it's different. Cobalt is published by Mojang, but the affiliation ends there. It's also a much different game from Minecraft than Cubeworld is. The chances of a given Minecraft player enjoying Cobalt is less, simply because it's really a completely different game.

CubeWorld is not owned by Mojang and never will be. It is its own Company and perspective, a competitor with Minecraft.

Games are not mutually exclusive and therefore "competition" is hardly the appropriate term. Thankfully, the vendors of both games (Mojang and Picroma) are more enlightened and have had pleasant discourse through twitter and other channels. (Wolfram is even giving all Mojang employees a free copy of the game, to my understanding). I think not mentioning the game would be worse; "Here is this game similar to Minecraft, let's cover it up and not tell anybody because it's our 'competition'. Being open about similar games and what they do differently is better than pretending they don't exist.

CubeWorld is not apart of mojang in anyway whatsoever. Nor is Wollay working for Mojang or minecraft whatsoever, before posting, get your facts straight, he declined the job back in 2012 because he wanted to stay independent because he knew what he had was a work of art that can and probably will be as big or bigger than Minecraft

Indeed. However what you are asking the MC Forums to do is effectively sensor non MC related content. That never ends well because it creates an environment that eventually degrades to not only not allowing non Minecraft content, but disallowing all non MC-related discourse, and eventually disallowing any discourse negative to Minecraft at all.

Quote from nerdboy64

Using the same saddle for pigs and horses? That makes sense. Removing the recipe? Not so much. Perhaps it was a little cheap for what it did, but having it only available in dungeons is silly.

Dungeons are no less renewable than Ores.

Horses, on the other hand, would have become an integral part of the game. No reasonably advanced player would even think of traveling long distances without one, and new players would strive to get one.

This seems a bit presumptuous. I don't think it will change much, overall. I somewhat prefer having there be loot in dungeons that is exclusive to dungeons again. I guess the only issue is if you have Generate Structures off then you can never control a horse now.

Quote from 5thHorseman

So how do the snow heights work? I just generated a new world, went to a snow biome, and all the snow was normal. I then did /toggledownfall and let it snow for a bit, and the snow on the ground still looks the same.

It's not a weather feature (yet, assuming it might be added).

You can craft snow layers by placing three snow blocks at the bottom of a crafting bench, much like most other slabs. Putting the snow down will place it normally, unless you place it on top of other snow, in which case it will "add" on top of that snow.

Quote from gonetominesomediamonds

Rename what to what?Itis a.zip file, changingit to .jar won't change the purpose.

It is not a zip file. You just have a program installed that identifies it as a archive. Many Archive tools associate themselves with the .jar extension.

Additionally, a .jar file <IS> a zip file, so your argument is invalid.

Quote from InfiniteNexus

so what exactly are the bugs they fixed, and what bugs are still in? like is the flickering minecarts still there and is the fps still lower compared to 1.4.2. Im still in 1.4.2 because of those 2 particular bugs in general

The Minecart movement as well as the Falling Block entity movement is now interpolated again. Never noticed a framerate drop so can't say whether it will be fixed for you if you encountered one.

Quote from XxTheRealKILLshOt1337xX

Rather than adding in things likefireworks, Mojang should fix the lighting glitches, chunk loading, and the Mod API they always seem to postpone.

They are doing all those things.

Quote from Chipmunk9998

I'm fairly certain it's free to make mods, and I think MCP will stick around for a bit since the API isn't supporting client mods just yet...

If memory serves they specifically said in the panel that mods like the minimap would be possible in the game. The specific question was something like

"Will you ever add functionality like Rei's Minimap directly into the game"

"No, but you could get a mod for that".

Oddly there seems to be confusion even in the initial post that summarizes the panel (I might be the one that is confused, though, in fact that's probably more likely, but I haven't been able to interpret the panel as saying client side mods would be impossible)... If you can stand people asking really stupid questions*, it's a good idea to give it a go if you are interested in details. I don't remember anything specific that said there would be no way to have Client-side modifications. Obviously they would be necessary since mods will be adding blocks and textures and whatnot, so they are going to have client-side assets.

On a side note, the panel was actually HILARIOUS... when people ask a dumb question you can see Dinnerbone looking off into space with a neutral smile, going to his happy place and mentally stabbing the people who constantly asked questions like "are you adding new mobs" or "Are you adding smoothstone slabs"


*Seriously... who goes to the convention to a game, get's a chance to ask the developers a question, and then asks "How long has this game been around"? An idiot, that's who.

Excellent. Torch bug seems to be fixed for me now :D.


As for people saying "OMG soo many releases"...

This isn't a release. It's a pre-release. If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be using the pre-release, let alone complaining about it.

Quote from ClutchHunter

All these updates for bugs really annoy me tbh. I appreciate the bug-quashing but I don't think there's really any need to segregate(not the right word) the updates like this. Just makes mod updating and such a pain in the ass.

The entire POINT of the prerelease is to make it easier for mod makers to make their mod work for that version before the update becomes official.

if you want your mods to keep working, Don't use a flipping pre-release. I really fail to understand the mentality of people that download pre-release software intended partly for mod authors and then complain about the mod situation. of course some of them might not work. it's a pre-release, intended to make it so mod authors can be ready for the actual release.

Compare to previous when nobody really had any idea when an update was coming out. One day there was an update and that was that. And then most people updated and the mods were broken because that day of the update was the first day they were ever able to even try to update their mods.

Quote from XinwxHleak

Couldn't they just "mod" the game, and have it auto-apply the fix "mod"? Seems redundant to change it so often, even though Minecraft Coder Pack can decrypt it seemingly easily.

An update is a modification to the game. It's just that other modifications are more heavily dependent on them. Also there is the issue of mods that change base classes, none of which work with one another anymore than they work on more recent versions of minecraft that have changes to those base classes.

I'm glad they are fixing bugs, but it sucks because the server I play doesn't update unless there's a recommended bukkit build or stable or whatever.

? I don't see the problem. I have a local 1.4.4 bukkit server for testing my plugin and the main server I play is 1.4.2 because the owner prefers to wait until a build is at LEAST in beta (rather than a dev build) before using it on the server. I've had no problems switching back and forth.

Quote from LordFokas

I'd rather have Mojang enhance Minecrafts engine, such as creating support for colored lights (and I mean really colored lights, not that half-assed thing Notch put there in 1.8) and moving lights (like a move-able light emitting entity) and leave modding to modders.

AFAIK coloured lights are supported in the engine, they just aren't used much beyond tinging certain kinds of light.

Minecraft Forge is already THE Modding API,

De facto. Not De juere.

and there's no way Mojang will ever develop an API as good as Forge both because Forge already has a lot of time in advance, and because of the coding skills gap between them.

That's just plain dumb .

Anyone who sets up MCP and compares Mojang's code vs Forge's notices the difference.

MCP is not Mojang's code. All you are comparing is the code of the people who work on the MCP and Forge.

In the end, all you'll end up doing is load Minecraft with more code, that besides not being used by most people (seriously, you can't expect a first release to beat Forge's history, and modders to just move from Forge to MC API just because it's new and ''official''), will be slowing the game down even more, which will affect low-end machine users.

Only code that is executed has an effect on speed.

Also, you'll just be wasting a release to give players something they already have, or give them a worse version of it

Not all mods can be implemented using Forge's API. Another important point is they aren't giving players something they already have, because NOT EVERY PLAYER USES MODS. This is something I find people who are always using mods just don't understand; they assume I know things about tekkit, and technic, and when I tell them I don't play with mods, it's like they've met a ghost. They make handwavey generalizations that "everybody uses mods" based on a sample size of one- themselves.

while doing what you've been doing since Beta 1.7: Waste a release to implement something that has already been done in a Mod, but buggier.

Here's my opinion on Mods: ­ them. If every single Minecraft mod dissappeared off the face of the Earth, I wouldn't give two ­s. In fact, things would be better overall because you'd have fewer amateur programmer ­s pretending they have "leet skillz" because they don't understand that deobfuscated code does not in any way represent the source from which it was created. Another important point: Forge is a mod, in and of itself. And as a result, it could be rearchitected with the release of the official API to be something of an "adapter" between forge mods and the official API. With the advantage that all Forge mods would then work in future versions (as long as the API didn't have a breaking change). Same applies to other mods for mods, such as modloader; by rewriting those base mods to work with the new API, all the mods that use it suddenly because "API Compliant" as well, and work in future versions on their own.

That is, there is a definite benefit regardless of whether you believe Forge is an actual API rather than an API modded into the game (which is what it is).

1.7: Pistons, already existed

A lot of things added to the game existed as mods before. The difference is that mods are by definition disgusting hacks, overriding and changing base class behaviour to achieve the desired results in what can only be described as a set of kludges that turn your Minecraft install into an even bigger rube-goldberg machine.

1.8: Villages, it's 1.3.2 and Millenaire's are still better

Yes, but the ones in Vanilla don't freeze my game like Millenaire's did. Was that bug fixed? How long did that take? I know it took at least three minecraft versions before it was even acknowledged as existing, and even then they tried to blame the "architecture" of the game. In the meantime, I basically wasted about three weeks playing a dead-end world that would eventually become unplayable.

1.9: enchantments: been done before... 1.2: jungles, cats: more biomes and more creatures? where have I seen that before?)

Never played a mod that had enchantments, in fact never even heard of one. Mo ' Creatures cat implementation takes it to an extreme, IMO. I mean, really, I don't like cleaning cat Litter in real life, why the ­ would I want to do it in a game? What's next, you need to housebreak the ­ing things? But I digress.

Also remember that not everyone wants an RPG.

You should remember that not every player likes Mods, either. As far as an RPG, it has no story or background- right now all it has is an end that isn't really "the end" of sorts. So, no, you don't play the role of a character in a story. I've always hated people equating things like leveling and magic with Role Playing Games, because the two are completely disparate concepts.

Minecraft gained popularity as a Sandbox game.

Says you.

If players want RPG features, more animals, more biomes, machines, there are mods that do that.

Wouldn't this argument have worked equally well right when Notch first had "cave test" ready. "Oh, I'm too lazy to actually add anything, but the game is done. If you want torches, caves, grass, farming, slabs, furnaces, crafting tables, item chests, bows, and so forth, I'm sure you can just write some code that rewrites some of my base classes in weird ways to get it done." So the question is, is that reducing the argument to the absurd? I don't think so.

Having those 'optional' features being there by default isn't as optional as it could, mainly on SMP (the fun part of MC)

Opinion.

You should just focus on making the game run on less CPU cost, and probably move some rendering stuff to the graphics card. Maybe use a greater version of OpenGL? with 1.1 it can run on machines from the late 90's, but no machine from that time has the CPU power to run this game, so it kind of defeats the purpose...

You obviously are misinformed about what different OpenGL Versions actually mean. All it means is that the graphics card supports certain features. If a game/software doesn't need those features, requiring that version has no advantage or meaning. Besides, when they tried to move to 1.3 for the multitexturing capability people threw a fit because some Intel chips didn't like it. (or something, I forget the specifics).

Quote from fsjd150

and silk touch on ores just makes you waste coal

Silk touch on ores is extremely useful in conjunction with a separate fortune pick, as well as for redstone, lapis, and glowstone, because it saves inventory space.

shame i lost my uber max eff, fortune, unbreaking pick.

I still have a Efficiency V pick back from when it was possible. It's almost used up, but with the upcoming addition I should be able to breathe new life into it.

Quote from Cr4ckerJ4ck

I think there will be a limit to how many times you can repair something... If there wasn't people could just repair their almost broken silk touch with a normal pick and get a brand new silk which is pretty overpowered.

repairing consumes both another item of the same type as WELL as more levels. In the example, it uses 46 levels. Not OP at all IMO. If somebody wants to keep an enchantment enough, they can, but they have to sacrifice a (presumably new) tool as well as quite a few enchantment levels.

Quote from OriginOFPain

While this update might be valuable to you, keep in mind that there are others who see that this 'update' is too lacking to be called as such. I for one have never experienced this falling out of the Nether out of the 2 dozen or more times that I've been there. I would know, since set up a zombie pigman farm to collect gold. I might have been just lucky, however.

It is called 1.3.1, not 1.4. These changes are not inconsistent with the earlier minor patches (1.2.5 vs 1.2.4, 1.5_01, etc.).

Quote from XxBoonexX

i wish they didn't rush 1.3.1 so this just would have been in it. having updates so close to eachother sucks.

Prereleases are not Updates...

Quote from CoFFiN_6

What if Minecraft asked $1 for snapshots to be downloaded and then use that money to hire 20 more programmers . No more waiting so long! (Mojang don't really ask for $1)

If they added more developers the updates would take far longer.

Quote from madcroctheoneminer92

There is NO editable books YET.

Signs are editable on a line by line basis.
Books are editable on a page-by-page basis.

character-by-character editing would be much preferred, of course- for both signs and books.