Gordon

Or what about this type? I've got a photo of this on a Sexton. Is this what's known as "Rubber Standard WE210"? Gordon [ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ] [ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vader's Jester: Does anyone have a new mod!? For the love of God! DOES ANYONE HAVE A NEW MOD?!!<hr></blockquote> Actually, I've got about 40 of 'em waitin' to go. And a new release of CMMOS. Gordon

Hey Clubfoot, Don't let this BS get you down. The only result out of all the "sound and fury" for me is that I'm going to be more careful about always putting my old "standard" disclaimer which was of the "free love" as long as you ask type. That's it. The rest of it is all BS and screeching, so please hang around, it's going to be a blast. Gordon

EVERYONE Having been privy to this project as it's developed, a truly increadible amount of work and planning on Phillipe's part has gone into it. I can only hope that all the original mod authors can be found and permissions received to allow their mods to be re-packaged (not altered in any other way) for this project. Yes, in the absence of such permissions, people can still unpack and rename the files using the new CMMOS tool "BMP Munge", but I believe this could rekindle interest in a lot of "classic" mods that would otherwise have fallen by the wayside as well as allow for additional "spice" in everyone's gaming experience as your CM:BO world need never look the same again. Well, at least for the PC users. So, if you can contact any of the above authors, please help Phillipe out. Thanks, Gordon Gotta go and work on my mod licensing agreement with my attorney.

Gentlemen, Copyright is copyright, whether a work is freely distributed or paid for. Registration of such copyright is not even required, it is assumed to exist. Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: A monetary benfit??? So what? I guess I must talk to my partner - I have never seen a check Gordon, check your email<hr></blockquote> Nothing wrong with deriving a monetary benefit, after all, web sites have to be paid for, no? Now, whether you turn a profit or not, is up to you and your business model. I'll check my e-mail shortly. Gordon

Manx, I agree whole-heartedly that none of the web-masters are in any way responsible for the current mess we're in. I believe you have acted promptly and appropriately in all aspects of this unfortunate incident. I do, however, hope that we can agree to a reasonable "due diligence" procedure to protect both the web-masters, modders and user community from similar occurrances in the future. When I state that the web-masters need to act as "gate-keepers", it's simply regarding verification that certain materials relating to provenance and permissions for mods are present and displayed when a mod is posted for download. The onus to ensure that the information is correct and accurate still lies with the mod maker. I hope this clears up any confusion I might have caused. I know we don't need more confusion at this point. And I agree, this IS taking all the fun out of this, but unfortunately that's what usually happens when "lawyers" get involved. Gordon

Whoa, Wait just a minute. I've not been involved in a flame thread with anyone, including Scipio. I've been discussing his position, attempting to come up with an agreement on rules for modders to follow and for webmasters to enforce (since they are the real gate-keepers here). This community is also "responsible" for refusing to support anyone who doesn't "follow the rules" by not downloading their mods if the rules where not followed in creating them. I also better understand Scipio's concerns as there is also a monetary benefit to be received from visits to his warfare HQ web-site from advertising. Now, this is not a "flame" Scipio, but let's cut to the chase. Do you agree that the proposed disclaimers and "rules" are acceptable provided that the web-masters and community (including the modders themselves) police and enforce them and that you're willing to put your mods back up on your site or not. I'd rather get back to modding and working on CMMOS than continue re-hashing discussions on "plagarists" when I believe that particular issue has been settled. Gordon [ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

That's great. I'd hate to have to download 23 MB worth of sleeves 5 separate times because the various uniform mods were woven from different cloth. Gordon [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

Darknight_Canuck, Well, possibly, but if there are multiple feldgrau uniforms or splinter camo uniforms out there it shouldn't be a problem to distinquish them in the names. How specific to a particular uniform mod will your sleeve mods be? If there are 5 different UK uniform mods out there will we need a different version of the sleeve mod for each? Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: That assumption is correct; 2nd Battalions were Reserve battalions that stayed in Canada.<hr></blockquote> A reserve against what? An invasion of tourists from America? Wait! I know, to protect Canada from the bad American beer. Gordon [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

Ok, Since there's been no additional comment by any of the other delegates (esp. web-masters and other modders) we can now consider the articles of the Chicago Convention relative to the protection of mod author's rights or "Tick-rit-po-marr" as the distinquished Canadian delegate likes to call it, to have been accepted. Now I need to go make my current crop of 50 or so projects conforming. Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work we go ... Gordon Funny I would have thought that the final procedural move by the American delegate on the naming convention would have caused more of an uproar, especially from the French delegation, who are generally opposed to anything that smacks of American cultural hegemony. Where's the honorable Mssr. Pawbroon when you need him?

Darknight_Canuck, That's great, that's what I prefer, it was just your use of "regt #" that had me confused. Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Should I feel stupid that that went right over my head....or should I be thanking my maker? ack<hr></blockquote> You know, hair shirts, monks, penance, humble. Gordon

Ok, I'm a little slow sometimes, but I usually get there eventually. I just realized that the reason my disclaimers keep getting garbled is that I'm using angle brackets in them. D'oh! So, one more time, for clarity, the Chicago Convention's recommended disclaimers are: This mod pack is released for free unrestricted use to the CMBO community. Feel free to do anything you like to it, so long as modified versions are labelled as such, and credit given both to <YOUR NAME HERE> and any prior author(s) (In this case, <JOHN DOE, etc.> and BTS). This pack may be freely posted for downloading, but must not be charged for. This mod pack is released for free in-game use to the CMBO community. Alteration or modification to any of the files contained here-in, or posting of this mod pack for download is exressely prohibited unless prior permission is obtained. This pack was based on <MOD NAME> by <JOHN DOE and/or the BTS originals> I haven't heard any objections to this morning's proposed "Modder's code". So, let's wait until tomorrow morning (in the United States) to give the international community time to chime in, and if we have no further comment we'll consider these issues finalized (so we can get back to the fun stuff). So, that leaves us with mod archive names. Personally, I'm really concerned with the 31 character length limitation and needing to cram all that information into such a small number of characters while still having a meaningful file name, so I'm going to buck the trend and advocate for my minimalist approach (at least with respect to the file name). Here it is (drum-roll please): author_name.zip (sound of thunderous applause) Thank you, thank you very much. Now, that leaves (if I can do math) 26 characters for the author's name or initials and description of the mod (the '_' between the author and the name is mandatory). But what about all that information (I hear you cry)? :eek: That goes into the "info.txt" file. CM Mod Manager introduced the "info.txt" file (along with the "description.txt" file and I think they're perfectly suited to our needs). We need a place to put the standard disclaimer, so it can go in the "description.txt" file along with all the other human-readable information for display by CM Mod Manager (or whatever enhances it or replaces it). The "info.txt" file already supports the following fields: author=Gordon E. Molek version=1.0 and can be expanded to include these (proposed) fields: type=XXX (XXX can be "none", "CMMM" for CM Mod Manager, or "CMMOS") category=YYY (YYY can be any logical sequence (separated by commas and whitespace) of "Axis", "Commonwealth", "US & Free French", "Buildings", "Vehicles", "Terrain", etc. - complete list TBD) seasons=YYY (YYY can be any logical combination (again separated by commas and whitespace) of "Spring", "Summer", "Autumn" or "Winter" resolution="hi-res" or "low-res" or "ultra-hi-res" (you know who you are) game="cmbo" or "cmbb" series="1 of 1", "1 of X", "2 of X", etc. all of which can be easily extracted by the web masters (or they can give us modders a nice "mod submit" form where we can extract all this information for them) for display on the mod's download page. The key thing is to be consistent with your own mod's names, and if you re-issue an existing mod, use the same exact name (people are going to either want to replace your existing version with the new version, or not. In either case, having the same name doesn't hurt. Damn, I amaze myself sometimes. :cool: Gordon Michael: I actually look quite good in a hair shirt.

Man, you guys are harsh. Gordon

And a very minor response. Look's nice. Good luck getting the disclaimer written. Gordon

Ok, Quick lunch time update. Proposed standard dislaimers: This mod pack is released for free unrestricted use to the CMBO community. Feel free to do anything you like to it, so long as modified versions are labelled as such, and credit given both to <YOUR NAME HERE> and any prior author(s) (In this case, <JOHN DOE, etc.> and BTS). This pack may be freely posted for downloading, but must not be charged for. This mod pack is released for free in-game use to the CMBO community. Alteration or modification to any of the files contained here-in, or posting of this mod pack for download is exressely prohibited unless prior permission is obtained. This pack was based on <MOD NAME> by <JOHN DOE> and/or the BTS originals. Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AndrewTF: I've been doing a lot of mix-and-matching of my uniform mods and using the camo trousers with the fieldgray tunics and it looks pretty cool. So, will CMMOS allow users to swap different parts of a uniform mod like trousers and helmet covers, or will it only allow use of one complete mod at a time? Of course I only ask this out of idle curiosity as I'm a stinkin' Mac user and can't use CMMOS (yet). <hr></blockquote> Andrew, The current German uniform RuleSet that Maximus designed allows mixing and matching of helment and pants on a per-uniform basis. For instance, one uniform might have no options, while another might have 4 different helments and 2 pants options. As part of the reissue of the RuleSet, we'll want to explore making this more generalized. Regarding being a stinkin' Mac user, I guess nobody's perfect. Love your uniforms, though. Gordon

The circled star was adopted as an "allied" aerial recognition mark. Unfortunately it was still difficult for the hot shot flyboys to always see them which resulted more and more in the use of brightly colored aerial recognition panels as the war progressed. Very nice job on the mod, btw. Gordon

Ok, quickly before I have to get to work. I've decided to stab Michael in the back ("et tu Gordon?") on the issue of disclaimers. I now believe, as Marco proposed, that anything not explicitly permitted is denied. So, therefore, I would propose the following amendments to my earlier positions: 1. A disclaimer SHOULD be included in the mod's Readme file (or whatever other standardized file is decided upon) and this disclaimer SHOULD be listed by the hosting web-site along with all the other mod information. 2. In the absence of an explicit disclaimer, anyone wishing to modify/adapt/extend or enhance someone else's mod MUST make a reasonable attempt (TBD) to contact the original mod's author to obtain permission. If such attempt is unsuccessful then the new mod MUST NOT be issued. 3. If a disclaimer is present that grants permission to make any and all changes, modifications and enhancements, the original author SHOULD be contacted before publication of the new mod as a "courtesy". 4. If a disclaimer is present that specifically prohibits any and all changes, modifications and enhancements, the original author must be contacted and permission received, otherwise the new mod MUST NOT be published. (5 was dropped as it's really just an example of 4). Gordon [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

Scipio, You asked me to give you one good reason why you should stay and put up with this bull****. I'll give you several. I too derive tremendous pleasure and satisfaction from producing mods. It's a huge investment in time and energy to produce each one. However, much of the satisfaction I derive is from sharing them with the CM:BO community. Note, I say community. They say you can't pick your family but you do pick the communities you choose to associate with. CM:BO is a fabulous game, and I can't wait to see what CM:BB has in store for us. However, if I was simply playing CM:BO against the AI and not involved in modding and spending time on this board (both of which far outstrip the time I actually play the damn game), the game would be far less valuable to me. Unfortunately, as with any community there are disjoint and discordant voices heard all the time, and due to their very nature they are the proverbial "squeeky wheel" that get's heard the most. However, there are far more people who don't even bother with this anarchy we call the message boards who appreciate and admire your work. Steve and Charles have put up with far more BS on the board than any of us have had to deal with. Thank god, whatever god, that they have stuck with it and continue to do so. I have never questioned the fact that you have been "wronged" in this issue, only that your reaction has been over-wrought. If my position came off as otherwise, I apologize. Running away from trying to work towards a solution doesn't solve anything. Only you and the people who enjoy your work (myself included) are hurt. The others win, not you and I. I was also in a similar situation to yours. Recently someone came out with a mod that was very, very similar to one of mine. Was it plagarism? I don't know, and I don't care. I could have made a fuss and threatened to withdraw all my mods and leave the CM:BO community, but I figured that the people who's opinions I care about, the modders whom I respect and who treat me as an equal, even though I'm nowhere near their level, recognized the situation for what it was. Now, I'm not saying that you were wrong in your actions with regard to your situation, just trying to let you know that I understand what you're going through more than you might think. So, I'll respect whatever decision you make, and best wishes. Thanks for your contributions, Gordon

Darknight_Canuck, For the "Regt/Bn #", do you mean something like the Regts ordinal position within the Division? e.g. the 51st (Highland) Division's 5th Battalion "Black Watch" would be "_uk_51_4"? Thanks, Gordon

Scipio, I'm not arguing that you don't have a right to feel the way you do. I just did a cursory search of my mod-archive (I pretty much download everything), and I think I have several mods that are yours. A winter JgdPz IV, a winter Stug, a winter Churchill and winter Tiger. Now, of those 4, the only one that has a hint that it's yours is the winter Tiger which happens to have "Scipio" as part of the name of one of the preview images. So, where's the attribution and permission statements? How am I to know which are your mods and which are not? I'm sorry, but a statement on a web page isn't sufficient because that linkage is too easily lost once the mod is downloaded. Let's refocus on what we're trying to do, which is trying to prevent this sort of mixup and confusion in the future. So, aside from the wordiness, do you have any other concerns with the blanket disclaimers that I and Michael have proposed. Does anyone else have any issues or suggestions to improve them or alternatives to propose? Web-masters, are you guys prepared to reject a mod that doesn't have whatever documentation we agree upon here or that doesn't conform to whatever naming convention is settled upon until such time as it does? Gordon

Olle, Yes, you're right. All those variables need to be accounted for (except winter since the BMPs are separate), including "formation" (e.g. SS, Ranger, Paratrooper, commando, etc.), if you will, for lack of a better term. Gordon