Gordon

Scipio, I'm trying to maintain a neutral position on all of this. This whole discussion was sparked to deal with the situation you found yourself in and to try to ensure that you and others won't be put in a similar situation. Now, accusing someone of being a plagarist, when as far as I can tell, plagarism is most definitely not what happened here, and especially someone who does not have access to the message boards is hardly constructive dialog leading towards a solution. I will agree that the name of the mod was an unfortunate selection, and might lead to misunderstanding the origin of the graphics contained therein, but there was clear and precise documentation on the origins of every mod included. We all understand that you have a gripe here, and we're trying to work things out. Gordon [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

Scipio, That's not adequate because "everything" is not prohibited. You're not prohibiting anyone from downloading and using your mod, for example, and as Michael pointed out, you can't forbid anyone from doing whatever they please with your mod as long as they keep it to themselves. Michael, Ok, how about "The Chicago Convention relative to the protection of mod author's rights". Your rewording is as acceptable to me as my original, although I see I mangled the attribution section and yours is missing a complete attribution. I really think maintaining the "provenance", so to speak, of a mod is very important. Gordon

Since this will quickly degenerate into nitty-gritty mods specifics, at bfamily33's suggestion, I think it's probably a good idea to split this dicussion off from the original "Mod reuse etiquette" thread. So, first, let me plead ignorance of the state of most of the uniform mods. I've been so involved in armor modding that I've seldom had the time to become familiar with the uniform mods. Which probably make me perfect for the job of trying to create a pair of uniform RuleSets that encompass all the choice out there, without discriminating against anyone. So, here's the plan. I'd like to create one CMMOS RuleSet for German uniforms and one CMMOS RuleSet for Allied uniforms for inclusion with CMMOS version 3.0 (which is entering beta today). Both summer and winter uniforms will be handled from the same RuleSet. We'll iron out all the naming conventions and each individual mod owner can re-release their mods as CMMOS compliant (with or without my assistance as necessary/requested). There's also plans afoot to provide lot's and lot's of Allied uniform sleeves for the various units, so that will need to be ironed out as well (and I'm really counting on the uniform grognards to straighten this out as I'm clueless). Due to the sheer size of the covered material, the sleeves might end up in a separate RuleSet, but would still work with the "standard" Allied uniform RuleSet, if that's even possible. So, to throw some urgency into the discussion, I will start allocating space in the RuleSets on a strictly first-come-first-served basis (which means the sooner you get in on this, the further towards the top of the list your uniforms will be featured). The only other way I could see doing this fairly would be based on the chronological order of the original mod's release, but I don't have that information. Also, I'll need to know what "options" your uniforms come with (e.g. different helmets, gloves, boots, etc.). So, let's make some magic! Gordon

bfamily33: I'll start a separate thread for the Uniform modders and CMMOS discussion, but I'd like to keep the disclaimer, reuse and naming issues together as they are pretty closely connected. Marco: I agree that all mods should have a disclaimer (and I'm guilty myself for not having them as of late). So regarding disclaimers and possibly all this other information that may be embedded into mods, do people prefer the "lot's of little text files" approach or something like the CMMM approach of using windows INI files? Personally I prefer the individual text files method, but I can accept either. NOTE: Web-masters, this is one that's going to hit close to home for you, as you'll be accessing all this information. Ok, some proposed standard disclaimers: First, the "Knock yourself out" disclaimer: 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 <THIS MOD'S AUTHORS> and any prior author(s). (In this case, <PREVIOUS MOD AUTHOR> and BTS). This pack may be freely posted for downloading, but must not be charged for. Ok, this is based on Marco Bergman's standard disclaimer, which I was using (when I included them) and pretty much covers all the bases for an unrestricted use release. Substitute for the parts within angle brackets. Also, note the explicit refernce to BTS, from whole all mods originate, in one form or another. I'm thinking we need an explicit statement on whether permission was received or implied (if we go that route) in the interest of full disclosure. Something like "This mod was produced with the permission of <XXX>", or "This mod was produced without the explicit permission of <XXX>, who was unable to be contacted." For the "hands off" disclaimer, 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 is exressely prohibited unless prior permission is obtained. This pack was based on <THE BASE MOD'S NAME> and/or the BTS originals. This pack may not be posted for downloading without express permission. Ok, all this legalese is making my head spin, time to go start the "CMMOS uniforms" thread. Gordon

Ok, we've been so focused on naming conventions that there's been no real discussion so far on the "Modder's Code" and/or disclaimers. So let me hoist the following initial proposal up the flag pole and see who salutes: 1. Any 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 should make a reasonable attempt (TBD) to contact the original mod's author to obtain permission. If such attempt is unsuccessful then the new mod can be issued as long as proper attribution is provided. 3. If a disclaimer is present that grants permission to make any and all changes, modifications and enhancements, it is still suggested that the original author be contacted as a "courtesy". For instance, I often ask the original author's opinion of my changes. 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 or you'll just have to keep your new mod to yourself. 5. If a disclaimer is present that prohibits hosting a mod on any other site(s), then permission must be received before even something as non-intrusive as repackaging a mod to CMMOS-enable it can be done. I'll make another post later that proposes some standard disclaimers. Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker: They may be worth having, but I still can use only one set of graphics at the same time! Ehm - way don't you include the zip name into the ruleset? Just an idea.<hr></blockquote> Because then you have to re-release the RuleSet with every mod which get's back into the same version confusion you had with the batch file system. As it stands now, the RuleSet can be written and released independently of the individual mods. Gordon

Cameroon, I actually considered accessing the BMPs directly from ZIP files. There's a couple of reasons why I rejected it (at least for now). The main issue is that there is not a 1-to-1 mapping between mods (ZIP files) and CMMOS RuleSets. For example, there are probably more than 10 separate and independent mods that are processed by the "Commonwealth Vehicles" RuleSet. Therefore there's no convenient way for CMMOS to know which ZIP files are applicable to which RuleSets. Puff, I don't have a really good answer to your question right now than "because they're worth having?" All I can say is that I will continue to think about ways to optimize CMMOS both in terms of speed, functionality, ease of use and space useage. Gyrene, I have a feeling settling these "minor" issues like naming conventions is going to be more work than CMMOS. Gordon

Ken, I'll certainly consider interface changes as necessary. I think people will be suprised by the level of change/improvement in the upcoming release. One thing that I definitely tried to do is over-architect CMMOS for expandability, and the interface is actually one of the easier things to change as long as the underlying structure is robust enough. Gordon

Another possibility to solve the MOD name question, and I'm not necessarily saying this is what I favor, would be to embed much of this information in an easily understood "Information" file that's a standard part of every mod. Something like what CM Mod Manager did with it's "info.txt" file, only generalized for all mods, containing more information and more formalized and consistent than the current README hodge-podge. Then web-masters would just need to extract the "Information" file from the mod to get everything they need. It's not quite as nice for the end-user as having everything embedded into the name, but with a 31 character limit, it's going to be hard to please everyone. Gordon

Regarding registration of BMP suffixes. It's already implicit in the registration of RuleSets and Rules (for the "official" ones at least). Since everyone has to beg, plead and bribe me :cool: to get the coveted "best" numbered RuleSets, the combination of the RuleSet and Rules pretty much define the suffixes used. However, that said, I could also maintain the list of suffixes (bearing in mind that suffixes do not necessarily equate to mod author) and provide updates of that list along with the RuleSet/Rule registration list to Manx periodically for posting. Regarding MOD naming conventions, in my opinion, the game designation is one of the least important "keys". Why? Chances are CM:BB will be installed in a completely separate folder than CM:BO. Web masters will most likely have separate CM:BB sections (if not complete sites) and forums. So the game designation is a one-time sort key (e.g. Do I download this mod and put it in "C:\Program Files\CMBO\Mods" or "C:\Program Files\CMBB\Mods"?). After that, I'm more concerned about the in-game object that is modded, or the author, or the style, or the season, etc. Gordon

Pud, Excellent suggestion. The only problem is: Which road? Paved, dirt? Original, or one of the mods? Maybe the thing to do is have Gyrene do just the "crossing" part (which I believe is usually wood or steel), and/or with the BTS roads and then provide that to the road-modders to let them do versions that match their road sets. Unless Gyrene and the road modders would prefer that he do all the work. Gordon

Michael and Philippe, Don't necessarily want to speak for Manx here, but it appears he's talking about the MOD naming convention and not the BMP naming convention. Philippe raises many good points concerning the BMP naming convention you select being "enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot with" if not thought out carefully (and believe me, I've done a lot of thinking on this stuff). Don't worry about 9th Pz, I believe we've got it covered. Gordon

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Manx: [QB]BOCL1GM1_mod.zip (multi-part CMMOS Mod) or, BOL1GM_mod.zip (Non-CMMOS, single part) What do you reckon? QB]<hr></blockquote> I reckon we just reached the bottom of Gyrene's "Aircraft Parts" slippery slope. Your suggestion certainly has many of the elements that I was looking for, it just might be a little too cryptic for mere mortals (like me). Just to throw it out to get shot full of holes, the format that I had recently settled on (which doesn't necessarily include all of the items discussed was): GEM_Camo_M4s_v2.0_CMMOS_hr.zip So you've got the author's initial "GEM", the what the hell's the mod about "Camo_M4s", the version "v2.0", the format "CMMOS", and high res "hr". Is it that much better or worse than what you're proposing? Not sure, I'm probably just more used to seeing this format. The other key issue to think about in regards to a naming format is what's the primary sort "key" that user's want to have? Is it the author? Hi-res vs lo-res? The vehicle/terrain/etc.-type? The season? CM:BO vs CM:BB? Whatever that "key" is, I believe that's what you want to have as the first component of the name. Gordon

Scipio, Sorry, about misunderstanding your question. Mostly it's just a bunch of text files and BMPs collected into a zip file. I haven't explored creating a CMMOS RuleSet authoring tool yet. The renaming of BMPs question is being addressed in version 3.00 by inclusion of a tool called "BMP Munge" which handles simple BMP file renaming (and scaling down to low-res sizes) to help mod authors (at least on the PC) assemble the necessary BMPs. Darknight_Canuck, The only real issue I see so far is if there have to be different versions of the same sleeve to match different uniforms. Then you'd probably want to adopt something like "_baseUniformModName_Regiment", or some such. Gordon

Michael, For v3.00 there will actually be two ways to include additional information. The first is the "Description" which Rule specific, the second is the "Redits" which is RuleSet specific. Scipio, Well, I don't think writing CMMOS RuleSets/Rules is very complicated, but I'm a software engineer by trade and therefore of questionable moral character to judge these sorts of things Not to mention the fact that I was partially responsible for the original batch file system which resulted in me going crazy enough to write CMMOS However, that said, I truly believe that creating/enabling a mod for CMMOS is actually quite straight forward, once you get in the right frame of mind. What's that frame of mind? Basically you have to think of, say a uniform mod, as a series of building blocks. Some uniforms share the same pants, some the same tunic and some are identical except for the sleeves which have different unit insignia on them. A CMMOS RuleSet/Rule is just a way of expressing those relation ships. So, continuing with the example, if some crazy fool wanted to create a uniform mod allowing you to represent every single British regiment that served on the western front, they'd need to provide a set of BMPs for the basic uniform and then a whole bunch of different sleeve BMPs, one per regiment, and then "program" CMMOS via a Rule file as to how the user selects each regiment. CMMOS then just copies the appropriate BMPs over the game's run-time BMPs and you're done. Also, forgot to address your porting question. No, it's not quite that simple because the different operating systems have different interfaces defined to accomplish similar tasks. Gordon [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Gordon ]</p>

Cameroon, Let me know if you need any help or source code (Borland's C++ Builder). voidhawk's C code to reduce BMPs from hi-res to low-res is also available to integrate into the Mac tool. Good to know about the name length limit on Mac. I think we're Ok so far. A quick check of my BMP directory yields the longest filenames as: 13230_sno_a_AltRoadwheels.bmp 5011_dieppe_uniform_canadian.bmp The second of which hasn't been published yet (I believe), so we should be able to adjust. MikeyD, Yes, I used to do something similar but have fallen out of the habit lately. Possibly a stock disclaimer, or set of disclaimers (and a standard place to put it) might also be agreed upon. Is there a lawyer in the house?!? Gordon

Gyrene, I'm still looking for someone to work with on the Mac side to see if we can't get something equivalent to CMMOS for Mac users (even if it's just some extra capabilities added into the existing Mac mod manager(s) that will help solve these sorts of issues. Yes, something on the order of "_BO"/"_BB" (or the absence of "_BB" means it's a CM:BO mod) is probably sufficient, but the naming convention goes far beyond that, including version information, low/hi res, summer/winter, etc. Gordon

Michael, Good points. I'd like to make such a list as "official" as possible, so I nominate Manx and CM:HQ. Actually, the genesis of such a list is already there in the CMMOS section, albeit without all the fancy thumbnails and links in place. But I'm sure Manx will have that all whipped into shape in no time. :eek: One thing to note, however, is that there's nothing whatsover preventing anyone else from offering, for instance, their own US Black/Olive Drab Shermans as a substitute for my version, provided the issues above are resolved and we can iron things out such that there's no confusion on the gamer's part as to which version he's using. Although I can't imagine why anyone would want to replace any one of my mods. Also, I think the "community" would benefit more from that person working on something that hadn't been covered yet, but there's nothing "illegal" about it. In fact, I'm still anxiously waiting for someone to step up to the plate and offer to work up a complete set of foliage camouflaged US/UK vehicles. I'd love to add those Rules/Icons to the Commonwealth and US/Free French RuleSets. Gordon

Aren't there laws against harrassment? Gordon

Gentlemen (and Kitty, if she's still around), In light of recent events, I've been asked to try to convene a "Modders Round-table" of sorts to attempt to work out some issues that will hopefully maker our (as well as the various host site web-master's) lives easier. So, I hope you will all chip in and cooperatively we can establish some simple guidelines that make sense and that are a win-win for everyone. So, I guess the first question is, would people prefer all the discussion to take place here, via e-mail or some other BB/forum? The second question concerns mod re-use etiquette. I don't think there's any question that plagarism is bad, but there are some grey areas that should probably be ironed out and some sort of code of conduct (like the "Repoman's code) probably couldn't hurt. The third question concerns coming up with some sort of mod naming convention. Several web-masters have asked me about this, and I think it makes a lot of sense, especially with CM:BB on the horizon as mods will not be interchangeable between CM:BO and CM:BB. Fourth, I'll be re-architecting/re-issueing the German Uniform RuleSet and creating an Allied Uniform RuleSet that will be part of the release of CMMOS v3.00, so I'd like to gain the participation of all the uniform modders out there so that it can be a complete "package" (note: individual modders will still own and control the mods, we'll just want to coordinate a "name-space" for the mods so that they can all co-exist under a single German and an single Allied RuleSet). I'm sure other issues will come up that can be discussed. So, hopefully we'll get a quorum. Thanks, Gordon btw, Tanks a lot - are you interested in issueing a copy of your winter buildings that are CMMOS-enabled? If so, please contact me ("gordonemolek@earhtlink.net").

voidhawk showed this to me last night and I think it's a fantastic little "tool" for the mod community. I've always done something like this on an ad hoc basis when I was working on mods, but this is definitely going into my "bag of tricks". Thanks voidhawk, Gordon

It's here It was actually one of the first mods I ever did and was based off Fernando's Winter KT. I'm eagerly awaiting a really great hi-res KT to re-do this (along with several other camo schemes). sPzAbt 503 fought in France during the summer of '44 and were pulled out in early September. AFAIK, this camo scheme was only used on their KTs (which were 'Porsche'-turreted), and of which only 2 made it to Russia. Gordon

Otto, I caught more flak from the Germans for that infantry reinforcement group than I did from the Americans. :eek: The issue was that they were a completely separate unit that had found a ford over the river (hence infantry only) who were making an uncoordinated attack (at least with respect to the main Kampfgruppe) on the hamlet. An integral component of the design of this Rumble was that each CO had to devise a plan using inadequate at start forces, while not knowing what reinforcements would arrive, or when. All, A Rumble of this size was very difficult to GM, at least until units started to die. I'd suggest that the next Rumble borrow a page from the "team cooperative" approach and either have 2 GMs (one for each side), or simply have the COs for each side plot and exchange movie files for their teams. Gordon

A heap of replies ... Gpig: Unfortunately, I'm just not going to have the time to do an AAR like the first one. I'm looking for volunteers, however. Måkjager: Shreck teams. Hmm. That's the first I've heard of that one. Shreck teams tend to die pretty quickly on the attack. Besides, which team had the killer tanks versus the tin-cans? Otto Mekanik: By all means, examine each other's posts (even exchange movie files if you'd like - don't expect me to be sending 'em out again over my modem though). The US password was "ergograph" and the German was "iodine". And Måkjager racked up the most kills because he racked up the most bribes. I said I was evil, not fair. Dogface21: Watch the board for another announcement (no guarantee that I'll be running another, however but I'm happy to share the rules with anyone willing to run one of their own). Michael: Opening up your website for pre-game German planning to "the public" would be fantastic. You (and the German team) put a lot of effort into it and it deserves to be appreciated. Gordon

Yes, after a long and bloody struggle, the German vanguard came up just short of breaking through to the Meuse river and then on to Antwerp. The American team wrested a minor victory after also suffering heavy casualties. Congratulations to the American team and a heart-felt thank you to all the participants on both sides who put up with my evil game-master-ship. Gordon