Gordon Posted November 20, 2001 Author Share Posted November 20, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: Michael: I actually look quite good in a hair shirt.<hr></blockquote> Should I feel stupid that that went right over my head....or should I be thanking my maker? ack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 20, 2001 Author Share Posted November 20, 2001 <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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: You know, hair shirts, monks, penance, humble. Gordon<hr></blockquote> Ya draw real good, let's put it that way, me bucko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 20, 2001 Author Share Posted November 20, 2001 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman: Now here is a good question for you Scipio, why should the rest of us suffer because of one or two people made a copy? <hr></blockquote> If someone - like Maximus in this case - take a mod, revise and publish it, he didn't knew that I want to be asked. So I have told him, no problem. This was several month ago. He didn't agrre, but I thought he would respect this. Last week, I noticed that he did it again. At the second time, he know that I don't like this. So I must assume that he give a damn on it. Indeed he has written to me on my request <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Unless you want to rehash the ol' Tiger bitch and whine argument about what is good mod ethicate, then you're fighting a losing battle. Most mod authors have included in their readmes that the mods are "freeware" and that they may be modified and redistributed AS LONG as you give credit to the original author. If you've got a problem with this widely accepted policy, then you should refrain from publishing your mods on your site. <hr></blockquote> I followed his suggestion. Why? Because this is the only possibilty to make the deaf hear and the mute speak. You call me egoistic because I'm so pissed by his actions? How many modmakers do you want to loose to such people? How many has left us silently? How many never go public because they are already demotivated or want avoid the quarrel with such a... ehm, people? In my club, we have a simple policy - everything belongs to the original authors. And the idea behind it is simple. Some people just want to know that they are protected from missuse. And those people don't care if it's a missuse for profite, simple ignorance or any other reason. By the way, I wonder why Maximus has nothing to say here. And now my questions: Why am I blamed here? Why must I defend myself? [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 Disclaimer: I am not a mod author, I've never tried to make a mod, I couldn't even if I tried. Heck, I don't even use mods on my dinky 400Mhz computer. Scipio has take a lot of flak for taking the position that he has. On a first look he is taking a "I'm going to take my toys and go home" position, a childish one. But I think his reaction is entirely reasonable. He has clearly been wronged in this matter. Copyright law and general decency agree on this. No one has the right to modify his files without his permission. And its really easy to send an e-mail asking for his permission. Unfortuantley, people don't always ask permission, either from ignorance or from arrogance. Hopefully this discussion and a standardization of mod naming and distribution will reduce infringement from ignorance. But Scipio, and all other modders have no way to stop willful infriengement. The only remedy they have is to simply stop publishing their mods. Let me repeat that, its an important point: the *only* weapon a modder has to stop willful infringement is no longer posting his mods. The community can look at this in two ways. In situations where its clear that wilful infringement has occured they can ignore the incedent. They can make fun of the injured modder for excercising his only option. Or they can rally around the injured modder and boycot the plagerized mod. Need-less to say, I am not pleased with what the community seems to be doing. Perhaps, as part of this general organization of modders, some sort of agreement can be arrived at to suport the work of those who do origional work and boycot the work of those who do not. --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Bergman Posted November 20, 2001 Share Posted November 20, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: By the way, I wonder why Maximus has nothing to say here. And now my questions: Why am I blamed here? Why must I defend myself? [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<hr></blockquote> Maximus was banned after posting as Cubbies Phan after being banned... if that makes sense. Personally, I think we should leave Scipio alone, people. My position is that people who don't want thier work modified HAVE that right, and we ought to respect it. If that is Scipio's wish, and he has clearly stated this, then we need to accept that. And if he wishes to pull his mods, well that's his right too. Seems to me we ought to be thankful for what we recieve, not demand what we think we deserve. [Edited for hitting the wrong button too soon...] [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Marco Bergman ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Marco Bergman: Maximus was banned after posting as Cubbies Phan after being banned... if that makes sense.<hr></blockquote> Not really. But good to know. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Personally, I think we should leave Scipio alone, people. My position is that people who don't want thier work modified HAVE that right, and we ought to respect it. If that is Scipio's wish, and he has clearly stated this, then we need to accept that. And if he wishes to pull his mods, well that's his right too.<hr></blockquote> You should read Maastrictians post again. He has understood what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Måkjager Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Right Gordon As for the above disclaimers...count me in. I think it is a reasonable and fair attempt to attain some order in mod use/reuse ettiqute...also like the bit about Author and Prior Author.....important point for us mod manglers For the record..... i do not mind anybody "meddling" with anything i produce if it is just for their own use....and full well understand there is not a thing i could do to stop them if i were that way inclined bar becoming the "Lawnmower Man" If the " mod meddler" feels that he has made a mod ( with parts of or whole of a Måk mod ) that he /she would like to release...i would like to be asked first...i am not a monster and more than likely will say yes...but i do have manners and would like to be treated in the same way i do treat other people regarding seeking permission. I can well understand Scipios feelings and will be very sorry to see his good self stopping production for general release.....as our "customers" this CM Community need as many good mod makers keeping busy , producing mods for their( the mod user's) staple diet.It was only recently that it was said what we need are MORE modders...not less As for the naming convention...... Gordon you know what type of quick sand i stand on there so just come up with the goods and let me know Regards Måkjager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Well, just something before I go to bed: Another part of the WarfareHQ policy says, we use and post only material with the permission of the author. This was an idea of my partner Don 'Maddog' Maddox. After I had doubts in the beginning how this should be practiced, I understood that it is the only way to avoid undesirable quarrels with assholes like me. Can unallowed copys, plagiats or similiar be avoided? No, of course not. But the sites that posts the stuff can be counted with the fingers - I mean the sites that has public attention and good reputation, like CMHQ, Toms', a few others. So if we agree on some kind of convention, the webmasters should also agree to it: not to post stuff from dubiously sources and people. And remove stuff that has been posted against the expressed wish of the original author. Of course this wouldn't avoid that some people post plagiats somewhere on a minor site or send it via email. But it would be much more difficult for them, and I guess only very few very spritefully will do so. Because it would be easier just to send a request if the original author prefers this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Maastrictian, Scipio, I *DO* understand your views and indeed Scipio you HAVE the right to control what is done with your mods. What is plain just stupid is to remove the mods from sites just because a flame thread with Gordon occured about what have been done by Mr so-and-so with a mod ! Pursue the culprit, yell, take legal action if you want, but why punish the whole CM Community by removing materials ?? Because thieves do exist should all shops close ?? Curious reasoning ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoot Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 jeez. None of this feels very "fun" anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Hello, just read the thread with great interest. Obviously as a user, I am interested . I think what Scipio said about webmasters agreeing not to post "stolen" (note the brackets) mods is the way to go. Would help to eliminate lots of frustration from the modders. Just my opinion. Sig PS: For people interested in what copyright is, here is a LINK . Short reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: Because thieves do exist should all shops close ?? <hr></blockquote> Because a lot of people steal in shops, it should be legalized, so the crime isn't a crime anymore? Pascal, it's my opinion that those people already act against the common interest. What you see now is only the consequence of the common ignorance. If you want to have a similtude, try this: BTS lives from the people who purchase their games. If a lot of people now make copys of the CD and give it away for free, you can say goodbye to CM:BB, because BTS is such a small company that software piracy can bring them down. The mod makers don't work for profit, but the effect can be the same: some people just stop to make mods, like JohnS aka Tiger. So what do you prefer : do something against mod 'pirats', or just look how one modmaker after another disappears and whine that he takes his toys when he go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 21, 2001 Author Share Posted November 21, 2001 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: 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.<hr></blockquote> A monetary benfit??? So what? I guess I must talk to my partner - I have never seen a check Gordon, check your email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 21, 2001 Author Share Posted November 21, 2001 <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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon: ...web sites have to be paid for, no?...<hr></blockquote> Another untold story about a few and what they give for the common benefit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoot Posted November 22, 2001 Share Posted November 22, 2001 legalities. disclaimers. copyrights. public domain. standardized release forms written in pseudo-legalese. bruised egos. tear-streaked faces... hoop-jumping. This fu@kin' sucks fellas. It's been nice knowin' ya. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Clubfoot ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 22, 2001 Author Share Posted November 22, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 22, 2001 Share Posted November 22, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Clubfoot: legalities. disclaimers. copyrights. public domain. standardized release forms written in pseudo-legalese. bruised egos. tear-streaked faces... hoop-jumping. This fu@kin' sucks fellas. It's been nice knowin' ya. [ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Clubfoot ]<hr></blockquote> What would be a wargaming community without people who wants war? My ego must be bruised sometimes, otherwise it would get to big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts