33 replies to this topic

[AnnabelleRose]

So, when you want to re-release an old mod by another author, how long should you wait when you attempt to contact them?

Recent case in point, there is an item I want to add to ToC Part One (and another bit). The author has it posted on their website they do not know how to code something to weidu.

I emailed about two weeks ago, and have yet to get a responce.

At what point should you give up and release it, or is it better to never release it at this point?

*Edit* Update:

The site in question (this time) was last updated on 8/18/2005.

Edited by MajorTomSawyer, 17 February 2007 - 03:29 PM.

[Azazello]

If you're just looking for comments, I says that is long enough.

I says give the developer one month. No response, code away. If developer comes back and pulls a kinippshit (sic), then fein ignorance, ask for penatance, ask to allow it officially. Worse, pull mod and offer it via PM.

[Chevalier]

I say send 4 emails or PMs and wait six weeks.

[ronin]

I would say if the author cannot be contacted in a resonable amount of time, say 4 weeks, then contact K'aeloree with you proof that you tried to contact the original author and let him tell you yes or no since he is the boss here. If the original author hasnt responded to your requests within that amount of time either he is no longer around or has no interest anymore.

ronin

[Kaeloree]

4 weeks just isn't enough time. 4-6 Months might be more realistic.

The problem is, sometimes modders disappear for a few months, then reappear - and if they see their mod is being worked on by someone else, they're going to be mighty upset. Imagine if it were you, and your hard work was being altered to something you possibly didn't like - how would you feel?

So we need to make sure that the author really is not coming back, or not interested, and all methods of communication must be tried, IMO.

[SConrad]

What if the modder hasn't been around for, for example, 2-3 years? Just for the sake of the argument - is it still feasible to wait up to 6 months in that case?

[Kulyok]

I guess the mod's Readme is the best source.

If the mod has "This mod may not be sold, published, compiled or redistributed in any form without the consent of its author," the answer is an explicit no, even after six or sixty years.

If the readme doesn't have such a note, I'd agree with K'aeloree.

[Chevalier]

"This mod may not be sold, published, compiled or redistributed in any form without the consent of its author,"

Well, I thought BG1, TotSC, BG2, ToB, IWD1, and IWD2 all have that as part of their use agreement. I think that so long as you give credit to the author and take credit for changes it should be alright. If you are active in the modding community and keep up with things then we should respect their wishes, but once they leave then we should openly be able Mod their Mod's of BG.

[ronin]

I agree with Chev, but, only if you doing bugfixes and not content changes. Any content changes should have the original author's approval (if you can get it). With bug fixes we shouldn't be so hard with.

[Kulyok]

I don't understand then: you would clearly disregard the author's wishes("Please, do not modify my mod without my consent"), but you would bother to ask the author and to wait for some time? Doesn't make much sense to me.

If you are active in the modding community and keep up with things then we should respect their wishes, but once they leave then we should openly be able Mod their Mod's of BG.

Reminds me of good old kindergarden days:
"C'mon, let's do it!"
"No, the governess might see!"
"Okay, let's wait until she's out of sight and wouldn't know, and *then* let's do it!"
"Yeah!"

[Chevalier]

Kulyok,

You are right, that is what I am saying. Just like you did with BG1 NPC Project ( a great mod I play all the time). You didn't just add bug fixes or add all new NPCs, but used others NPCs as the base for your mod. What right do you or any modder have to say someone should not change a mod. Because of changes you should say what and how you changed the mod.

Modders can do what ever they want, but what they should do is work together. When a modder is no longer active and doesn't look like they are comming back, then we can't work with them. You might not like my way of thinking, but it is how I look at modding. What we (the community) should come to is an understanding about mods after the author has left the community.

I think any change in content, not bug fixes and compatibility changes, should be done as a optional componate. Like what some are talking about doing for DTotSC - BGT to rebalance items.

Edited by Chevalier, 18 February 2007 - 04:04 AM.

[seanas]

Modders can do what ever they want, but what they should do is work together. When a modder is no longer active and doesn't look like they are comming back, then we can't work with them. You might not like my way of thinking, but it is how I look at modding. What we (the community) should come to is an understanding about mods after the author has left the community.

yep, i agree. when someone makes it clear - either in the readme, in the their forum posting or via pm - that they don't want their mod modded, then it's off-limits, as far as i'm concerned: the recent case with aVENGER's Rogue Rebalancing Pack is a good example.

however, if such clarity hasn't been forthcoming, and the mod is abandonware, then it's effectively community property, and can be modded/re-released/whatever: the new version of the Planar Sphere is a good example of this position.

the debatable question (other than the philosophical question about not modding a mod, given that the original mod already alters someone else's IP without their express permission and usually, as ronin points out, in express contravention of the EULA) is 'when is abandonware abandonware?'

and the answer to that question can only be made on a ad-hoc basis: if someone tried to say 'Horred hasn't posted in a month, so i'm releasing 'The Big Picture Remixed', they might find some pushback from me; Vlad is continuing to release Baldurdash-weidu even tho KD didnt want him to - altho KD did give grudging permission; hlid resurrected, weidu'd and bug-fixed a whole range of mods, without anyone ever complaining. i dont know of any hard-n-fast rules - commonsense helps, but that's about all.

in this case, i agree with Azazello - MTS is talking about mods that haven't been touched in a long time, so i tihnk one month (with the caveat that the mod gets pulled/ work on it stops if the author turns up, a la aVENGER, and requests it stop) is more than sufficient. modding shares a lot of features with open source development, and one of those features is that yr never the sole authour of yr mod.

Edited by seanas, 18 February 2007 - 04:30 AM.

[the bigg]

Oh great, another round in the old "You can edit all Bioware stuff all you want, but woe be on you if you dare touch my mod" bullshit.

As for me, if I were to disappear all my stuff is to be covered by the GPL license. The upcoming new versions of my stuff will make this clear in the readme (and, if I were to forget updating the readme, you can link to this post as proof).

[SimDing0]

If I disappear for four weeks will someone fix all the bugs in Quest Pack?

[Zyraen]

I think even in the case of Clearly Absentee/no-longer-Active Modders, all modifications should be distributed separately with Clear Disclaimers that the produced Mod is Modified with Credits given to the Original Authors and a Clear List of Changes.

[CamDawg]

If the mod has "This mod may not be sold, published, compiled or redistributed in any form without the consent of its author," the answer is an explicit no, even after six or sixty years.

Take this with a grain of salt, though. All of my mods have draconian statements like this in their readmes but I've included it only so that some other site can not host them in a paid-for-only download service--basically, I don't want anyone (including me) making money off of my mods. I have absolutely no problem with folks grabbing code from my mods, changing them for their own use, or taking them over after I leave.

[Miloch]

I'm with what appears to be the majority on this one. I find it rather hypocritical for a mod author to throw a "kinippshit" (as Azazello calls it) at someone modifying their work after they're no longer in the community and/or (perhaps in the case above) the author does not know how to implement something.

I had this happen recently where I merely fixed the dimensions of a portrait that was off by a few pixels, where the portrait was clearly modded from a BG original (or in any case, concerns a BG character). And the mod wasn't even changed - I just put the details of the change out there and waited several months for a author's response, which wasn't positive when it eventually came. I'm not going to name names or anything (I don't really care), but this sort of response is inappropriate when someone merely offers to fix something you're no longer maintaining. Particularly when the modder does not offer an alternate fix (or a fix of any sort) after such a response.

Really though, does any modder go asking the original developers are before modding their work or 'fixing' their games? Perhaps we might if we thought we could reliably get a response from them, but to my knowledge no one's ever done it. Maybe I'm wrong, but for the majority of mods, I don't think that kind of permission is ever sought or obtained.

@MTS - in this case I would send another e-mail, maybe wait a little longer, then code away if you don't get a response.

[cmorgan]

If it is for private consumption I would forget the wait period and do the changes anyways, while waiting for permission. That way, if none is forthcoming, you have the fun and the modder needs to get fixing... or you even can be partner to the original modders process. You can always cross the bridge of "I'm ok, your'e ok" when you have something ready to go.

I would lean on the side of keeping original author intent, but then that's because I started this thing with just that it mind, as a facilitator/worker bee, not as an idea/concept person.

I personally feel that if you have left a hobby project untouched for over the 1 year mark, the contact by another modder is a courtesy not a request.

Look, this engine isn't likely gonna have a compatible hardware/software platform forever; we are all under a deadline of sorts. It seems like a waste to promote your great idea to an audience, code it, send it out to go kick some butt, and then just expect time to stand still. If it was being sold, then yes - big problems (including the fact that the original creators *should* go after you for modding without express legal permission and royalties paid in the first place). Since it is for fun, if the modder is still active in the community then permission should be sought because we all want to respect hard work and activity. If a modder's life has moved beyond the original mod, I would think it would be an honor to have someone care enough to update your work and keep it in the mainstream.

[berelinde]

If you are active in the modding community and keep up with things then we should respect their wishes, but once they leave then we should openly be able Mod their Mod's of BG.

I don't know. I wouldn't want to be out of computer contact for a while, return, and find out that somebody interpreted my absence as abandonment and went ahead and released Gavin, the barbarian/cleric of Beregost, now "bugfixed" to allow romances with evil necromancer PCs (for Tutu). I think I might have an anneurism over that one, even if a year had passed.

However, I think that if somebody went ahead and released the mod with the original dialogue, friendship conditions and dialogue, and romance conditions and dialogue, but revamped and greatly improved the quest portion *only*, they might have my blessing. Somebody might come along, download it, and think I had a clue.

I guess it's because it's harder to be objective about an NPC.

How long an absence constitutes abandonment? A month? A year? No idea. If I were to die, I would not expect anybody to try to find my next of kin over it.

Edit: Because positions on this vary so widely, from Kulyok's "not in your lifetime" to Sim DingO's "would you, please, if I promise not to look?", that underlines the need to rethink the documentation. Maybe we need a living will for mods?

Edited by BGhead, 18 February 2007 - 03:06 PM.

[SimDing0]

Sim DingO's "would you, please, if I promise not to look?"

Well, I was joking really. It isn't quite this simple. While I don't have a complex about people changing my work particularly, and I'd not fuss about content changes to a hypothetical abandoned mod of mine, there's a caveat in the danger of someone utterly incompetent coming along and shitting all over it, which is what would stop me saying "okay guys, do what you want!" I'd want someone I knew to be reasonably capable taking over, and if I suddenly died I think PPG & Co. would do a reasonable job of selecting someone inoffensive to assume total creative control.