Curse Client, FTB Packs and Linux
- Thread starter VapourDrive
- Start date
- Status
My mod is not yet 60 days old ^^
PS: FTB Mod Dev? Which FTB pack included my mod?
But thanks ^^
Dev tag done.
As to the other, I think part of what will be obvious with Client hosted packs is that most downloads come from the pack creators that are competent and respectful. You're always going to have people who ignore mod author wishes for whatever reason, but they aren't the people who will generate the most stats and downloads for authors.
My mod is not yet 60 days old ^^
PS: FTB Mod Dev? Which FTB pack included my mod?
But thanks ^^
You no like? I can remove? >.>
That's unfair!!! I hereby require that my mods are included in all packs from now!!!PS: FTB Mod Dev? Which FTB pack included my mod?
But thanks ^^
I guess I need to do some self-advertising towards jadedcat... :3
Last edited:
Speaking of trophies, is getting the two factor trophy not possible anymore? I can't find it and IIRC I would become an addict if I reach 150
-----------------------------------------------
Sent From Something That You Won't Care About Using Tapatalk 2
-----------------------------------------------
Sent From Something That You Won't Care About Using Tapatalk 2
Ummm... actually, you kinda are. You're telling mod authors 'either let us distribute through the Curse Launcher or you can't host on Curse and use the tools we've made'. Which is, actually, telling mod authors how to handle their distribution rights, at least with respect to the Curse client. I'm not saying it is necessarily doing it in a negative manner, but the statement, as written, is untrue.
I understand why you are doing it, I understand that you are giving credit to mod authors by giving +1 downloads to the mods when a pack is downloaded that contains it, I even understand that by using the additional tools you've built into Curse, it will avoid most of the problems that mod authors have with redistribution. That does not change the fact that you are actually telling the mod authors how to handle their license with respect to redistribution on the Curse launcher.
That's a pretty standard terms of service thing. You can't provide hosting unless you also have the rights to distribute.
Distribution as in adding a download link? Sure. Distribution as in any mod pack on the Curse launcher has permissions automatically? Not really. Of course, no launcher has previously hosted mods, so this is the first time it has come up in minecraft modding history. I expect there to be much caterwauling on that topic at some point when certain parties realize the implications therein, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms and I would rather put the can opener down for now.
I could easily see the Curse launcher edging out all the other launchers due to the tremendous advantage that would carry. That's not necessarily a good or a bad thing, it simply is. And a great deal of it is directly from your work, personally, Jaded. The trust you have built up with the mod authors that they allow you to host their mods is the coin with which you have purchased this ability. Look back to the days of, say, 1.3 and ask if any of the mod authors would have allowed themselves to be hosted on a third party website. I doubt many would've taken you up on the offer back then. Some would've been mortally offended at the mere suggestion.
It is progress, of a sort. I suppose. But I still find it disheartening that a third party mediator like Curse is required for mod authors and their users to get along.
I was going to be quiet until decisions about API is done but I made a mistake read Curse ToS:
What does that mean for modpack distribution in Curse client and in http://www.curse.com/modpacks/minecraft ?
What does that mean for modpack distribution in Curse client and in http://www.curse.com/modpacks/minecraft ?
Yeah if you continue it says "or have a parents permission". That's called legality. And there are plenty of younger people with Curse accounts, look at MCF.
The only thing you have to be 18 for at this time is to earn revenue in the US, because we have to file taxes.
I so have permission from my parents... That rule is crazily annoying, and is freaking everywhere. Stupid laws.
And since we aren't jerks... we aren't asking for proof... unless your parents yell at us.......
The way I see it, Curse has permission to distribute the mods publicly via the http protocol, this is granted as their terms of service for hosting. How a user initiates the http request is irrelevant: I am free to download a mod hosted on Curse's servers, and they have been given permission to distribute it. I can use the Curse client (when it is out and supported my OS...) or a web browser, -OR- I can use tools like wget/curl, write a script, user alternate launchers, etc to automatically download arbitrary sets of URIs from Curse. As long as I'm not hammering their severs with unreasonable load, there is no reason Curse should care (nor would they really even be able tell). This even goes beyond Curse, but to any public hosting that an author has approved (even ones the author themselves host).
If I make a list of URIs those URIs happen to point to a collection of mods, I have a "mod pack*" No party that doesn't already have permission to distribute mods is distributing them. Objecting to this is akin to an author telling me I can't share a list of books with others and saying "these books go well together and here is where you can find them" and providing directions of places the author has approved to distribute their works. I'm not distributing their work, nor am telling others where to obtain a copy illicitly: I am simply providing a list. The entire concept of "approval" for modpacks has only been based upon the practice of distributing modpacks as zip archives that contain all of the individual mods. It inherently has been an act of redistribution. This new (and altogether better) system makes the business of modpacks entirely divorced from distribution of the mods themselves. No author's distribution rights are being trampled on: there is no automatic right granted to an author for control over "association" of legitimately obtained copies of their works.
If a mod author cannot accept that others are free to propose and share lists that may include a pointer/identifier to their work, they are free to not distribute their mod or to do so in a manner that requires the user to specifically agree to a contract that binds them in ways that goes well beyond the scope of copyright. To invoke another analogy: a painter would be foolish to bemoan his loss of control over where others hang and what other things may be displayed along side a painting they purchased. If an artist really wants they can require a contract limiting things like that as a condition of sale, but such an artist will likely find themselves with a far smaller customer pool by doing so and the legal basis would not be based upon the framework of copyrights.
*Generally you'd also want config files. If you really wanted to avoid even the potential of copyright claims on config files, you could just let the mods generate the default ones and then use patch to modify them.
If I make a list of URIs those URIs happen to point to a collection of mods, I have a "mod pack*" No party that doesn't already have permission to distribute mods is distributing them. Objecting to this is akin to an author telling me I can't share a list of books with others and saying "these books go well together and here is where you can find them" and providing directions of places the author has approved to distribute their works. I'm not distributing their work, nor am telling others where to obtain a copy illicitly: I am simply providing a list. The entire concept of "approval" for modpacks has only been based upon the practice of distributing modpacks as zip archives that contain all of the individual mods. It inherently has been an act of redistribution. This new (and altogether better) system makes the business of modpacks entirely divorced from distribution of the mods themselves. No author's distribution rights are being trampled on: there is no automatic right granted to an author for control over "association" of legitimately obtained copies of their works.
If a mod author cannot accept that others are free to propose and share lists that may include a pointer/identifier to their work, they are free to not distribute their mod or to do so in a manner that requires the user to specifically agree to a contract that binds them in ways that goes well beyond the scope of copyright. To invoke another analogy: a painter would be foolish to bemoan his loss of control over where others hang and what other things may be displayed along side a painting they purchased. If an artist really wants they can require a contract limiting things like that as a condition of sale, but such an artist will likely find themselves with a far smaller customer pool by doing so and the legal basis would not be based upon the framework of copyrights.
*Generally you'd also want config files. If you really wanted to avoid even the potential of copyright claims on config files, you could just let the mods generate the default ones and then use patch to modify them.
I see only "Minor children may only access account-related features using a parent or guardian’s account so long as the parent or guardian consents and accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the child. When creating your account, you must provide accurate and complete information." which means they must use parent's account until they are 18. If taxes are only reason to deny account creation for minor then maybe ToS should be changed to allow account creation for 13-18 years old if they have permission from parents for it and limit account features until they are 18.
Any reasonably competent IT guy can tell, especially on a system designed to track unique downloads so as to reward the authors.
The rest of the argument has been covered on the forums 100 times.
And no, a random person randomly sharing a pack with a few close friends isn't going to be an issue for mod authors. The issue is a pack shared with hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.
And for packs like AgSkies, MagicFarm 3, Blood n Bones etc... the custom scripts and quests and art for those packs are protected by copyright. Duplicating them is the same as forging a painting. That said, I have never gone after any of the copies of AgSkies floating around. The copiers are rude, disrespectful jerks. Doesn't mean I am going to do anything more than refuse to give support to people who download from a non approved location.
Some people really need to stop worrying about "is anyone going to sue me?" "is anyone going to arrest me?" and start worrying about "am I a decent human being who respects others?" Because if the only thing that stops you from doing something is the first 2, then the answer to the third is: No you are not. There are plenty of things way more legal than this that are reprehensible.
The question for individuals isn't "Is it legal?" its "Is it right?" The questions for Curse is "Is what we are doing legal?" because its a business. Curse asks "Is it right?" because the employees are decent human beings who respect other human beings.
That's what the terms say. Get your parent's permission. Again, there are plenty of under 18 y/o accounts. It cannot be changed because its required by law.
Also I find it hysterical the number of people going " shouldn't have to respect author's wishes" that turn around and go "OMG I need to be 18 to make an account" .... either follow the law and respect all terms/conditions .... or stop picking and choosing which ones you want to follow. And just don't follow any.
But to pretend people care about an age limit on ToS while at the same time discussing why people should ignore copyright/licensing on mods entirely..... yeah ... sure.
Last edited:
Thread is about Linux, last 2 pages are not about Linux. Thread locked.
- Status