RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[Psygantic]

OK, so as a public pack author:

-I can use your mod as long as I first ask permission and state agreement with your rules. Presumably the purpose of this is to demonstrate that I actually read the rules, so I can expect you will rubber stamp any such request.
-I am free to make tweaks to your mod with no restrictions except:
-A few specific tweaks are disallowed unless I obtain special permission. This will require demonstrating to you that I appropriately anticipate the balance ramifications.
-I am only allowed to make tweaks with a specific set of tools.
-Any tweaks made to your mod should be documented in the included handbook. (Right? I think others may have interpreted the original text to mean that all tweaks to the entire pack had to be documented there.)

Make no mistake, this is definitely on the strict end of the permissions spectrum. But it does sound more reasonable, and to my mind it manages to take a step back from "this is none of your damn business" to "man, what a pain in the butt."

I guess it's also worth pointing out that this is not yet obvious from a fairly careful reading of the text so far, hence my repeated attempts to summarize.

 

[Reika]

OK, so as a public pack author:

-I can use your mod as long as I first ask permission and state agreement with your rules. Presumably the purpose of this is to demonstrate that I actually read the rules, so I can expect you will rubber stamp any such request.
-I am free to make tweaks to your mod with no restrictions except:
-A few specific tweaks are disallowed unless I obtain special permission. This will require demonstrating to you that I appropriately anticipate the balance ramifications.
-Any tweaks made to your mod should be documented in the included handbook. (Right? I think others may have interpreted the original text to mean that all tweaks to the entire pack had to be documented there.)

All correct - including the motivations as to the permission - except this one thing:

-I am only allowed to make tweaks with a specific set of tools.

You have to use tools designed for the purpose, yes, but it is not like I have a list of tools that are permitted and that are not. This is to forbid things like ASM/bytecode editing, because that crashes more often than it works, and generates crashes that make it look like my fault, as well as being much more pervasive than what the tools can manage (with ASM, you could rewrite the mod given enough time, and just because I allow recipe changes does not mean I am open to people changing all the internal code structure or numerical data). This also allows me to apply a filter on specific tweak mods (i.e. mods whose sole purpose is tweaking my mods). For example, RotaryFlux would be disallowed, because it violates the "fundamental identity" rule.

 

[Psygantic]

If what you want is this:

I am already in that niche; I want a bit more of the community to A) at least try my stuff, without having fundamentally altered it first, and B) not spaz out every time my name is mentioned.

then you might try adjusting your own perceptions such as this:

No. Just no. For one, as we have discussed before, much of, possibly even most, of this community hates the very things my mods are designed to be, and the only way to make them happy is to totally destroy it and remake it as another RF-powered magic box clone. Secondly, much of this community also wants to do things like sell mod content. Thirdly, much of this community hates me, and will jump at the chance to cause me more headaches unless I prevent it.

In the course of parsing all this, I also went to your site and read the FAQ, Licensing, Third Party Modifications, and Things Not To Say pages. The overwhelming impressions I got were A) You're already arguing with me before we've had any kind of contact, and B) You are convinced that I am one of several types of scumbag, or possibly more than one. Without knowing who I am or what I'm looking for. If you wonder why you have a reputation for being hostile to other mods or packs or people, it's partly because of stuff like this.

You've had bad experiences in the past and even currently; I get it. But the kind of people you're hoping will try and appreciate your stuff aren't the problem. The aggressive first impression you put forth for the bad guys is quite off-putting to the good guys. And I'd guess the bad guys aren't much affected either way.

For example, I don't understand what you hope to gain by making every public pack author affirm that they won't claim ownership of your IP or make money from it. That wouldn't even occur to the kind of people you want using your mods, and the few it would occur to will have no problem just lying to your face. Similarly, what exactly is the point of making pack authors affirm that the end users of a public pack they're assembling aren't allowed to take files (which are already freely available to anyone) and host or redistribute them? How much influence do you imagine a public pack author has over that?

These hurdles constitute another kind of friction that hinders people you want using your mods, and I posit has minimal effect on the people you don't want using them.

To wrap this up into concise suggestions:

• When you finalize the modpack/tweaks policy: make it short, emphasize the positive ("You MAY do A, so long as B"), and drop anything that 1) is obvious to a good actor and 2) a bad actor will ignore anyway. Good faith works both ways.
• Eliminate the barriers to entry for the people you hope will try your mods in good faith. Your software license should absolutely prohibit profiting from your mods, redistributing, etc. But be realistic about the actual effects of requiring everyone to positively affirm these things; the benefits are basically nil but the tax is potentially significant to people just trying to do something creative with your work.
• Cut about 90% of the text in those sections of your website. Tell me what I need to know to maximize appropriate use of the mods and no more. Again, focus on the positive. Describe behaviors you approve of, rather than belaboring what you don't. Reading page after page about people who did you wrong in the past does nothing to inspire me to try out your work.

In case it isn't clear: I'm posting this because I give a crap. This is not meant as Reika bashing, but as an attempt to help Reika achieve a stated goal. Probably in vain, but I feel better for trying.

 

[Reika]

And I'd guess the bad guys aren't much affected either way.

For example, I don't understand what you hope to gain by making every public pack author affirm that they won't claim ownership of your IP or make money from it. That wouldn't even occur to the kind of people you want using your mods, and the few it would occur to will have no problem just lying to your face.

These hurdles constitute another kind of friction that hinders people you want using your mods, and I posit has minimal effect on the people you don't want using them.

To wrap this up into concise suggestions:

• drop anything that 1) is obvious to a good actor and 2) a bad actor will ignore anyway. Good faith works both ways.

My having rules against bad-faith actions should have absolutely zero deterrent value for those not intending to do anything malicious. Yes, they are not applicable to you. So why is agreeing to them in any way a negative? The only thing I can think of is that somehow you are taking it to mean that I somehow are accusing you of doing so, which is both rather unreasonable (and completely unwarranted) and inconsistent; do you bristle every time some other service says something like "by using this service you agree not to X" or "I agree that submitting falsified information can open me to penalties including Y"?

Also, you claim I have zero enforcement power against those breaking the rules. This is untrue. I have both code-level and "system-level" (i.e. launcher admins, etc) enforcement.

And if something is not explicitly against my rules - even bad-faith things - I lose a large amount of that enforcement power, as code I put in to enforce my rules gets much more controversial and hated and people like launcher admins are much less willing to act on my behalf.

Similarly, what exactly is the point of making pack authors affirm that the end users of a public pack they're assembling aren't allowed to take files (which are already freely available to anyone) and host or redistribute them? How much influence do you imagine a public pack author has over that?

I am not asking the pack author to seek out and enforce that, just make it openly disallowed. That takes...one sentence.

Also, building on that: You repeatedly say that these rules cause "significant tax" on those abiding by the rules, and the argument that anything I have put forth is a huge burden on pack developers is a refrain I have seen many times on this thread and elsewhere.

I fail to see how. For everyone who understands the concept, getting permission is a trivial task that usually takes minutes (literally all you need to do is write me a message somewhere saying that you are making a pack and "I agree to X", "I agree not to Y" and so on for five simple rules), hardly the arduous and motivation-killing task people are making it out to be. So far, for everyone coming to me for pack permissions, the only ones who have had to spend more time than that are those who seem unable to understand the concept of agreeing to the rules - or those who do not even bother reading them - and even they get it after a few tries, with a total time expenditure on their end of less than 20 minutes.

Honestly, I am starting to get the feeling that anything that requires any effort more than clicking a few buttons on the part of pack devs is going to meet a wall of criticism.

And honestly, if that is the case, such a pack dev is unfit to use my mods anyways, because they are both complex, unique, and dangerous enough that anyone who sees less than 5 minutes of writing a PM as an unacceptably large demand is also not likely to put a decent amount of time into designing the pack (or for that matter providing support later). They are much more likely to be like the pack makers @wolfenstein19 described earlier, the "spend 5 minutes a month and ask questions later" type of developer.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Your rules prohibiting bad-faith actions actually do have a deterrent value. From a new user's perspective, ANY long list of pseudo-legalese is extremely off-putting.

The only thing I can think of is that somehow you are taking it to mean that I somehow are accusing you of doing so, which is both rather unreasonable (and completely unwarranted) and inconsistent; do you bristle every time some other service says something like "by using this service you agree not to X" or "I agree that submitting falsified information can open me to penalties including Y"?

It might be unreasonable, and unwarranted. But it's what's happening.
I know I was warded off by your ToU wall of text the first time I saw it... and the second, third, fourth, etc. Until eventually I saw enough mentions of your mods to go "what the heck is so awesome about this stuff?!" and really check them out and realized that they fill a niche I enjoy.
Also I (personally) do in fact bristle at "Caution: Contents may be hot" on my beverage containers and "Submitting false information to this Official Government Paperwork is illegal and blah blah blah." Because by putting that there in the first place they are treating me (and everyone else) like an idiot at best, and an enemy at worst. If they don't want to assume I have the mental capacity of a goldfish, then I won't much like them. I logically understand that "common sense" isn't, and humanity is a bunch of... well let's just leave it there because anything I'm going to put after that is going to be extremely uncharitable. I'm a misanthrope after all, my opinion of humanity in general is exceedingly negative. But them treating me like a complete imbecile that needs to have "apply to butt" written on my toilet paper? That immediately makes me think less of THEM in return. I can't be alone in that.

Your "tell users not to redistribute" rule is one of those "no duh" kind of things that just seeing makes the user think that the author assumes they're the enemy. So why set up an environment that paints you in an inimical light just by the window dressing? Even if you're able to look past the set dressing and think of why a rule might be reasonable, you're rather obviously NOT a good example for what "most" community members (even the reasonable ones) do. You'd most likely get along better with the community if you were such.

Another issue with the "no redistribution" thing? The author has no ability to disover if a member is breaking that rule, let alone the ability (or authority) to enforce a penalty for breaking said rule. Which makes it not only a no-brainer, but make-work, and a useless-seeming requirement.

Putting forth any requirement AT ALL increases the load on pack authors. Even asking for permission in the first place. A minor amount of effort to be sure, but each individual thing you have to do is another hoop, which is a minor hit against the inclusion of your mods. Things that a reasonable user would say "No Crap, Sherlock. Pull the other one, it makes unicorns fart" when presented with are going to frame you in an increasingly unreasonable manner. I've been following you and your mods long enough to think that the vitriol is justified (seriously, some of the people you attract as users they make me fear for the human race as my bar for "stupid jerk" is lowered... and I'm a misanthrope!). For some people that's a bigger deal than for others, especially if they've never used your mod enough before to develop strong opinions either way. But another thing that makes each little tiny hoop that takes all of 5 seconds to jump through a problem for your mods inclusion in packs? People are lazy (efficient if you want to paint it charitably), any amount of work will appear to a mind inexperienced enough to not have a personal yardstick for the amount of work it would take to actually undertake those actions as to be much larger than reality. People's minds are cautious/conservative and/or have a lot of mental inertia, so a tiny amount of effort tends to be exaggerated simply to that we keep trying the old tried-and-true things that already work for us most of the time.

You could halve the difference and give a "summary" version that contains all the relevant points, but avoids bogging down the new reader with "You have my permission to do A, but not B. C only on Tuesdays, D is forbidden unless your coat is white and the moon is full. F is only a thing when X and Z are perpendicular to the tangent of Q" Which may as well be what a lot of people start to see when you give them a wall of legalese to read. It may be a sad commentary on our society or whatever, but if you make an effort to give users a reader-friendly version of your rules with the full text both accessible and obviously linked, along with a disclaimer saying "This is the reader-friendly summary. If you want the full comprehensive version: Click Here"





The basic thought is that it's already a pain in the ass just to go to 50+ threads and explicitly ask permissions for your mods, anything on top of that is GOING to be a negative incentive. I spend hours tweaking mods, researching mods, and such so that I can make informed decisions and playtest any that I can't figure out from an educated/experienced guess... and I still think that going up to the 30-40 people that don't have open permissions (a number which is rapidly dwindling, making you stand out even more for requiring it) is a pain in the ass waste of time while I wait for responses and probably have to fix things when I miss them. Nobody likes paperwork, and that's what obtaining explicit permission is. Paperwork. What Iskandar said here on the Reddit thread "Why no Rotarycraft?" in /r/FeedTheBeast is very much how a large number of pack authors think "pack devs just aren't bothering when they are so many other mods that have open permissions."

Unless they see something they think is worth the effort of going through the hoops? They're GOING to skip your mod. I did at LEAST a half-dozen times, probably closer to multiple dozen, until I found something that made me investigate your mods further, and even then I was extremely wary about including your mod in anything I did because I never download a mod unless I expect it might get onto a server I'm running. It took an in-depth review of your mod and its capabilities to determine that yes, I did like your mods, and yes they WERE worth the effort of going through hoops and reading a wall of text.

Is that reasonable? Probably not. Is it what basically everyone is going to do unless they see something that catches their eye about your mods? Yep. Heck some people even then won't simply because you're using restrictive and adversarial requirements. Someone recently said they were looking at using ChromatiCraft but your permissions turned them off... I want to say that was @Iskandar. @SynfulChaot won't use your mods for a similar reason. They might be a more extreme version in that they've actually investigated your mods and seen stuff they liked, and the permissions/requirements STILL turned them away from your mods; but most people aren't going to give your stuff a second glance when they go and see this giant wall of legalese they are supposed to agree to. Which means unless they're exposed to the awesome that is your mods, they're never going to touch them... and if the mods aren't in any popular packs or being used by popular streamers? They're never going to see something to interest them... and you've created a chicken/egg problem, catch 22, feedback loop, whatever you want to call it.




Don't get me wrong, this is a great step in the right direction and I'm AMAZINGLY happy you're planning to do this. But there are steps you could take to lessen the feeling that random passersby are liable to get about you and your mods without lessening your ability to enforce your powers as a mod author at the pack and code level. @Psygantic has some very good suggestions.

 

[Reika]

While the point you are trying to make is not ill-founded, I cannot help but feel it is misapplied; my mods are designed with the target audience such that those sorts of people will be much less turned off by having to read a paragraph or two. This applies to pack devs as well, in that it "takes" a pack dev willing to spend a little extra effort in order to properly use my stuff anyways, because of how much more care and/or time has to be spent, especially should someone desire to tweak.


There is also the fact that they are much less popular or desirable to 95% of the modded community, so that to me means that if someone wants them, they actually want them, not just looking for another mod to throw in. Someone in that position should be sufficiently motivated that the small amount of extra effort required to use them is seen as acceptable. I really hate to phrase it like this because of how it sounds, but in that respect, RC is special like few other mods. It is also one of the reasons RC is so polarizing even on its content alone - those who like it really like it. Those who do not? They want it purged from the face of the internet.


Fundamentally, this is to me a "cost-benefit" issue, i.e. trying to find the solution with the maximal gains with the minimal losses, for both me, pack devs, and the end user. And I do not see a few minutes of time on a pack dev's part - a one-time small cost - worth the continuous loss of time (and sanity) the alternative opens me to.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Paragraph or two? I've got a 1080 monitor and I have to page down more than once on https://sites.google.com/site/reikasminecraft/licensing and that doesn't hold a candle to third-party modifications or the MCF thread. There is a whole truckload of text to wade through on your mods, which most people will take one look at (or in my case a dozen or more) and go "NOPE", turn around, and leave. If I hadn't been introduced to your mods via Monster, I still probably wouldn't be playing them because of that wall of text. I think the first mod that I ever saw of yours was Geostrata, and I think it had its own thread at the time. Some modpack or other had it and I wondered wtf made the pretty stones. If I had seen that license and I had wanted pretty stones (I'm not the world's most aesthetic builder, that very first time I said "neat" and moved on), I would have abandoned your mods like a hot potato. I know I was introduced to early versions of Rotarycraft pre-Monster, because I recognized your banner when I looked it up around that time. I can only assume that I had a reason to pass your tech mod by, and judging by the changelogs that reason wasn't "lack of neat stuff" even in the early days. It either was the original post a mile long, difficulty finding actual documentation on content, or a big block of legalese, as those are the three big reasons I drop mods without considering them beyond the most basic cursory link.

That wall of text is something rather unique to your license amongst minecraft mods (I certainly haven't seen a ToU that big that wasn't an official license like LGPL3), and it's a thing that could be tuned to avoid most people's knee-jerk reaction to huge blocks of legalese (nobody likes lawyers, or the jargon they use. There's a reason there are so many jokes about 'em ). Minecraft did that with their EULA, and I can't help but think that there are other examples, except that I try to forget legalese once I've read it for gotchas. Give a layman's version, a summary, the human-readable copy like Creative Commons licenses have, what have you. Link it with some basic disclaimer to the full blown legalese that you're using now. Then people like me can at least look at it and see if we want to bother reading the massive wall of text instead of looking at that wall and going "What the hell, am I signing away my house?! This is a MINECRAFT MOD!" and leaving without a second glance. First impressions are vitally important after all.

As for taking a person willing to spend a bit of extra effort? Honestly, not so much. Your non-CrC mods slot into most lightly themed packs with minimal effort. They're either blindingly obvious to grasp (Geostrata. It adds decorative rocks.) or because of a large amount of effort (or the use of addons designed for this, like AOBD) slot right into the standard "tech mod" slot except with a broader scope and novel power system. You have ore doubling, you have automated mining, you have auto-harvesting and crop acceleration; basically all the capabilities one would expect from a pack containing MFR, TE, EIO, IC2, BC, or the other popular tech mods in some standard combination(s). And, while they ARE less popular your mods probably are actually desirable to a very large segment of the community, they're not THAT hard to grasp (well, ChromatiCraft still kinda is a lot unintuitive), and the capabilities (and eventual power) are impressive.

Most people aren't as worried about OP (and your balance is actually good as-is for a middle-of-the-road person. It just goes exponential instead of linear, which a lot of people aren't used to) as the vocal members of our community, just look at the trends in gaming over the last two decades. People like more power and easier times as long as they don't think it's TOO easy. Your tech mods deliver that as long as you can remember how to do basic multiplication... and like nuclear incidents... ReactorCraft is rather unforgiving, it's why I plan to test EVERY build in creative, or with a backup.

What I think you're missing in the cost-benefit analysis is the TOTAL man-hours cost. One second more work spread across a million people is nearly 11 days and 14 hours. Now that's an extreme example. But even if you get a thousand people and it takes them 2 minutes to read your rules? That's a day and ten hours of time. That's not including the people that took one look at the wall of text and ran the other way. Which is something that could easily be avoided by shrinking the main post and site. You don't even have to remove the stuff. Stick it in spoilers beneath the summaries, link to it, whatever. But when the first thing someone sees is a giant wall of text they don't want to read, you've just raised the opportunity cost for THINKING about your mods, which is a VERY VERY dangerous thing to do. Something that a bit of time carefully condensing/pruning your area(s) of first impression could greatly alleviate.

Here, an example of your license which could still link directly to the current version. Yes I listed THREE rules, because rules 1 and 2 are already covered by earlier parts of your license.

This mod is provided as-is and free of charge, with no warranties of any kind. If you paid money for this mod, seek a refund immediately. You are allowed to decompile and edit the code of these mods for private use ONLY. Addons or plugins that don't use my source code or harm my mods function or image are freely permitted. Any links to these mods should be to the official download page or forum thread, no unauthorized re-hosting allowed.

Private (personal-only) modpacks are not required to seek permission. They are also exempt from my Three Rules below.
SemiPrivate (For whitelisted servers, not on a launcher like FTB) modpacks are not required to obtain express permission, but notification is greatly appreciated. These packs are required to follow my Five Rules.
Public (Launcher or website hosted) modpacks must obtain express written permission from me. These packs are required to follow my Three Rules.

Reika's Three Rules for non-private modpacks

• You must follow my rules for modifying my mods (listed below).
• You may not make a profit from the pack, but may cover server costs via the methods allowed by the Mojang EULA for Minecraft.
• Don't claim credit for my mods.

Ok, I don't feel like simplifying your 3rd party modifications rules right now, especially because they're changing soon and I don't want to back-parse through the current in-queue iteration and interface it with the current working copy. But I'm sure you can get the gist.

That short block was simplified from this huge block for anyone that isn't familiar

Licensing
Terms and Conditions
Downloading any of my mods constitutes a complete and unconditional agreement with these terms! I reserve the right to make changes to these terms at any time and grant exceptions if I so desire.
All permissions and exceptions are non-transferrable and revocable.

0. USED TERMS
MOD - modification, plugin, a piece of software that interfaces with the Minecraft client to extend, add, change or remove original capabilities.
MOJANG - Mojang AB (Sweden)
OWNER - Original author(s) of the mod. Under the copyright terms accepted when purchasing Minecraft (http://www.minecraft.net/copyright.jsp) the owner has full rights over their mod despite use of Mojang code
USER - End user of the mod, i.e., the person installing the mod
PRIVATE - Personal use
PUBLIC - Any usage that involves more than one person

1. LIABILITY
These mods are provided 'as is' with no warranties, implied or otherwise. the owner of these mods takes no responsibility for any damages incurred from the use of these mods. These mods alters fundamental parts of the Minecraft game, parts of Minecraft may not work with these mods installed. All damages caused from the use or misuse of these mods fall on the user.

2. USE
These mods may be used for the purpose of playing or pack creation as you see fit. They may not be used to generate profit, circumvent the law, or other use contrary to their original function.

3. REDISTRIBUTION
These mods may not be uploaded or mirrored by anyone other than the owner, and all links to these mods must link to this page, not directly to adfly or MediaFire. Any unauthorized links to the mods that bypass this forum page will be discovered and forced to be deleted.

4. DERIVATIVE WORKS
These mods are provided freely and may be decompiled and modified for private use, either with a decompiler or a bytecode editor. Public use of modified or derivative versions is prohibited unless you are given specific written permission. Distribution of the source code, modified (including custom compilation) or otherwise, is prohibited by anyone except the author, except in the case of a derivative mod that has been given prior approval. Creating derivative works for commercial use is expressly forbidden and the owner reserves full right to seek damages.

5. ADDONS AND MODIFICATIONS
Addons and modifications that use none of my mods' source can be made and released freely and distributed as the creator sees fit. However, if I feel an addon or modification damages one of my mods - such as by hurting its compatibility with other mods, breaking features, or damaging the balance or realism if applicable - I reserve the right to revoke this permission and disallow its distribution until the issue(s) have been fixed.

6. MONETIZATION
Any attempts to make money off of these mods (selling, selling modified/derivative versions, adfly, sharecash, donations, ad revenue, etc.) are strictly forbidden, and the owner may claim damages or take other action to rectify the situation. Servers hosting the pack may take donations to cover operating costs, but not for personal profit. Additionally, the mods' behaviors may not be edited - such as by making some items unobtainable - to encourage or coerce players to pay or donate to the pack or server host. These actions are also expressly forbidden by the MC terms of use.

7. LICENSING
You must agree to the entirety of this license in full in order to use the mods or include it in a pack. Use of the mods constitutes implicit and unconditional agreement to these terms.
The author of these mods reserves the right to change this license as is deemed necessary without prior warning, though such warning may and likely will be provided at the author's discretion. Such changes take effect immediately; it is not required to explicitly agree nor update the mods.

8. COST
This software is provided free of charge for all users. If you obtained this software from any other source, or paid money to access it, you have been scammed. Get a refund immediately.


Modpack Permissions

Private (personal-use) packs may be created and used without getting any sort of permissions. Redistribution is forbidden.
SemiPrivate (private server) packs may be created and used; permissions are not explicitly required but notification is strongly recommended and preferred.
Public (launcher/website) packs must receive full permission from me. Until those permissions are given in writing from me, they are equivalent to being denied.

If I find an unauthorized public pack, I will have it taken down. If I deem its existence the result of simple ignorance of the rules, I will give the creator the chance of doing it themselves. Otherwise, or if they fail to take that chance, I will do it myself and they will be subject to the whims of the managers of the distribution platform. Most launchers react to such violations harshly.


Those rules are in place because public and semiprivate packs need to follow five basic rules to include my mods. They are simple:

Users of the pack may not have permission to reupload and redistribute the pack.
Under no circumstances may you or the users of the pack extract my mods from the pack and rehost them.
The pack must comply with the rules regarding third-party modification discussed below.
The pack may not generate income, either directly from purchases or donations, or indirectly with ad revenue or merchandise, except that which is necessary for maintenance (eg server fees). This includes disabling/banning machines so that users must donate to have access to them or offering packages which include my items. These actions are also explicitly forbidden by the Mojang EULA.
You may not try to claim credit for any of my mods under any circumstance. This includes but is not limited to stating ownership, claiming to have contributed content (beyond merely suggesting an idea), and claiming that you are on part of a modding team with me.

There is nothing preventing the full "legal" license from being linked as long as you make sure to clarify this is the friendly copy. I mean Creative Commons does that with

This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license.

Why not make your rules more immediately user-friendly and less hostile? The kind of idiot that will break your ToU intentionally won't read your ToU ANYWAY, so all you really have to lose by making first impressions more palatable while still keeping all the legal bite is potential legitimate users, right?

Edit: Because apparently I count like King Arthur from Monty Python and Five is Three *sigh* Fixed now.

 

[Psygantic]

My having rules against bad-faith actions should have absolutely zero deterrent value for those not intending to do anything malicious. Yes, they are not applicable to you. So why is agreeing to them in any way a negative? The only thing I can think of is that somehow you are taking it to mean that I somehow are accusing you of doing so, which is both rather unreasonable (and completely unwarranted) and inconsistent; do you bristle every time some other service says something like "by using this service you agree not to X" or "I agree that submitting falsified information can open me to penalties including Y"?

I can't think of a single service that requires me to put "I agree to rule X" in writing several times. Can you?

Imagine a restaurant requiring you to write "I agree that I will not steal food" before letting you in. I would certainly choose another restaurant in that event - not because writing that sentence is a huge burden and not because I can't abide not stealing food, but because it's an insultingly frivolous waste of my time. Making me write that sentence changes nothing at all about my obligation to refrain from stealing food - it is already understood to be disallowed.

Honestly, I am starting to get the feeling that anything that requires any effort more than clicking a few buttons on the part of pack devs is going to meet a wall of criticism.

And honestly, if that is the case, such a pack dev is unfit to use my mods anyways, because they are both complex, unique, and dangerous enough that anyone who sees less than 5 minutes of writing a PM as an unacceptably large demand is also not likely to put a decent amount of time into designing the pack (or for that matter providing support later).

And yet several authors of the best-constructed and -supported packs in existence are right here in this thread, agreeing that they're not interested in jumping through these hoops. It is not a question of effort.

 

[HeilMewTwo]

Paragraph or two? I've got a 1080 monitor and I have to page down more than once on https://sites.google.com/site/reikasminecraft/licensing and that doesn't hold a candle to third-party modifications or the MCF thread. There is a whole truckload of text to wade through on your mods, which most people will take one look at (or in my case a dozen or more) and go "NOPE", turn around, and leave. If I hadn't been introduced to your mods via Monster, I still probably wouldn't be playing them because of that wall of text. I think the first mod that I ever saw of yours was Geostrata, and I think it had its own thread at the time. Some modpack or other had it and I wondered wtf made the pretty stones. If I had seen that license and I had wanted pretty stones (I'm not the world's most aesthetic builder, that very first time I said "neat" and moved on), I would have abandoned your mods like a hot potato. I know I was introduced to early versions of Rotarycraft pre-Monster, because I recognized your banner when I looked it up around that time. I can only assume that I had a reason to pass your tech mod by, and judging by the changelogs that reason wasn't "lack of neat stuff" even in the early days. It either was the original post a mile long, difficulty finding actual documentation on content, or a big block of legalese, as those are the three big reasons I drop mods without considering them beyond the most basic cursory link.

That wall of text is something rather unique to your license amongst minecraft mods (I certainly haven't seen a ToU that big that wasn't an official license like LGPL3), and it's a thing that could be tuned to avoid most people's knee-jerk reaction to huge blocks of legalese (nobody likes lawyers, or the jargon they use. There's a reason there are so many jokes about 'em ). Minecraft did that with their EULA, and I can't help but think that there are other examples, except that I try to forget legalese once I've read it for gotchas. Give a layman's version, a summary, the human-readable copy like Creative Commons licenses have, what have you. Link it with some basic disclaimer to the full blown legalese that you're using now. Then people like me can at least look at it and see if we want to bother reading the massive wall of text instead of looking at that wall and going "What the hell, am I signing away my house?! This is a MINECRAFT MOD!" and leaving without a second glance. First impressions are vitally important after all.

As for taking a person willing to spend a bit of extra effort? Honestly, not so much. Your non-CrC mods slot into most lightly themed packs with minimal effort. They're either blindingly obvious to grasp (Geostrata. It adds decorative rocks.) or because of a large amount of effort (or the use of addons designed for this, like AOBD) slot right into the standard "tech mod" slot except with a broader scope and novel power system. You have ore doubling, you have automated mining, you have auto-harvesting and crop acceleration; basically all the capabilities one would expect from a pack containing MFR, TE, EIO, IC2, BC, or the other popular tech mods in some standard combination(s). And, while they ARE less popular your mods probably are actually desirable to a very large segment of the community, they're not THAT hard to grasp (well, ChromatiCraft still kinda is a lot unintuitive), and the capabilities (and eventual power) are impressive.

Most people aren't as worried about OP (and your balance is actually good as-is for a middle-of-the-road person. It just goes exponential instead of linear, which a lot of people aren't used to) as the vocal members of our community, just look at the trends in gaming over the last two decades. People like more power and easier times as long as they don't think it's TOO easy. Your tech mods deliver that as long as you can remember how to do basic multiplication... and like nuclear incidents... ReactorCraft is rather unforgiving, it's why I plan to test EVERY build in creative, or with a backup.

What I think you're missing in the cost-benefit analysis is the TOTAL man-hours cost. One second more work spread across a million people is nearly 11 days and 14 hours. Now that's an extreme example. But even if you get a thousand people and it takes them 2 minutes to read your rules? That's a day and ten hours of time. That's not including the people that took one look at the wall of text and ran the other way. Which is something that could easily be avoided by shrinking the main post and site. You don't even have to remove the stuff. Stick it in spoilers beneath the summaries, link to it, whatever. But when the first thing someone sees is a giant wall of text they don't want to read, you've just raised the opportunity cost for THINKING about your mods, which is a VERY VERY dangerous thing to do. Something that a bit of time carefully condensing/pruning your area(s) of first impression could greatly alleviate.

Here, an example of your license which could still link directly to the current version. Yes I listed THREE rules, because rules 1 and 2 are already covered by earlier parts of your license.



Ok, I don't feel like simplifying your 3rd party modifications rules right now, especially because they're changing soon and I don't want to back-parse through the current in-queue iteration and interface it with the current working copy. But I'm sure you can get the gist.

That short block was simplified from this huge block for anyone that isn't familiar


There is nothing preventing the full "legal" license from being linked as long as you make sure to clarify this is the friendly copy. I mean Creative Commons does that with

Why not make your rules more immediately user-friendly and less hostile? The kind of idiot that will break your ToU intentionally won't read your ToU ANYWAY, so all you really have to lose by making first impressions more palatable while still keeping all the legal bite is potential legitimate users, right?

Edit: Because apparently I count like King Arthur from Monty Python and Five is Three *sigh* Fixed now.

One of the few times I feel like saying Tl;Dr is justified.

 

[ljfa]

Also, you say that the mere "use of the mods constitutes implicit and unconditional agreement" to the license, even though most of it isn't relevant or interesting for someone who just wants to play it in a private pack. Also, I can't agree with it anyway when I don't get to read it and I certainly didn't when I played Monster.
For instance, the Botania license explicitly says that you don't need to read it if all you want to do is play. The GNU GPL also says that you don't need to accept the license if you want to run the software.

 

[Plasmasnake]

I can't think of a single service that requires me to put "I agree to rule X" in writing several times. Can you?

Imagine a restaurant requiring me to write "I agree that I will not steal food" before letting me in. I would certainly choose another restaurant in that event - not because writing that sentence is a huge burden and not because I can't abide not stealing food, but because it's an insultingly frivolous waste of my time. Making me write that sentence changes nothing at all about my obligation to refrain from stealing food - it is already understood to be disallowed.

You may not write it down every day of your life, but you are constantly in a silent agreement with the law simply to not commit crimes (crimes which are explicitly explained in writing). As a normal citizen, you stand to lose absolutely nothing since the rules in question only target those who seek to cause trouble. While it is true that pretty much nothing will deter somebody who wants to do harm, establishing rules are never a bad thing.

I would agree with you if Reika's rules were some type of invasion of privacy or some sort of intrusion of fundamental rights, but they aren't.

And yet several authors of the best-constructed and -supported packs in existence are right here in this thread, agreeing that they're not interested in jumping through these hoops. It is not a question of effort.

Oh, it's definitely a question of effort.

1. Users of the pack cannot redistribute any of your mods.
2. Users of the pack cannot rehost any of the mods that may extracted from the pack.
3. I agree not to modify your mod using any other thing than is provided within the mods.
4. I will not monetize or make money using your mods.
5. I won't claim that your mods are mine.

You cannot say that failure to agree to these 5 incredibly basic rules are the result of anything other than pure laziness --- or perhaps even contempt. You not giving up any of your rights; you are not hiding anything or even suffering an invasion of privacy; you are not even being targeted. You simply state to Reika that, "Hey, I won't be a dick".

...and if you cannot do that than I really doubt the intentions are good.

 

[Pyure]

You cannot say that failure to agree to these 5 incredibly basic rules are the result of anything other than pure laziness --- or perhaps even contempt. You not giving up any of your rights; you are not hiding anything or even suffering an invasion of privacy; you are not even being targeted. You simply state to Reika that, "Hey, I won't be a dick".

...and if you cannot do that than I really doubt the intentions are good.

Psy already clarified and rebutted this fully.

If some modders do it and others don't, a precedent has been set whereby some give me a reasonable degree of trust and respect and some don't. I will naturally favour those who do. Your reply just reiterates Reika's original stance without actually addressing the superior argument.

Chiming in briefly, but staying at arms length here. My personal position is still that Reika's position is untenable and self-defeating, but on a positive note I respect the effort to work towards a suitable compromise.

Edit: Plasmasnake, I neglected to say or imply: nothing but love sir. And a fun debate.

 

[keybounce]

I can't think of a single service that requires me to put "I agree to rule X" in writing several times. Can you?

No, but I can think of plenty of "surf-by" licenses where the bottom of the pages say "use of this site constitute acceptance of terms and conditions". I've seen an XKCD where this was parodied by someone binding the devil to an unseen contract just by showing up. I've seen plenty of legal disasters where non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it contracts that remove your rights were upheld by judges that seem to think "Well, a contract is automatically valid".

The whole idea of "We're just going to assume we're right, and take your rights, and force you to arbitration and a loss of rights if you want to challenge us after we've done whatever we want" is a disaster.
Reika is just making sure you know up front what you are doing, rather than trying to come back later and whine. Made the whole "I'm going to sue you" person look even more foolish.

I seriously hope they actually tried, and wound up having to compensate you for your time and effort, and got chided by the judge for the completely frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Reika]

What I think you're missing in the cost-benefit analysis is the TOTAL man-hours cost. One second more work spread across a million people is nearly 11 days and 14 hours. Now that's an extreme example. But even if you get a thousand people and it takes them 2 minutes to read your rules? That's a day and ten hours of time.

This is an oversimplification, because it assumes only the raw total matters. Even though it causes more "total" loss, something like wasting 1000 people's time for one minute is much better than wasting an hour of someone else's, because losing one minute is trivial (and thus the "suffering" is minimal) while losing an hour is severe. To use an analogy, what would be better, asking 5000 people to donate $1 to a charity or asking one person to donate $500? To me the answer is very obvious.

That's not including the people that took one look at the wall of text and ran the other way. Which is something that could easily be avoided by shrinking the main post and site. You don't even have to remove the stuff. Stick it in spoilers beneath the summaries, link to it, whatever. But when the first thing someone sees is a giant wall of text they don't want to read, you've just raised the opportunity cost for THINKING about your mods, which is a VERY VERY dangerous thing to do. Something that a bit of time carefully condensing/pruning your area(s) of first impression could greatly alleviate.

The forum post only has the pack rules - as well as some non-rule information. The site itself has all those "walls of text", and all of them are subpages that are by no means required. Also, spoilers are not possible on the Google Sites editor.

I can't think of a single service that requires me to put "I agree to rule X" in writing several times. Can you?

Imagine a restaurant requiring you to write "I agree that I will not steal food" before letting you in. I would certainly choose another restaurant in that event - not because writing that sentence is a huge burden and not because I can't abide not stealing food, but because it's an insultingly frivolous waste of my time. Making me write that sentence changes nothing at all about my obligation to refrain from stealing food - it is already understood to be disallowed.

Because you already are under that rule via the law.

But what if a restaurant that had a problem with people being loud and disruptive made you confirm to the server - even verbally - that you would not start loudly swearing or similar? Would you still leave?

If the answer is yes, this is less a problem of wasted time - all 5 seconds of it - and more a more fundamental philosophical one.

Also, you say that the mere "use of the mods constitutes implicit and unconditional agreement" to the license, even though most of it isn't relevant or interesting for someone who just wants to play it in a private pack. Also, I can't agree with it anyway when I don't get to read it and I certainly didn't when I played Monster.
For instance, the Botania license explicitly says that you don't need to read it if all you want to do is play. The GNU GPL also says that you don't need to accept the license if you want to run the software.

I do not follow. Yes, I do say that using the mods means you agree to the license.

But people are starting to conflate the license - which I do not force you to read or agree to - with the pack rules.

The license is there for legal defence, exempting me from things like being held accountable for things like damage to a server, as well as maintaining my IP rights over the mod.

The pack rules are what I actually make people read, and this is less than two not-very-substantial paragraphs long.

If you want to read everything else, from the license to the what-not-to-do to anything else, go ahead - and I encourage it - but it is by no means a requirement, and people acting like it is are either misguided or dishonest.

I seriously hope they actually tried, and wound up having to compensate you for your time and effort, and got chided by the judge for the completely frivolous lawsuit.

I got them to back off after a while; I think they realized they had no case.

Though I would have completely crushed them in court, that costs time I do not really have.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Ok, fine... JUST the modpacks section from the thread then (and you could link to another page in lieu of spoilers for the Google site)

ModPacks:
A note on terminology:

• Private modpacks are for personal use only, and are never redistributed in any form.
• Semi-Private modpacks are those being used on a private (possibly whitelisted) server.
• Public modpacks are those being publicly distributed, either via ZIP, ATLauncher, Technic, FTB, or otherwise

Even if your pack is intended for a private server, if it is freely available to others, it is a public pack.

Public modpacks must obtain permission; semi-private ones do not need permission, but I do appreciate being notified. Private packs do not need either permission or notification.

If you are using the mod on a server, it is automatically part of a public or semi-private pack and is thus bound by the relevant terms. Using the pack on a LAN counts as a private pack as long as the world is restricted to one home/office/school network and is not publicly available.

If you are using my mods in a pack, you are still bound by the rules, even if the pack has already received permission. Use of FTB or other approved packs rather than coming to me directly is not a magic pass to suddenly violate the terms.

If you wish to include any of my mods in any public or semi-private modpack, you must follow the following five rules:

1. 1. Users of the pack may not have permission to reupload and redistribute the pack.
   2. Under no circumstances may you or the users of the pack extract my mods from the pack and rehost them.
   3. The pack must comply with the rules regarding third-party modification discussed below.
   4. My mods may not be used to generate income, either directly from purchases or donations, or indirectly with ad revenue or merchandise, except that which is necessary for maintenance (eg server fees). Ad revenue for YouTube videos of the pack is permitted. Access to my content may not be sold. This includes but is not limited to disabling/banning/locking machines or items so that users must donate to have access to them, and offering packages that include my items. These actions are also expressly forbidden by the MC terms of use.
   5. You may not try to claim credit for any of my mods under any circumstance. This includes but is not limited to stating ownership, claiming to have contributed content (beyond merely suggesting an idea), and claiming that you are on part of a modding team with me.

Regarding third-party modifications: Due to techtree dependency and "learning curve" concerns, RotaryCraft, ReactorCraft, ElectriCraft, and ChromatiCraft must not be modified in any way, including disabling items and changing recipes, and providing alternate means to obtain various items and materials.This includes the use of MineTweaker and other similar tools! In cases of instability, contact me to obtain a temporary exception. Config options native to the mod are of course free to be modified.

Other mods have a bit more flexibility:

Semi-private packs must obey the following:

• Total feature removal must be a last resort; where possible, other solutions such as more costly recipes must be considered
• Any and all feature removals must be immediately obvious to all potential players on the server before they take steps to join
• If adding the mod to an existing server, it must be made clear before the addition of the mod which features will be modified and/or removed
• The removal of the feature must be accepted by a majority of the players on the server
• If the feature is a prerequisite or crafting ingredient of something else, some alternative way to obtain those items must be provided
• Players must not be given preferential treatment; admins or donators get no more access to banned features than ordinary players do
• If a large section of the playerbase strongly disapproves of the disabling of an item, the one(s) responsible for disabling it must make a valid justification for their reasoning to their players. If they fail to do so to their players' satisfaction, the ban must be lifted
• Modified copies of the mod are ineligible for tech support until the issue can be reproduced in an unmodified copy
• Modifications must be done by using commonly-accepted tools such as WorldGuard. Under no circumstances may you modify any mod's source code, including with ASM or bytecode edits.
• Abuse of the above powers to earn income or torment the server players will result in a total loss of modification permissions

Public packs must obey the following: The pack must not use external mods to significantly change the way my mods work, such that a guide for the default setup would be misleading or useless for the pack (or vice versa), or that the mods' techtrees, if applicable, are radically altered, or that features are missing. This includes the use of MineTweaker and other similar tools to remove recipes or items! Under no circumstances may you modify any mod's source code or fundamental behavior, including with ASM or bytecode edits. Config options native to the mod are of course free to be modified, as is removing other mods' APIs from the DragonAPI jar if necessary.

These rules must be adhered to; violations of the rules will result in revocation of permission. If you do not explicitly state that you will adhere to these rules, I will tell you to read this section again. These permissions are non-transferrable, so if your pack is changing ownership, the new owner must get fresh permissions.
If you are asking for permission, you must state that you will adhere to each of these rules individually as proof you have read and understand them. Just saying "I agree" is not sufficient.

That's more than two paragraphs, and I still maintain that it could be simplified, presented with a human-friendly copy of your license and take up 1/4-1/3 the room, maybe even less. You can have the big massive wall with examples and legalese and terms and conditions and jargon. Just make the first impression something non-adversarial (which your example of the affirming verbally to the waiter that you're going to be doing things that OUGHT to be automatically assumed is), and easy to read.

Do note that I STILL THINK that the new rules are a step in the right direction and will likely be making use of them, I'm just suggesting another step towards making your terms of use less off-putting when they really don't need to be.

 

[Plasmasnake]

Psy already clarified and rebutted this fully.

If some modders do it and others don't, a precedent has been set whereby some give me a reasonable degree of trust and respect and some don't. I will naturally favour those who do. Your reply just reiterates Reika's original stance without actually addressing the superior argument.

Chiming in briefly, but staying at arms length here. My personal position is still that Reika's position is untenable and self-defeating, but on a positive note I respect the effort to work towards a suitable compromise.

Edit: Plasmasnake, I neglected to say or imply: nothing but love sir. And a fun debate.

I literally have no clue on what you are trying to say.

What's the rebuttal and what is the 'superior arguement'?

 

[Pyure]

I literally have no clue on what you are trying to say.

What's the rebuttal and what is the 'superior arguement'?

Np, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Reika: My requirements are simple and reasonable.
Psy: Other precedents are simpler and more reasonable for the following reasons...and here's why it won't work....
Plasma: Reika's requirements are simple and reasonable.
Pyure: Uh, what?

Super-short tl;dr version

 

[Psygantic]

Because you already are under that rule via the law.

Yes, exactly. Just as I am already prohibited from selling or claiming authorship of your copyrighted work by a huge body of intellectual property law and precedent. Whether I agree in writing or not is entirely irrelevant.

But what if a restaurant that had a problem with people being loud and disruptive made you confirm to the server - even verbally - that you would not start loudly swearing or similar? Would you still leave?

If the answer is yes, this is less a problem of wasted time - all 5 seconds of it - and more a more fundamental philosophical one.

It's both. The restaurant already has the right to ask me to leave their property if I become disruptive. I know this, and the restaurant owner knows this. Requiring a verbal confirmation serves no purpose other than to establish an adversarial posture. There are better ways to seek my cooperation in managing the noise level.


Think about it this way: You already offer the mods and their source code for any random person to download and use without any kind of authorization or written statement. Surely you expect that those people, who vastly outnumber the public pack authors, will not steal or profit from your work, right? Of course you do, and your protections consist of copyright law and your software license, just like every other mod dev. So what makes you think those protections no longer apply when someone is integrating your mods with others in a pack?

I got them to back off after a while; I think they realized they had no case.

Though I would have completely crushed them in court, that costs time I do not really have.

When someone tells you they're going to sue you, it is a bluff 100% of the time. If a legal proceeding is actually intended, the first thing you'll get is a letter from an attorney with a set of demands and a timeline for satisfaction of those demands. If the demands aren't met, a lawsuit might then be filed. Anyone with the means to engage in a lawsuit wouldn't bother with the threats unless they were intentionally bluffing, hoping to get you to back down at no cost to them. Anyone without the means... doesn't have the means to do anything but bluff.

 

[Psygantic]

Do note that I STILL THINK that the new rules are a step in the right direction ..., I'm just suggesting another step towards making your terms of use less off-putting when they really don't need to be.

Me too.

 

[Plasmasnake]

Np, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Reika: My requirements are simple and reasonable.
Psy: Other precedents are simpler and more reasonable for the following reasons...and here's why it won't work....
Plasma: Reika's requirements are simple and reasonable.
Pyure: Uh, what?

Super-short tl;dr version

But... they are... simple and reasonable.

I'll be frank with you, and it might comes across as hostile over the internet, but it doesn't make any sense to be against the rules put in place, nor to be against the negligible effort of writing 5 short phrases in your own words. Phrases you can message him at any time you like and through PM, a post on a thread, and even other sites plus you only have to write them out if you plan on making a public pack. As I have said, you aren't handing over any of your rights... you are just saying essentially that you will not commit a 'crime', so to speak.

It could not be more easier to do and the effort required is so small that I need scientific notation to express it. Personally, I feel like we are turning a mole hill into a mountain on this case.

On the other case on modifying the mods using tools like minetweaker, the rules thus far are both reasonable and good-willed. These rules also, as far as I understand it, only need to be complied with if you plan on making a public pack and/or add documentation on wikis or whatnot. In addition, it shouldn't be unreasonable for a mod author to disallow the altering of his work past the tools he provides. Since they are not public domain, we cannot assume that anybody can make changes to the work in any they see fit in every situation just because the work is available for download on the internet... it does not work like that.

I think the underlying problem here is that many just do not understand the unique situation that both Reika and his mods fall under. Changing recipes on certain items or machines can negatively impact the mod drastically and you can easily unbalance for the worse the entire mod with a single change. To combat this, there are restrictions put in place not to be there for the sake of restriction or some other negative purpose, but rather meant to prevent unintended screw-ups that can quite literally destroy the entire pack and worlds people play on. It requires effort on both ends and for good reason. Reika's big mods aren't Thermal Expansion Pt2 or Thaumcraft Color Edition, they are totally unique experiences and must be treated using different methods.

To end this, I want to reiterate that I am not going for a hostile tone of voice here. I think that we should be discussing how to better implement these upcoming changes and making them as good as possible, instead of turning this thread into a massive argument over the virtue of the rules.

Stuff like what is on the bottom of Psy's post #207.