If you make something, you have the right to decide what gets done with that. That appies to almost anything. If you disagree with this, you probably should be using a computer.
The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
- Status
If you make something, you have the right to decide what gets done with that. That appies to almost anything. If you disagree with this, you probably should be using a computer.
You are in control of your playtime... however modders are in control of code. Its not our job.
My operating system does not tell me which applications I may install. My word processor does not tell me what documents I may write. My web browser does not tell me which websites I may visit. My multimedia player does not tell me which video files I may play. My video encoder does not tell me which videos I may edit. My audio editor does not tell me which recordings I may modify. My graphics program does not tell me which images I may create. My email program does not tell me which messages I may compose and send.
How long would you like this list to get before you realize you're wrong?[DOUBLEPOST=1374240759][/DOUBLEPOST]
Modders are in control of their own code, not anybody else's. You can refuse to make a change to your own mod all you want: That's fine. You don't get to say that somebody else doesn't. You don't get to have control over the entire universe: Only over yourself.
Personally, I think that FTB as a mod pack has at least some justification in dictating terms for what goes into the pack. Sure, you don't have rights to say a thing about standalones, but once a mod is being put into FTB, which involves the time and effort of others to integrate all the mods included, there is room to hold a serious discussion on what does and does not fit in the pack. Mod authors don't have to have their mods included in FTB. Personally, I think it's a privilege in a sense, because it provides exposure. I'd not heard of a lot of the mods in FTB before I tried it. I knew about IC, EE, Buildcraft and Redpower. But most of the rest were not something I was aware of.
To me, it's less about morality and more about what benefits the packs. Outside of my own personal biases.
To me, it's less about morality and more about what benefits the packs. Outside of my own personal biases.
The law (and common sense) say I'm right though. Your ISP controls what websites you visit. Your browser very well could (it does kinda, ever seen the "This site contains malicious content" screen?).
If the licence doesn't specify that a piece of software is provided with full control on the users part (I haven't seen such a licence except for this one), it can apply restrictions however it chooses.
Edit: And your dvd player does too, DMCA...
FTB Team, this is your football and your rules to the game. You provide a service to the modders in the form of exposure, (Which MidnightVulpine had so eloquently stated above.) a service to users like me who pull their hair out trying to set up modpacks on their own, and a service to Mojang, by keeping their game interesting. I don't believe you all get enough credit for this. Just be careful dealing with people who utilize a scorched earth policy, they tend not to care who they hurt when they get on a roll, and it would be a shame for you all to take flak for providing such a useful service. Thank you for all you do.
Umm, mate? You don't read Terms of Service / licence agreements very often, do you? Using Windows as an example, the microsoft standard licence clearly tells you that you may not modify their software, use it in ways detrimental to others (they even include the use of your internet connection in that one), or use it to access material considered illegal under local law. Your operating system, e-mail program etc. tells you _exactly_ what you may use them for. Whether legally enforcible is something else entirely, of course, but they do make every attempt to restrict your use.
Further, the home made DRM in question is not attempting to limit your use, but prevent you from modifying the actual code the mod maker supplies you with. That's not only par for the course, but completely in line with the plugin/tool ruleset laid out by Mojang in their TOS. The code and product belong to the mod makers, with the only exception being that Mojang must have the right to modify and use it. Not you.
I think this line is probably the most important one in the entire thread (I know it was already mentioned in pt1) If the likes of RichardG, Sengir, KingLemming (who have all, afaik, had issues/run-ins with Greg in the past) decide to go down this route, it is unlikely that there will be any GT pack at all. Hell, if RG takes you up on this option, doesn't he hold authority for IC2 right now? Can GT even run without IC2?
sfPlayer is in charge ATM, he is the co-leader after all, but RG trolling Greg like that would be funny
It wouldn't make so much difference anyway. For the most part, the people who do care about Gregtech anymore are the type of self important sycophants who view themselves as smarter and m0R3 H4rDC0R3 than the rest of us, so it will be no sweat at all off their backs to manually add GT themselves.
I don't get the priveledge of catching the twich stuff due to various reasons. If I can ask, what was the synopsis of the discussion between slow and dire? basically slow's op?
As tech support for a software company, I believe it is most wise to not involve your self with anything else other than your product. There is usually a non direct reason you sometimes need to extend yourself to resolve issues your customers are having with something else just so they can continue using your product, but you do sue completely at your risk and then you can get claimed as liable for a mistake. Stay out of the mod fights and only control what you can and are here to do. Compile what is considered the best, interesting, compatible modpacks to meet a seething demand of varied taste. Railcraft problems had nothing to do with FTB which is fine. TConstruct and Greg have played chicken and finally crossed a line that ftb had to define. This is good moving forward. Play no favorites.
As tech support for a software company, I believe it is most wise to not involve your self with anything else other than your product. There is usually a non direct reason you sometimes need to extend yourself to resolve issues your customers are having with something else just so they can continue using your product, but you do sue completely at your risk and then you can get claimed as liable for a mistake. Stay out of the mod fights and only control what you can and are here to do. Compile what is considered the best, interesting, compatible modpacks to meet a seething demand of varied taste. Railcraft problems had nothing to do with FTB which is fine. TConstruct and Greg have played chicken and finally crossed a line that ftb had to define. This is good moving forward. Play no favorites.
Obviously, if there is code that breaks people's world and not by accident, it gets punted. So if modders want to be involved with FTB, they need to play by FTB rules. Outside that FTB has no jurisdiction to tell anyone what they can or can't do. It is in fact pompous to believe FTB could or should.
Thanks for this post Slow. I have to say it's much more lenient than I'd be, but it's logical and keeps end users firmly in mind.
Uhm... Isn't this the attitude that got us to where we are now? I don't care about Gregtech, so I must be a "self important sycophant". I have no issue with mods that want to protect themselves through a DRM, I have issue with mods that say "if you play with this other mod, I'm not going to let you play at all". I have never cared if RP2 were to ever update to 1.5, so what does this make me? I think it's drama caused by all this brouhaha that has made me a little more cognizant of the the mods I choose to use. So I find it a little offensive when someone starts insulting me because of the choices I make in how I want to play Minecraft. Do you also want to call me a name because I choose to play survival in peaceful? Or maybe that I don't play on SMP servers because I don't want to deal with griefers? How about that fact that I don't like to PVP in MMOGs? I don't care about Gregtech, but I have chosen not to play with that mod anymore, and if that makes me a "self important sycophant" then I guess I am.
Edit: I have no idea what happened to the text format here.
I think he made a typo, from past posts I would guess that don't should be a do.
Yes this is mostly the only option Slow has in this any other would lead to even more hardship, I personally dont think this is or will be an end point, but I dont have the right or foresight to comment on what could/might be, but I guess lot of us could make an educated guess.
Of late the politics & drama have been more fun than the game, wonder when a challenge map will surface.
Of late the politics & drama have been more fun than the game, wonder when a challenge map will surface.
So, per Slowpokes OP: What is targeted compatibility breaking code? (And specifically, this is a question for Slowpoke / FTB policy)
Is adding recipes to the Forge recipe handler "targeted malicious code"? ...ever?
What if those recipes are copies of recipes previously removed by another mod?
What if that mod removing the recipes goes out of its way to make sure the recipes get removed, even if they are re-added?
What if the mod re-adding the recipes goes further out of its way to make the re-added recipes stick in-game, despite the fact that the removing mod goes out of its way to make sure they don't?
Does doing all this without a config option for the end-user change acts that were not considered compatibility breaking into acts that are considered compatibility breaking code?
At what point does "going out of its way" to make sure a mods changes are not further changed itself constitute compatibility breaking?
Does a mod not following the configuration options of an entirely different mod constitute compatibility breaking code?
If so, wouldn't that mean whichever mod creates a config option first, effectively mean its the only one that can?
This boils down to: Is adding a recipe to the Forge recipe handler "modifying a mod in a way that is contrary to their wishes" and can the mod "add code to prevent [that]"? Considering the shared runtime environment of all mods and the central position Forge plays, is adding or removing a recipe even "modifying a mod"?
To wit, I link: http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&postID=121194#post121194
and https://github.com/mDiyo/TinkersCon.../tinker/tconstruct/common/TContent.java#L1697
Is adding recipes to the Forge recipe handler "targeted malicious code"? ...ever?
What if those recipes are copies of recipes previously removed by another mod?
What if that mod removing the recipes goes out of its way to make sure the recipes get removed, even if they are re-added?
What if the mod re-adding the recipes goes further out of its way to make the re-added recipes stick in-game, despite the fact that the removing mod goes out of its way to make sure they don't?
Does doing all this without a config option for the end-user change acts that were not considered compatibility breaking into acts that are considered compatibility breaking code?
At what point does "going out of its way" to make sure a mods changes are not further changed itself constitute compatibility breaking?
Does a mod not following the configuration options of an entirely different mod constitute compatibility breaking code?
If so, wouldn't that mean whichever mod creates a config option first, effectively mean its the only one that can?
This boils down to: Is adding a recipe to the Forge recipe handler "modifying a mod in a way that is contrary to their wishes" and can the mod "add code to prevent [that]"? Considering the shared runtime environment of all mods and the central position Forge plays, is adding or removing a recipe even "modifying a mod"?
To wit, I link: http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&postID=121194#post121194
and https://github.com/mDiyo/TinkersCon.../tinker/tconstruct/common/TContent.java#L1697
Bottom line here as I see it, is this: Does this change if any affect, FTB's ability to continue updating the pack with the mods? If it does, then one or more the mods are going to be removed. As of right now, nothing is set in stone, and nothing is going to be removed unless the author specifically contacts, FTB saying they do not want the mod in their pack or in a pack with another mod.
- Status