The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2

[Uriah_Heep]

I know this is a bit off topic here and I apologize if it is a road you do no not want to travel down, if so feel free to remove this post.

I think the handling of the situation by the FTB team has been very professional and admirable. This is a very delicate situation and one you should not have been thrown in the middle of. I have in the past supported many of the mods in the pack through direct donations through their sites. I also know there is a lot of work that does go into building the pack and distributing it as well. I went to send a donation earlier today following the link on your page, specifically to support the efforts of the FTB team in making the collection of mods more accessible to a larger player and server base. I was disappointed to see there is no method for sending a donation directly to the FTB team. If there was a method and I simply missed it I apologize.

I do understand taking direct donations might upset the initial mod developers and as I stated I have already and will continue to show my support there. I also am aware there is confusion at times among the casual base that assumes the FTB team authors the mods directly so this might make taking donations implausible and unfair to the modders.

In lieu of the ability to make a direct donation, let me just state I and many others greatly appreciate your efforts in making the modded game experience easier for so many players to enjoy and I am sorry you have been placed in such a tenuous position these last couple of days. Please do not let these types of situations discourage you from continuing to provide a great service to your user base and know that you have the support and appreciation of so many players and fans of the modpacks!!!

 

[PoisonWolf]

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.

Legality aside, I think the point being made is that even if a person modified their Windows software (as long as they know what they are doing), the OS would still boot up (but maybe with usual warnings of tampering detected). It would not suddenly crash and refuse to boot up until the offending modification is removed. For example, does the Surface Pro fail to boot because you installed linux on it? No. Similarly, I believe what the previous poster was getting at is that if he wants to install mod X with mod Y, post-hoc, the mod-developer for X or Y have no right to literally disable the game because.....*drum rolls*.....They. Do. Not. Own. Minecraft. Until they buy over Mojang, then maybe. The only extent is that Mod-Developer X and Y can tell distributors, like FTB, to not include the other's packs in the distributions that they make. That is the extent of their reach in dictating what they want done with their code. Messing with a consumer's product, on which they have bought and paid for is a dangerous game that was played by Greg, especially when he does not own Minecraft and only uses it as a platform to work on. It would be akin to Microsoft disabling Windows (and refusing to boot until the offending change is remove) when it detects that you are running OSX in a virtual window when it is operating.

tl;dr: Mod-developers can only control how their packs are distributed, that is it. They cannot tell users what combinations of mods they can/should/must use in their games despite what some of you guys said that they can (they can put up annoying prompts that an offending mod has been installed, sure). Mod-developers do not own minecraft, they merely use it as a platform/engine to exercise their creativity in enhancing the game. So when they want to pull off the same $hit that Greg did, they better start their own development of Minecraft 2.

I agree with some of the posters that Slowpoke is being fairly lenient, and taking the road of least resistance. But I also understand where management is coming from. I do, however, still think that some sort of three-strike policy should be implemented. For example, if mod-developers violate and pull some crappy stunts 3 or more times, the consequence is that they will never again be considered for distribution under the FTB Launcher. If not, mod-developers can throw a tantrum, placate everyone that he won't do it again, then wait a while, then do the same crap again, etc.

@FTB Team: At the end of the day, us FTB users enjoy and respect the work that you do, and rely on you to make the decisions that we ultimately have no direct say over. Thus, do not take for granted that we users are like sheep, that can be pushed around whenever mod-developers throw a hissy-fit with one another. Whether you like it or not, it has become incumbent on you to protect the users from mod-developers who has the potential to repeat the same nonsense over and over again. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. When that point is? I leave that to you guys to decide.

 

[Mirality]

Legality aside, I think the point being made is that even if a person modified their Windows software (as long as they know what they are doing), the OS would still boot up (but maybe with usual warnings of tampering detected). It would not suddenly crash and refuse to boot up until the offending modification is removed.

Clearly, you have not tried to install an unsigned (or signed with anything except the official Microsoft seal of approval) driver in 64-bit Windows then.

the mod-developer for X or Y have no right to literally disable the game because.....*drum rolls*.....They. Do. Not. Own. Minecraft.

But they DID NOT disable the game. They disabled the game from running X and Y at the same time. Remove either of these, the game works again. It is not harming Vanilla in any way, so your argument makes no sense.

tl;dr: Mod-developers can only control how their packs are distributed, that is it.

No. Mod developers have the right to do whatever the hell they want in their mods (short of illegal things, of course -- which this isn't). And you have the right to choose to use that mod or not. You do not have the right to dictate to the mod author what they should put into their mod. If you want to do that, write your own mod. Without stealing their code.

 

[Julian Zhou]

Operating Systems are simply frameworks like Minecraft in this scenario. I expect Minecraft to be able to run alongside firefox or Xchat. Software are normally installed on a as-need basis. Neither Software developers, nor mod devs can tell users what combination of mods/software they may use, instead they give recommendations. Even though, no matter what there will always be compatibility issues between certain mods as there are when installing certain pieces of software side-by-side. (Try installing two Antivirus software side-by-side and tell me how that works out).

Secondly, Mod developers are on a much smaller scale than software devs. They have a smaller audience to communicate to. Adobe, Microsoft, etc do not have the time to sit down and crash each others software for one reason or another. Instead they do lawsuits. Look at Apple/Samsung.

 

[DoctorOr]

Clearly, you have not tried to install an unsigned (or signed with anything except the official Microsoft seal of approval) driver in 64-bit Windows then.

Actually my laptop ships with unsigned drivers, and they operate without issue.

 

[Mirality]

Actually my laptop ships with unsigned drivers, and they operate without issue.

Then your OEM must have hacked Windows. Because it doesn't allow that sort of thing (in 64-bit) out of the box.

(It's not hard to do, it's just replacing one file. But it's still technically illegal and interestingly somewhat analogous to the current situation.)

 

[Julian Zhou]

Actually my laptop ships with unsigned drivers, and they operate without issue.

Yeah. I doubt that. Unsigned drivers cannot be installed on Windows without Test Mode enabled. And two, if the OEM did do that, I assure you Microsoft will turn right around sue their butts off.

EDIT: My mistake, they cannot be installed in Windows 8 without Test mode enabled. And maybe you did have no problem installed the "unsigned" driver. Either because the patch was within the installation or it was signed and you're wrong.

 

[PoisonWolf]

Clearly, you have not tried to install an unsigned (or signed with anything except the official Microsoft seal of approval) driver in 64-bit Windows then.

Actually, yes I have a few unsigned drivers on my PC, and it still runs fine. And yes, I'm running 64 bit windows. So I'm not sure where you're going with this or if you are not versed in installing unsigned drivers.

But they DID NOT disable the game. They disabled the game from running X and Y at the same time. Remove either of these, the game works again. It is not harming Vanilla in any way, so your argument makes no sense.

You can dance around the jargon all you want. If the literal consequence is that if a person is unable to play the game, they disabled the game. Fighting with technicalities does not change the fact that users could not access their game within the context of modded minecraft.

No. Mod developers have the right to do whatever the hell they want in their mods (short of illegal things, of course -- which this isn't). And you have the right to choose to use that mod or not. You do not have the right to dictate to the mod author what they should put into their mod. If you want to do that, write your own mod. Without stealing their code.

You're right on this point. They can do whatever they want with their mods, within the reach and definition of what a mod is. Putting jargon/technicalities aside, if they start disabling the game, that has exceeded the boundaries of "whatever the hell they want". Like I said above, they do not own Minecraft. If they want to spam my textbox with 100 sentences per minute about how I have installed offending mods, this is fine, as it is their right. As long as I can still play, it doesn't matter. This is where I am coming from. If they disable my access to the game (again, putting your jargons/technicalities aside), this is no longer fine. I hope you can see where I am coming from.

 

[Mirality]

They haven't disabled your access to the game. You always have the option of removing or downgrading the offending mod. If you elect to downgrade it, then you don't even lose access to your world.

Again, I'm not saying that I approve of Greg's actions (or Mdiyo's, for that matter). I'm just saying that this is all getting blown way out of proportion.

 

[DoctorOr]

If you want to do that, write your own mod. Without stealing their code.

Let's clairify for you: As far as the law is concerned, it's only concerned about distribution. You may disassemble/decompile anything you damn well want (Including Windows or the MacOS itself). You may refer to this decompiled code in your own programming, either to learn how something is accomplished or discover an API. You may do this even in the face of "you agree to not decompile the mod" click through messages on a website. Your code may end up similar to the decompiled code due to the same interfaces used, or simply because two blocks of code doing the same thing will be similar.

You may not copy-paste large blocks of code and distribute it, you may copy-paste small blocks of code. The definition of "large" and "small" is variable and up to the court, similar to fair use. That's really the only restriction. Because "two blocks of code doing the same thing will be similar" such a "copy paste" situation is hard to detect and harder to enforce.

A formal contract, signed by all parties in ink on paper and in person, may restrict your rights further but that restriction is civil in nature not criminal and almost always is impossible to enforce in the face of no financial damage. Even with such a formal contract, and financial damages, "black box reverse engineering" is still going to be a legal defense.

 

[PoisonWolf]

They haven't disabled your access to the game. You always have the option of removing or downgrading the offending mod. If you elect to downgrade it, then you don't even lose access to your world.

But they have, by not allowing me to access the game because an offending mod was installed. If I want to play a game where exploits are available by installing Mod X and Y (on my own custom modpack), that is my choice, and not for the mod-developer to decide. The developer can only recommend via what is pushed in the Launcher on their vision of how the game should be. A user should not be forced to remove one mod in order to play the game. I mean, for crying out loud, this is MINECRAFT. A sandbox game where creativity flourishes. If a person wants to hack the experience that was crafted by Mod-developer X (by installing mod Y), let them be! That's the beauty of the game! There is no right/wrong way to play it, and any mod-developer that appears to want to rule with an iron-first to dictate how the game should be played...IMHO, has the idea wrong of what Minecraft is.

I really hope you can take a moment to just re-read what I wrote again. I'm honestly not here to bicker with you on jargons/technicalities. But if you want to have the last-word for the sake of having the last word about how mods can do, literally, whatever the hell they want, go ahead, and I'll respect your opinion. We can agree to disagree.

I just hope other people get what I'm trying to say here.

 

[jokermatt999]

"Guys, they didn't break it. They just made it so it doesn't work until you fix it! Totally different."

As I said in the other thread, harming users over an issue with another modder is wrong, period. Dance around semantics all you want. Greg has shown he thinks it's acceptable to break the game (does it work? No, then it's broken) if he doesn't get his way. He disabled, but did not remove the code. He's clearly stated he thinks he did nothing wrong. Clearly this is in conflict with the purpose of this thread: don't make the game not work, period. I don't see why they cater to him in giving him a second chance, but I have to respect Slow's heroic patience and civility.

 

[UnionCraft]

tl;dr: Mod-developers can only control how their packs are distributed, that is it.

Mod-developers can do what they like, the question here in these forums is about what mods to include in the packs and the reasons for and against said mods. FTB is taking the right approach with this imo, its not for them to start debating the morality of what mod developers do, they just build the packs and want them as stable as possible.

If a mod pops up that compromises the stability and/or function of the mod packs then thats where these guys step in and decide what to do about it.

 

[Mirality]

But they have, by not allowing me to access the game because an offending mod was installed. If I want to play a game where exploits are available by installing Mod X and Y (on my own custom modpack), that is my choice, and not for the mod-developer to decide. The developer can only recommend via what is pushed in the Launcher on their vision of how the game should be. A user should not be forced to remove one mod in order to play the order. I mean, for crying out loud, this is MINECRAFT. A sandbox game where creativity flourishes. If a person wants to hack the experience that was crafted by Mod-developer X (by installing mod Y), let them be! That's the beauty of the game! There is no right/wrong way to play it, and any mod-developer that appears to want to rule with an iron-first to dictate how the game should be played...IMHO, has the idea wrong of what Minecraft is.

Sure, and that's fine when mod Y is a separate mod whose only purpose is to modify mod X. (Even so, the creator of mod X should be allowed to say "fine, you can write mod Y and use it yourself, but you're not allowed to distribute it" -- although only if there is some significant code dependency, which isn't the case with just altering recipes.)

What I really don't like is when you have two existing mods X and Y that are completely unrelated to each other, and then one or the other suddenly decides to change how the other one behaves in a later version, especially if there is no config option to stop it doing that. (I'm not talking about reasonable extensions, such as Ore Dictionary or Extra Bees etc.) Otherwise you're losing your choice anyway. (It gets even worse if both mods start to try to fight each other this way.)

 

[PoisonWolf]

Mod-developers can do what they like, the question here in these forums is about what mods to include in the packs and the reasons for and against said mods. FTB is taking the right approach with this imo, its not for them to start debating the morality of what mod developers do, they just build the packs and want them as stable as possible.

If a mod pops up that compromises the stability and/or function of the mod packs then thats where these guys step in and decide what to do about it.

Oh my, another person,again.

Once more, Mod-developers can do what they like, as long as it doesn't limit the users' access to the game. So they literally, can do whatever they want, insofar that it doesnt limit access to the game, regardless of what modpacks are installed. Along these lines of arguments, can they make things blow up when they detect an offending mod has been installed? Definitely. Is it a crappy move? Yes, but they did not limit access to the game, and THIS is my concluding message.

 

[dries007]

@PoisonWolf
They can limit access all they want. They shouldn't expect there mod to be popular of it.
If I make a base edit mod, I make it incompatible as well, is that within your dentition of my rights as a modder?

 

[PoisonWolf]

Sure, and that's fine when mod Y is a separate mod whose only purpose is to modify mod X. (Even so, the creator of mod X should be allowed to say "fine, you can write mod Y and use it yourself, but you're not allowed to distribute it" -- although only if there is some significant code dependency, which isn't the case with just altering recipes.)

What I really don't like is when you have two existing mods X and Y that are completely unrelated to each other, and then one or the other suddenly decides to change how the other one behaves in a later version, especially if there is no config option to stop it doing that. (I'm not talking about reasonable extensions, such as Ore Dictionary or Extra Bees etc.) Otherwise you're losing your choice anyway. (It gets even worse if both mods start to try to fight each other this way.)

I agree with you here, definitely. When they start messing each others' configs, they really should have just discussed it among themselves and bicker and tell yo-mama jokes in private (just flush it and get it out of their systems, you know?). They should not limit the users' access to the game, period.

Specifically, I agree with the fact that a person can install Mod Y, and play it however they want, insofar that they do not distribute it. If they want to distribute it, like how FTB does, then it is fairgame for them to make requests to the FTB team to not include mod y in the distribution. This is the proper way to go about handling the issue.[DOUBLEPOST=1374251575][/DOUBLEPOST]

@PoisonWolf
They can limit access all they want. They shouldn't expect there mod to be popular of it.
If I make a base edit mod, I make it incompatible as well, is that within your dentition of my rights as a modder?

No. They cannot limit access all they want because they do not own the platform, AKA, Minecraft. They can annoy the crap out of you, however, either by blowing things up, spamming you with textmessages in the text box (about how the offending mod sucks), etc, and all those would be, for the purposes of my rationale, kosher. I would, however, expect a geometric drop in popularity shortly after. As long as they do not limit access to the platform (i.e., Minecraft), I don't care what they do.

A good metaphor would be a sailing cruiseship. Food stall X sets up in the lounge, but very soon has a disagreement with Food Stall Y because food stall Y is undercutting the prices of X. The possible responses are to undercut Y or sell the same prices as Y, or whatever else you can think of. The non-appropriate response is to chain and padlock the whole lounge to prevent ANYONE from buying ANY food (or docking the cruiseship and asking all passengers to get off), period. Lol. This metaphor may not have been thought through, but I thought it was funny.

 

[dries007]

They don't block access to the food, they just tell the ships captain they can't work together so the captain should choice with food stand stays and witch one leaves.

 

[PoisonWolf]

They don't block access to the food, they just tell the ships captain they can't work together so the captain should choice with food stand stays and witch one leaves.

I like how you're keeping my metaphor.......afloat. Badum ch. Lol.

 

[Blackmoore]

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.

John;
the Operating system DOES tell you what applications you can run. If the app was not designed for the OS, you cant run it there. I'd love to run Civ 4 on Linux, but I can't. (without a VM or Emulator) I can't run Photoshop on Linux either. That is by design; and is not malicious. it is also a choice by the developer to not provide a version that will run on that OS.

Your Multimedia player? yes, it does. if you do not have the correct decoding software it will not be able to show you that file.

Web browser? Have you ever visited a website that was "optimized for IE" with firefox? that's the website owner dictating the browser.

Graphics program? have you ever attempted to scan currency? it doesnt let you. (government policy)