I wholeheartedly agree.
Not at all. If they merely seek to fix a bug is it out of the question to ask to do so?
{redacted history}
The Future of FTB Modpacks.
- 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
Not at all. If they merely seek to fix a bug is it out of the question to ask to do so?
{redacted history}
I feel as though you'll have to give examples of what you're talking about. The only ostensibly-malicious code that I am aware of is code that
1) Attempts to respond to the mod being packed in certain modpacks that do not have permission to include the mod.
or
2) Code that responds to other mods in the pack having been modified by an individual other than the modder that makes it.
I think most would see both of those more as "DRM" than "malware".
Lawyers would be the legal method of preventing a group from distributing your work.
Malware would be the illegal method of destroying the work of players who happen to have unwittingly downloaded content from someone who lacked permission to be distributing it, and thus had no actual responsibility in what was occurring.
Oh no. How horrible. What was it? Accusations of preferring LISP over Java? (And I think you may have missed my point: Tekkit's users were not attacking Sengir. And I somewhat doubt (especially without evidence) that Tekkit's admins were either, even in such a minor way as "saying bad things".)
Anyway, other people are correct: This part of the discussion is off-topic.
{redacted dredging up history}
Some would argue that DRM is malware. And some would argue that crash-code for altering recipes is also DRM.
Whenever possible, this is the optimal solution, but in many cases an immediate fix is required, or the author simply can't be contacted (Eloraam).
The thing is, Mod Copyrights is a highly controversial issue. Look here:
Edit: actually, I think this is the wrong link hold on a sec...
Edit2: I don't think I can find it, but it basically talks about how Mojang reserves some rights and stuff. Look at the second section of this: https://minecraft.net/terms
Basically, if I understand correctly, if Sengir was to "sue" Tekkit, he'd be walking on a fine line.[DOUBLEPOST=1374184428][/DOUBLEPOST]
OK, sorry, my bad, I read it on the Wiki and assumed it was true (the article is actually quite informative, so it looked pretty legit). Sorry, again.That's a wiki. Worse, it's a Wikia wiki, the scum of wikis. Expecting it to be more accurate over someone who is apparently a moderator or admin over at Tekkit is unrealistic. It's probably safest to assume that the Tekkit guys aren't liars.
For me, whether a particular thing is okay comes down to a few different criteria:
1) Are the users being actively punished in a way that can't be corrected?
{redacted history}
2) Can the users play the way they want to with your thing intact?
{redacted history}
3) Do you make clear to users what the issue is, and is the problem made clear prior to the user investing time into the game?
{redacted history}
Lawyers would also most likely take a look at his attempt to sue and ask "Are you serious?"
Which is a nice, healthy attitude I think everyone should have about the idea that mod authors should be applauded for including malware in their code (for whatever reason).
Oh, don't apologize. You're fine. It's easy to be led astray by the evils of wikis lacking citations and Wikia. Just think of this as a useful thing to remember: When looking at a wiki for information you want to quote to someone, look to see if there's a citation backing the information up. If there is, you're safest linking the citation itself rather than the wiki. If there's no citation, doubt the information's veracity and do more research. This is a useful skill for not just discussing Minecraft, but for all scholarly pursuits.
Ok, if we're on the topic of DRM. I have two big or tiny things that I want to take note and that is this: First off is Sengir's DRM.
#1 If I were to modify a mod manually or with the authors help, I would not have the appropriate signature and Forestry would spring up with a crash.
#2 If were to build a mod with some minor modifications or in EE3's case just build a direct copy and forget to modify the release/signature files, again, Forestry would spring up with a crash
Second is in response to Stephen Baynham's post above. Many DRMs were put in place back in Technic 1.2.5 days due to permission issues. The question that remains is simple, why are the restrictions still in place? Technic has changed. They are no longer what they were.
#1 If I were to modify a mod manually or with the authors help, I would not have the appropriate signature and Forestry would spring up with a crash.
#2 If were to build a mod with some minor modifications or in EE3's case just build a direct copy and forget to modify the release/signature files, again, Forestry would spring up with a crash
Second is in response to Stephen Baynham's post above. Many DRMs were put in place back in Technic 1.2.5 days due to permission issues. The question that remains is simple, why are the restrictions still in place? Technic has changed. They are no longer what they were.
In response to #1, that is correct, assuming you're modifying Forestry or one of the mods that it specifically checks.
In response to #2, EE3 specifically has fixed that I believe, but in general that is also correct.
In regards to the final question, each modder has their own reasons that we can make of what we will, but I will say that they only affect the typical end-user who couldn't care less about any drama, because they are extremely easy to circumvent in all cases.
#1. If you're modifying the mod with the author's help, the author will ostensibly sign it and you'll have no issues.
#2. For most mods, as long as you remove the signature, forestry and other mod-police-style mods will be copacetic. This isn't true for closed-source mods like RP2, though. It's an okay trade-off, I guess. I don't really buy the idea that this is to protect users from viruses (if your only purpose is to get a user to load a virus, you could just not include Railcraft- it's not like users will verify that railcraft is even in the mods directory before running your modpack - they'll run the modpack and see it isn't in there then, but by then it's too late).
I'm not sure this is true either- I actually can't think of any 1.2.5-era DRM schemes, most schemes are fairly recent, particularly ones that use signature files. IC2's scheme is very recent, obviously Thaumcraft DRM is recent, Forestry's exploding bees are famous, but were only in briefly and of course Forestry's actual DRM scheme doesn't use them. I'm not really clear on when GregTech had DRM added to it since I don't really keep up with it. To be honest, in the "bad old days", there was really very little DRM around. I'm not 100% clear on why there's been a big, sudden push for it.
personally, I've kept myself out of this as much as possible, but I just can't any more. in dealing with this particular topic, only one form of DRM should exist for any mod for minecraft:
Not allowing the mod/game to load at all and printing it on screen that it is not properly signed with a link on where to get a properly signed version. This can be directly implemented in forge/fml and I believe something close already exists.
Under no circumstances should any mod author ever include code that would break a users world because it's not a "proper" copy, lack of permission, or whatever. Most regular users don't have a clue and just click play.
This also would include code to stop the game from loading because another mod is also loading or changing a mechanic that the author doesn't like. It is the end-users choice if they want to play with said mods installed.
As far as cross mod wars, slowpoke has given the solution as far as modpack distribution. If you don't want your mod distributed with another mod, just say so. Before giving permission, even blanket permissions, state this.
As far as anything that has already happened, they are done and over with and not needed to be brought up. Move on to a (hopefully) better future for mods and the community as a whole instead of arguing the same exact thing post after post.
Not allowing the mod/game to load at all and printing it on screen that it is not properly signed with a link on where to get a properly signed version. This can be directly implemented in forge/fml and I believe something close already exists.
Under no circumstances should any mod author ever include code that would break a users world because it's not a "proper" copy, lack of permission, or whatever. Most regular users don't have a clue and just click play.
This also would include code to stop the game from loading because another mod is also loading or changing a mechanic that the author doesn't like. It is the end-users choice if they want to play with said mods installed.
As far as cross mod wars, slowpoke has given the solution as far as modpack distribution. If you don't want your mod distributed with another mod, just say so. Before giving permission, even blanket permissions, state this.
As far as anything that has already happened, they are done and over with and not needed to be brought up. Move on to a (hopefully) better future for mods and the community as a whole instead of arguing the same exact thing post after post.
So my question is does this mean that the combination of mods that I started playing individually and eventually combined for a better gaming experience are no longer going to work together because of petty arguments?
This distresses me and kind of throws me off the modded Minecraft enjoyment train (for lack of a better term at the moment)
This distresses me and kind of throws me off the modded Minecraft enjoyment train (for lack of a better term at the moment)
I want to thank everyone who is inputting on this thread, this combined with input I am getting from elsewhere is helping me to clarify where I want to actually go when it comes to which lines we want to use. I think I will sleep on it a bit tonight and take another look at it tomorrow. The one thing I dont want to do is rush this decision due to the impact it will have. Again this is not something that is going to be targetted at any one specific mod, but rather guidelines that we will use in the future.
Always appreciative of the teams work, slow. Like I said previously, whatever is done has been done. It's time to look forward to a better community as a whole.
I still scoff at this idea. Also, you don't see the author of "Pure Waters" throwing a screaming hissy fit over being included in 1497+ different mod packs over in the Skyrim modding scene. It just seems like Minecraft's modding scene is a little toxic.
In fact, this whole debate about whether we should work with people on a "author control" basis or a "open and inviting" basis has all been done before. Here's a nice article written back in the Morrowind days about it.
You'll note that many of the things mentioned about how features having to be recreated because of the "author control" mindset apply directly to RedPower 2.
You seem like a lovely and reasonable person. Good luck in your contemplations.
So, it sounds like what you're saying is that you will not perma-ban any author from FTB packs for including malicious code, provided that code is removed (or disabled) in future updates. That's a very user-friendly position, since it's unlikely to put anyone into a situation where they have to abandon a world due to the sudden absence of a certain mod.
On the other hand, I'm concerned about the strain that policy will put on the mod pack designers and testers, who will have to meticulously test cross-mod interactions to ensure that an argument between modders hasn't escalated to the point where the disagreement is literally encoded into the game. It's easy to catch when the client refuses to start, but what if, say, KingLemming rigged minecarts to explode when ridden after an argument with Vswe (hypothetically)? Poor Wyld stated that he spent 14 hours trying to resolve the most recent kerfuffle. I'd hate to see members of the mod pack team experience a burn out because they're trying to be mod pack testers and kindergarden referees at the same time.
Even outside of the questions of modding copyright status, federal or international lawsuits simply cost too much to try, and /all/ copyright lawsuits are at least federal charges in the United States. For the little guy, copyright enforcement is a /very/ hard thing to get.
That's not to excuse copyright violations, especially stealing from the work of good mod authors.
{redacted history}
I think you'll find that before this incident, Greg had a lot of support from these forums. Ofcourse with a mod like Gregtech there will ALWAYS be people for and against, but for the most part, it was for. Now, the pendulum has swung and we are by and large against GT. The "bad blood" started when Greg added the crashcode.
- Status