What is the method for perms if you get no answer?

[PhoenixSmith]

That's another reason I have it there.

I want to know and control where my property is being distributed. I don't want to find my mods wrapped in malware on random websites without being able to take down the site.

You know that modpack perms and the right to only have the download on your approved sites are two different things right? Obviously you feel strongly about stealing downloads (You headed up the stop stealing mods campaign right? ), as I do as well, but perms and illegal download sites are two completely different things. Also a license wont really stop the baddies from taking the mod. They don't need a license to download the mod, and that is all they need. Only the white-hats ask for permission... XD That sounds like a movie plot.

 

[Pyure]

You know that modpack perms and the right to only have the download on your approved sites are two different things right? Obviously you feel strongly about stealing downloads (You headed up the stop stealing mods campaign right? ), as I do as well, but perms and illegal download sites are two completely different things. Also a license wont really stop the baddies from taking the mod. They don't need a license to download the mod, and that is all they need. Only the white-hats ask for permission... XD That sounds like a movie plot.

Yes but his rules give him the grounds to insist that somebody cease and desist. Otherwise, you'll get your blackhats but also grayish-white-hats giving him the finger if they decide to do something unsavoury.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

No, there isn't actually any big difference. There have been malicious packs, and there have been monetized packs. Modpacks are taking away my download numbers. The only reward I get for making my mods is download numbers. I don't want them taken from me. In addition, I don't want to handle 200 bug reports about old bugs. Also, if pack authors can't respect me enough to ask, I don't think I want my mods in their packs.

No, but I can take down their sites, and remove them from Google. I have already taken down at least 4 illegal mirrors, which I couldn't have done if I used for example the MIT license.

Taking your download numbers? A good modpack would boost your mods popularity. That outlook seems to me at least, selfish. You cant touch them if where the site is hosted does not share the same laws though correct? I get where you are coming from, but I think Opensource is still the best way to go. To each there own though. I don't really care about the nitty gritty legal details, as much as what it means to me the modpack creator, which in this case is I can't use 4-5 mods that would have been cool because of there lack of licensing.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Yes but his rules give him the grounds to insist that somebody cease and desist. Otherwise, you'll get your blackhats but also grayish-white-hats giving him the finger if they decide to do something unsavoury.

What about something like Exu? It takes no perm request, but it is not opensource... Isn't there a way to prevent bad sites access and rights but give a modpack maker the right to use it?

 

[Pyure]

What about something like Exu? It takes no perm request, but it is not opensource... Isn't there a way to prevent bad sites access and rights but give a modpack maker the right to use it?

You could set out specific terms of use, ie, you can use this in a modpack so long as you only distribute it via FTB or some such. No redistribution via monetized links etc.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

You could set out specific terms of use, ie, you can use this in a modpack so long as you only distribute it via FTB or some such. No redistribution via monetized links etc.

Ah that is what a larger mod like Exu does then. I think I remember tos in a lot of downloads.

 

[Pyure]

Ah that is what a larger mod like Exu does then. I think I remember tos in a lot of downloads.

Possibly. I have no idea what they do, I'm speaking hypothetically.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Here is the Exu modpack license-

You have my permission to use include this mod in any modpack, public or private, provided that credit is given, the source code is not modified and the overall mod pack is distributed free of charge.

 

[InfinityRaider]

Visible source != open source. I know mod copyright. I would never have used GitHub if I had to open source my stuff. I use GitHub primarily to avoid being accused of malware again.

Okay, I misinterpreted things then

 

[Pyure]

Makes sense.

Just bear in mind that that's their preference. The cost to use many mods (such as, say, SquidUtils) is $0.00 + PimpFactor, which is accrued in the form of download numbers. If they explicitly want permission for that reason, that's their prerogative. (Personally, I'd do the same thing, except with the addendum "Unless I disappear from this thread for 365 days in which case do whatever the hell you want")

 

[Jake_Evans]

Just to add my input here. Unless a mod author states that it can go into a pack, it cannot go in there.

If your code is open source and has an all rights reserved with no modpack policy, it will NOT go into a 3rd party pack.

And to the OP, if the author doesn't get back to you there's nothing we can do.

 

[Jake_Evans]

Including "you can't earn money on the modpack" isn't really needed, as giving modpack permissions only grants access to mirror the file, not anything else. Btw, I just filed 4 DMCA takedown notices. If you want to mirror my property, remember to ask, as I would rather prefer not to take down modpacks, since that is normally quite unpopular.

What modpacks?

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Just to add my input here. Unless a mod author states that it can go into a pack, it cannot go in there.

If your code is open source and has an all rights reserved with no modpack policy, it will NOT go into a 3rd party pack.

And to the OP, if the author doesn't get back to you there's nothing we can do.

Wait opensource code is opensource... Meaning you could take it add on to it and release it right? So what is to stop you from downloading it and releasing it? Why would your code even be licensed open source if this is the case?

Makes sense.

Just bear in mind that that's their preference. The cost to use many mods (such as, say, SquidUtils) is $0.00 + PimpFactor, which is accrued in the form of download numbers. If they explicitly want permission for that reason, that's their prerogative. (Personally, I'd do the same thing, except with the addendum "Unless I disappear from this thread for 365 days in which case do whatever the hell you want")

Good failsafe. XD

 

[Jake_Evans]

Wait opensource code is opensource... Meaning you could take it add on to it and release it right? So what is to stop you from downloading it and releasing it? Why would your code even be licensed open source if this is the case?

Open source means people can see the code. If their license says: Not allowed in modpacks. It's not allowed in modpacks.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Open source means people can see the code. If their license says: Not allowed in modpacks. It's not allowed in modpacks.

But according to the very definition of open-source-

"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone"

I could make an improvement and release a version of it my own and redistribute that.... Very odd. Also forgive me for my ignorance but universal distribution sounds like no string attached not permissions.

 

[Pyure]

But according to the very definition of open-source-

"In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone"

I could make an improvement and release a version of it my own and redistribute that.... Very odd. Also forgive me for my ignorance but universal distribution sounds like no string attached not permissions.

That's the very definition of "open source as a development model".

Making your code accessible on github doesn't mean you're making it open source as a development model.

 

[ljfa]

Open source means people can see the code. If their license says: Not allowed in modpacks. It's not allowed in modpacks.

That's not the whole story. Open source also means that you're allowed to use the software for any purpose, that you're allowed to modify it and that you're allowed to distribute it. The "free license" is the important part here.
Conversely, a mod that disallows use in packs without prior permission is not open source.

Please don't confuse open source with merely visible source.

 

[Jake_Evans]

That's not the whole story. Open source also means that you're allowed to use the software for any purpose, that you're allowed to modify it and that you're allowed to distribute it. The "free license" is the important part here.
Conversely, a mod that disallows use in packs without prior permission is not open source.

Please don't confuse open source with merely visible source.

By open source, I'm referring to openly visible source.

 

[ljfa]

By open source, I'm referring to openly visible source.

Then please don't use the term "open source" in this context, to avoid confusion.

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Oh I see. I was talking Open-Source not open to see.