Need modkit license

[redwyre]

• Current modders are in a legal grey area because we haven't explicitly listed what is allowed
• Source headers in mods folder directly say they are copyright Strange Loop Games, but don't mention anything about modifying or distributing modified files.
• Modders themselves don't know what rights they have for distributing their mods
• Here is an example license made for minecraft modders (and the license itself is MIT licensed):
• Who owns mod IP (https://www.pcgamer.com/au/blizzards-claim-that-it-owns-warcraft-3-mods-isnt-just-the-standard-fine-print/)
• Will we allow commercial mods or services

Note that there are three cases to cover:

• SLG -> modder (what they are allowed to do with our source and game)
• modder -> modder (can modders take other mods and freely extend them?)
• modder -> SLG (who owns mod IP, and how SLG can use it)

Reference licenses: https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses https://github.com/iopleke/MMPLv2/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Further reading: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/fooling-user-modding-video-game-industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(video_games)#Legal_status_of_mods

[TazMatic]

I am far from a legal expert on the subject but I'm currently working on furthering my education on the front. I believe the majority off modding is for fun and the love of the game. with that in mind most mods should be free (eg: simple block additions and scripts). but in order to support bigger projects that will require teams of modders and many hours of work there needs to be a way of compensating them the same way developers are paid for their work else where. we see this in most other big franchises such as minecraft bukkit and private wow servers. but both of those have had their legal battles with the IP owners. I'm also on board with dennis in the fact that premium mods are a bad idea for the community and can get out of hand quickly if everyone starts charging whatever they want for any mod. people will just stop using them out right. to combat the community going one way or another I think SLG should curate a list of veted mods that can do a request to be monetized. this would allow slg to support modders that are above and beyond to support the game and community and to protect the community from people trying to do quick cash grabs. written on mobile so I will edit grammar and formatting later, sorry.

[TheKye]

This is a tough subject,

I'm 50/50

Some modders put in a lot of work on bigger mods to help expand eco, change gameplay or even to mix it up a little,

I think a way that might help is this: SLG Provides like a Market place for the mods to be put up at a price ( so content selling), SLG could take a % of sales as a compensation for allowing this and providing this service, Each modder that puts up a paid for mod should have to agree to certain things like: By making your mod paid for you agree to pay a % per sale to SLG, By making your mod a paid mod you agree to provide support for this mod for as long as its listed You must also provide updates/keep it updated to the latest version of eco for your mod if you keep it up as a paid item if your mod is a paid mod it can not include modded files from eco in a vanilla state ( anything found in the mods folder before you add your content) Putting a max sale price on mods so like 5 Currency i understand the currency differences and won't be the same but if you use a single currency instead this might be a better option ( like USD ) Should a modder stop supporting or updating their paid for mod without removing their listing they would get a warning, 2 warnings and they will no longer have privileges of posting paid for mods

This could be built upon via conversations and suggestions

Or if another group where to make the market place instead and SLG approved of it they would have to pay a % of sales to SLG to help support SLG

if someone wanted to do a paid service like i want to do as mentioned on the discord: https://discordapp.com/channels/254025510651297802/273246138835009548/725686318771994644

Then any modded files that is associated with these services should be provided as a free resource, Basic tools should be kept free like food calculation tools, crafting cost tools etc

i do also believe that basic addition mods that only add a small amount of content should remain free, but i think some mods should be allowed to be a paid for item, but determining what falls under which category is difficult

[D3nnis3n]

Before I start i want to very explicitly state that the following text is my personal opinion as player of this game and not a statement on behalf of SLG in my function at SLG.

First, this issue in my opinion is actually two issues - there is a difference in a general license for Modding and a license for our Dev-Tier users that have full access to code. We are pretty much using all rights reserved for both cases currently. Source Code Access is a bit of a different story than just modding as while most people use it for modding, it can also be used for other purposes, including learning and working with code for projects that have nothing to do with Eco at all.

Second, at least for the modding part of the issue i feel that at the current game state this is practically a non-issue. Legal topics are pricey and i feel that money is currently better invested into actually developing the game.

I've got a very few requests for using the Source Code for projects not related to Eco over the last two years, but none of these ever got to the state of planning i requested (mostly outline of the project in a PDF for us to review), so that we could review it.

As far as modding goes the stance has been simple and clear and i've not really seen any issues arising from that: Use the Code Access for learning and / or modding Eco, do any Mod you like in any manner you like as long as it's not violating any laws and you're not actively and commercially making money off it. Donations are totally fine.

Eco is still a very small game and the community aspects of it are important. Potential players seeing that mods for the game are being sold can and will be a kill argument very early in the decision of buying the game. It's not too big of an issue if a game has hundreds of mods and you'll see some charging money here and there, but it's for a small game with small amount of mods where it will automatically make most people feel wrong. It will not help us with making sales at all.

In general i still see Modders as an vital part of the community, creating content as a hobby in their free time for them and everyone else to enjoy. That's what it is for Minecraft and ever has been and several other communities do it the same style (phpBB) and it's been one of the biggest reasons for their success. Minecraft with paid mods at the size of our game would never have become so big. In a lot of games possible modding and availability of mods is one of the biggest conditions for a purchase - i personally do not buy games that cannot be modded or dont seem to have a modding community at all, as i know that longterm i will only have fun with stuff that goes beyond the developers capability of content (including stuff the developer probably does not even want for his game, which is very fine). I don't think there this a single game on my computer that doesnt have any mods installed currently.

While i can understand the opinion of the few modders that like their time to be reimbursed financially, and i'll state again this is my personal opinion, they shouldn't be modding (for that reason) and for several reasons i'd never buy a mod from them. Modding is and has ever been a community-building hobby people freely decide to start and stop whenever they wish - and most gamers see that the same way. Just reminding of the backlash when Bethesda tried to offer paid Mods on Steam - they managed to keep it for three days until the shit that hit the fan was too smelly for them. The MC modders community is pretty unified on that matter. I'm not sure what Bukkit is doing nowadays, but they're no good example and haven't been doing priced plugins back when they were. Since their licensing issues they've been slowly but continously going down the Hill and are no longer a shining example of how to do stuff. Also, people writing plugins for that never have been viewed as modders eithers, modding takes place with Forge, nowaday Fabric and others and Bukkit, Spigot and all the stuff can rarely be used together - needing something like SpongeForge or the MagmaServer that throws Forge and Bukkit together in a very unstable manner.

But no matter what should ideally be right, the legal issues are nothing we as company can take care of. When we offer a marketplace we will have a responsibility- in some countries a legal one as well - to make sure that local laws are kept. And the moment someone sells a mod as product, depending on country, especially in the EU, a warranty and a obligation for support comes into place. Those are customer rights that need to be kept and ensured and will obligate the modders to actually provide these services until the lawfully set timeframe after purchase. Every modder backing out of this will pose legal issues to both them as well as us.

That doesn't mean we cannot support modders with dev-tier access and other means. We've been recuriting from modders as well. But if any financial support is to be given to them, it shouldn't be players paying them, but rather we ourselves. (Like Ark buys Mods sometimes - just not exactly like that)

In my opinion Mojang did everything right with prohibiting the sale of gameplay-relevant items for servers and their stance on modding. And what idea to follow if not theirs, that's the biggest target group for Eco as well.

I could also go into social issues that paid mods automatically create with the unfortunate fact that a lot of people nowadays will not be able to buy those, including a split in the community that this will create, but that'd go to far for now.

[TheKye]

I agree that modders who do it just for money shouldn't be modding, but at the same time when modding a 3d game some assets can take hours to do, even if its done as a hobby it can take weeks around free time,

commercializing some (not all) could potentially help some modders bring more quality content and spend more time making mods, by opening up the ability to get new tools for development and other things that could help, we are greatful for giving alot of us source access to help further develop our mods

but at the same time does this include services such as one i suggested prior? does something like that come under the term modding? the web service itself wouldn't have anything to do with the servers functionality nor would it alter the game in any way as defined by a mod, but then you would have the mod itself which would be free but functionality would be limited based off an account level via a paid subscription, a good example of a service like this is enjin, that was built and desgined for minecraft webstore integration in a similar manner

as a complete side note but also an example, i currently and 2 others are working on a new mod for eco, its very very big, overall would probably be the biggest mod for eco at this time, it is like a whole different game, now this its self wouldn't be commercialized, but the issue here would be, what if after it where released slg released most of the items we made, as part of the core game (whether planned or no its up to you guys what you add to your game) what happens to all the work we did making that mod? do we just stop because it would technically no longer be our own?

i think the biggest point for this discussion is (without trying to be a dick or anything) why would people bother to make mods that become obsolete in the next game update and have nothing to show for it? they see it as time wasted and would probably stop making mods for the game, now i know this happens all the time in other games as well, and im also not saying this is why commercializing should be allowed either, but instead asking is there anything helping modders to protect their work to make them to want to keep modding for free?

I've had similar discussions with another modder and have said even if we where allowed to commercialize our mods I'd keep 90% if not all of them free and only make things like the web platform something that would have a comercial attachment

[D3nnis3n]

I'll once again start with saying that this is solely my personal opinion and no statement on behalf of SLG in any way.

Sure, Modding can consume a lot of time and yes, maybe commercial mods help some modders bring more quality content. But - do we actually want that at this price? I'd say: Definately not. There is no issue in supporting modders with free dev access (which we do for existing ones already, could be expanded), better Modding Tools and other nifty and helpful stuff, including a direct line to us for questions. But splitting the community will not make some more quality mods any beneficial, unfortunately.

I cannot answer the question above in regards to licensing, as it has never been asked or relevant before. The easier part is: On our channels we currently have the clear rule that any commercial advertisement is not allowed. You could not upload or advertise such a mod to any of our channels currently - of course you'd be free to host them on yours. (Assuming licensing-wise we'd allow it) We actively want to work with one community that is not seperated by the means of money. (Which you should know well, given i do have good contact with Clay and TopServers and other Non-Profit projects that i love to support)

what if after it where released slg released most of the items we made, as part of the core game (whether planned or no its up to you guys what you add to your game) what happens to all the work we did making that mod? do we just stop because it would technically no longer be our own?

That's a decision you need to face. This happens every day on a lot of games, Minecraft being known for this as well. Often the developers implementation is not exactly what the mod was or the players that used it wanted - simply because some things of the Mods do not seem like they fit in the base game in the eyes of the developers. Technically you can just go on providing the mod. A lot of mods currently there for Eco consist of stuff that we have been planning long ago, most even already announced - this is a early access game, here it's especially normal stuff will be implemented by us, simply as Eco is not feature complete yet.

Hearing that you want to charge for a mod likely to get into the game is actually saddening me a lot. As if your mod would become valueless when we implement features. We've been hiring modders to implement stuff of their mods earlier, probably we could find additional ways of working with modders. But having the players pay for features that then get implemented into game - is that any fair and helpful? Clear no from me again. Your mod will still be there and been used a long time - and you can still use it to expand on the features the base game got. I've no issue with mentioning and thanking you officially and publicly for the mods that in some way or another automatically will have given us some ideas, even if we never played with them and had the features lined out already.

Why should the work no longer be your own? We obviously can neither copy your code nor your art. At most we implement an idea that we got from your mod and didn't have before, but in most cases these features were already planned long ago, like with the ore processing.

i think the biggest point for this discussion is (without trying to be a dick or anything) why would people bother to make mods that become obsolete in the next game update and have nothing to show for it?

Not sure what you mean with "have nothing to show with it"? As i said above, despite this can happen over all games people do not need incentive to do it. They do it. Because they like modding, like the community interaction and want the features immediately. Some are very proud that their stuff got into the final game and gets noted in the changelogs as something developers took an idea from. I've never seen someone that needs money as incentive for this. And as my point stands - i rather do not want to see someone like that.

but instead asking is there anything helping modders to protect their work to make them to want to keep modding for free?

Protecting your work? From whom? From us? We're not stealing your work. As i've stated earlier a lot of the stuff that is in mods currently has been planned to be in our game long ago in one way or another - it's early access and not feature complete. Not everything will make it and nearly nothing will make it in the way the mods are made, as we have specific goals and views for our features. Why is that holding you back?

There is insanely big mods on minecraft, Thaumcraft, Mekanism - all for free. Over years. Modpacks that can easily use most mods with the simple notice of the developer, creating hundreds of total conversions for Minecraft. With a incredible time investment. Also the underlying frameworks that enable modding. They do it because they love it, their communities and the game.

Of course i cannot demand that from anyone. But that is indeed the type of community I wish for Eco. Not a split one based on monetary possibilitites with all the severe disadvantages it has. I'd loose a mod and modder at any time to keep the vibe of a community like that. Even in the current state. I'd rather have a small selection of mods with a cool little community that a bit more, with some of them being paid. That does not look good, as i explained in my earlier post and will be negative for us, not positive.

I've had similar discussions with another modder and have said even if we where allowed to commercialize our mods I'd keep 90% if not all of them free and only make things like the web platform something that would have a comercial attachment

Unfortunately that is just your opinions, but not representative for everyone. (And actually in the way that there have been votes between modders on if there should be commercial mods - which was a no.) And self-regulation has never worked anywhere in the world really well.

[TheKye]

@D3nnis3n

I really appreciate your response, The outline of the questions i have asked are not in regards to myself but so these questions have been asked for anyone who comes across this post and can see some really well thought out and really well put together answers,

Protecting your work? From whom? From us? We're not stealing your work. As i've stated earlier a lot of the stuff that is in mods currently has been planned to be in our game long ago in one way or another - it's early access and not feature complete. Not everything will make it and nearly nothing will make it in the way the mods are made, as we have specific goals and views for our features. Why is that holding you back?

Not from you specifically, as red has shared at the top, a post about mod IP

If you use the software, it says you are giving Blizzard ownership of your "titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation, moral rights," and anything else you might create.

This itself is a tough situation, as some people may out source models ( free or paid ) with a license that allows them to use in their work, i think the last question to be asked now is, ( i believe i may already know the answer ) Will SLG use a similar EULA as Blizzard has or does SLG plan to make models of items they like in their own way so people who have out sourced models don't break their license agreement with the person they got their assets from? This question is also not limited to SLG, what about other modders who know how to decompile unity files? are we allowed to state that others may not reverse compile our work as part of an agreement of them using our mods? Licensing can be a real destroyer of things and the liabilities lie with the one who purchased/ gained the license

I believe now some people will be able to feel more comfortable with some more information on what could happen when they decide to mod to help to push for more ideas to help expand the game so they are not getting caught out with small mods that may be implemented into the base game itself,

I'm more then happy to keep mods free but i would like SLG to consider commercialized external services such as something like what i have said i would like to do in regards to the web platform, or another project i have been working on for a few years which is a windows ( currently only supports windows os) based Server manager that would include Eco as a server it is capable of managing, this too given its work has intention of being a commercialized product as software development is not an easy task in its own,

The biggest thing im unsure about is the web platform, while it is directly related to Eco it itself is not classed as a mod but some functionality of the mod would be limited due to your subscription level on the web platform, while all the functions would be unlocked some features wouldn't work if you don't meet a certain criteria

[D3nnis3n]

Personal Opinion, Not on Behalf of SLG, bla.

This itself is a tough situation, as some people may out source models ( free or paid ) with a license that allows them to use in their work, i think the last question to be asked now is, ( i believe i may already know the answer ) Will SLG use a similar EULA as Blizzard has or does SLG plan to make models of items they like in their own way so people who have out sourced models don't break their license agreement with the person they got their assets from? This question is also not limited to SLG, what about other modders who know how to decompile unity files? are we allowed to state that others may not reverse compile our work as part of an agreement of them using our mods? Licensing can be a real destroyer of things and the liabilities lie with the one who purchased/ gained the license

Well, i obviously can once again not do a statement on behalf of SLG, but as long as i have any say that is not going to happen. Actually, that Blizzard EULA is absolutely illegal and void in Germany, for example. Blizzard simply cannot own stuff someone else has created. It's nice and fun they write it into their EULA, but it's totally void. I see no reason why we should own stuff that others have created, pretending to do so while in most european jurisdiction the EULA would be nothing more than paper to wipe your ass with. What could happen is that a non-revocable and permanent usage right to your art and code is included - that's legal. And even then, at least in Germany, for a a few narrow reasons this can also be revoked no matter what the EULA states. Currently our ToS do not include such terms, hence nothing of that is the case.

Little Fun Fact: In Germany, as well as many other jurisdictions you cannot revoke your own ownership. It's impossible. You cannot say you do not want to have any rights for something anymore and put it into Public Domain. The law doesn't allow it.

are we allowed to state that others may not reverse compile our work as part of an agreement of them using our mods?

I don't see any reason why you couldn't, but once again would have to note the legal implications. In Germany you are legally allowed to reverse-engineer about anything that you can get rightfully access to for your private use, as long as you are not circumventing effective DRM measures against that. I'm quite sure there are more strict and more open jurisdictions on this matter. I'm just of the general opinion that rules that are void in a lot of countries anyway make no sense to instate.

I'd personally be in favor of a regulation that forces Modders to open their sourcecode - but not even Minecraft or any Game i know is doing this, so this is not going to happen. The sole reasons why i would be in favour: Easy collaboration, Trust and Safety, even more open community, if a modder vanishes someone else can take over. But i've made more than good experiences with the modding community and know that most modders tend to do rather open "licensing" and allow others to continue their work regularily. There is other examples with very closed source like Railcraft in Minecraft, but that is their fair right. I'm not going to force people to something they do not want. But i personally believe that it would be the best. Hence we're one of the very few games that allows you to get source-code access by supporting us.

So what i could see happening, but would not be in favour of it, is a usage right of the mods for SLG. Something stating your stuff is not yours would not be what i want for this game. But this is obviously very technical and very complex and i'm in no way in a position that could decide this. I'm just currently as CM doing the guidelines for our channels and modding as it falls into my department. Doing a real license would not, even though i'd gladly help choosing and creating one, given that i do have some qualifications for that.

I'm more then happy to keep mods free but i would like SLG to consider commercialized external services such as something like what i have said i would like to do in regards to the web platform, or another project i have been working on for a few years which is a windows ( currently only supports windows os) based Server manager that would include Eco as a server it is capable of managing, this too given its work has intention of being a commercialized product as software development is not an easy task in its own.

Such a server manager is perfectly fine, it has no link with Eco or a modification for it in any way - it's a SOLE third-party application. A lot of server hosts use such software. I'm concerned about a subscription based model for mod features. (Let's say a logging tool with a web interface and now some stuff is behind a paywall) That's actually even worse than a one-off payment for a mod in my opinion.

The biggest thing im unsure about is the web platform, while it is directly related to Eco it itself is not classed as a mod but some functionality of the mod would be limited due to your subscription level on the web platform, while all the functions would be unlocked some features wouldn't work if you don't meet a certain criteria

That's something i'd currently not allow for reasons stated in my other posts before. Before i allow that, i'd rather allow taking a much smaller amount just for general upkeep costs from everyone using the software and the features being the same for everyone. But i'm also strongly opposed to that. I don't see issues with donation buttons and would hope that costs (without time obviously) nowadays are rather small for server capacity for such a interface. Ads would also be fine for me, even though i don't like those either. But i could most likely live well with Ads vs Premium, as long as features are not generally locked.

But that'd be something we could negotiate. Currently, i'd simply not allow it with a commercial intent. It's just a basic general rule we have. We wanna support private non-profit community projects, not companies or profit oriented people. Like TopServersOnline vs EcoServers.io. The latter being total commercial adware. Nice service, but not cool. The first one being community-oriented and very cool.

(Also not very opposed to TazMatics idea of curated mod projects that get explicit permission to charge for mods, parts of them or linked services where we have can have a say on price and other stuff through negotiations. I'm always open to negotiation.)

[ZeelNightwolf]

Just wondering if there has been any progress with this.

[D3nnis3n]

For now our EULA and ToS apply, which is now distributed on all channels. It does make some statements in regards to commercial use (which is a no) and what can be used how. We'll be taking a look at this issue when we get around to do so (there is a lot involved from legal to code changes), but nothing in the nearest future.

[ZeelNightwolf]

Hello, just wondering if there have been any more discussions about this?