Discussion about conversion mods.

Quote from Saul_Goode

I view this the same as being born human. We, collectively as a race, agree for the good of the general community that it's not nice to kill people. We may not have officially agreed to those terms, but that won't stop the police from knocking if you go and kill someone.

I don't know how to exactly tell you, this but you've just managed to fail history and logic forever with this statement. While it's generally been accepted that we shouldn't kill the people that we're living around, "tribes" of people have been pretty much okay with killing as long as it's not likely to affect them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority suggests that most of the nations on earth have a point at which you officially agree to the terms that are imposed by the law. That is why the police are allowed to show up. And why Eloraam is allowed to do what she chooses to.

Joining a community doesn't require that you better it, It only requires that you interact with it. If you choose not to better said community, it's wise to limit the effects of your interactions.

Quote from Saul_Goode

If your town has a 'no loud noises after 10pm' ordinance you are still bound by that even if you don't expressly agree. It's about... precedent, I suppose.

In the context of this community- MayorMojang tabled a 'free to work with my work, just don't rip me off' motion. ChairmanAlblaka - Yay. ChairmanSpaceToad - Yay. ChairwomanEloraam - Nay.

So your argument basically states that you feel that because one person chooses to share his work, others are obligated to do the same?
So, if someone does volunteer work, does that mean no one should get paid to do that kind of work?

I'll point out one thing - even though Mojang permits mods, THEY are the only ones making any measurable income off of Minecraft. The fact that they have explicitly permitted ad-revenue generating links for mod content shows that they permit the distribution of such mods.

If you want to talk about precedent, then let's consider the real world instead of wobbly hypothetical examples. In the real world, one author's license cannot bind permitted derivative works to the same terms unless it is explicitly stated so. Mojang's license clearly states quite the opposite, in fact.
"Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."

You may not think that Eloraam is complying with Mojang's license, but you probably haven't actually taken the time to read its Terms Of Use.

So if you don't actually understand the legal implications of Mojang's Terms of Use, you'd be better off not using that as an example - it actually refutes your agrument. If you don't feel that Eloraam's license is enforceable, take it up with Mojang and let them decide. But this is business, not religion - morality doesn't enter into it, and "right" and "wrong" are determined solely by the law, not by individuals. Besides which, your definition of "morality" is not one with which I agree. By your own statements, I can at the very least disregard your definition - but you're going so far as to claim that your determination of what's "right" and "moral" are absolute and should be enforced on others. Stop trying to hide behind some kind of Libertartian ideal that you don't understand. It comes down to this: You presume to interpet who has the right to do what, but you still refuse to apply that unilaterally.

And if you want to talk about being bound by ordinances, even if you expressly disagree? Welcome to Eloraam's license. Even if you don't agree with the terms, you're required to abide by them. Don't you just hate when people use your own statements to refute your points?

Quote

you should be willing to respect the way using someone elses work allowed you to get where you are with your work.

She does so - by sharing her work with others. If you think that means she is not entitled to place restrictions on how her work is used, think again. She has to use Mojang's work in a certain way, and they are the sole determination of those terms. She has likewise extended the same consideration to the use of her work. In case you need me to break that down for you, both parties have said "This is my work, I alone decide how it's used, take it or leave it".

The law does not control how individuals must "share" the fruits of their creative labor with others, no matter how much you wish it to. There are laws that protect what one has created, but don't for a moment intepret them to be a mandate on the authors.

Quote

Um... it's not entitlement when it's taken in context? Once again, stop attacking me. If you want to discuss, that is fine by me... but stop flaming.

OK, so "flaming" is disagreeing with you, and "attacking" is "pointing out the ramifications of exactly what you said"?
By the way, in what possible context could a declaration of an author's "obligation" to the community not be seen as entitlement?

You came right out and stated that you feel developers have an obligation to the community. You've also stated that you are speaking on behalf of the community. Therefore, you must feel that developers have an obligation to you. Ergo, you feel they owe you something. And even if you now claim that you speak only for yourself, then you still obviously expect that developers have an obligation to you.

The only possible alternative is that you neither mean nor believe what you are saying - in which case, you have no position at all. If so, please come right out and say so. If this has all been nothing but empty words, then the thread should just be locked.

Quote

And I asked once, I'll ask again... what have I backpedaled on and is it anything like your backpedaling of your skepticism? State it so I can address it.

You said before that you don't feel like Alblaka (and Eloraam) owe you anything - but here, you have explicitly stated that they do. Maybe you don't see it as backpedalling, because you can't see the meaning of what you say.
You continue to modify your position and the direction of your argument in a vain attempt to keep the high ground you never held in the first place. Now, you're trying to equate control of individual creative rights with murder and child abuse - and you want to tell me that I'm off topic?

Sharing their creation with you does not in any way obligate them to do anything. Do you think it entitles you to ongoing updates? To input on their creative process? To determine the implementation and interpretation of their license? You're entitled to one, and only one thing - your opinion. But I must regretfully inform you that your opinion is not enforceable in any way, no one is bound by it, and when your opinion differs from the way Things Really Are, then Reality wins. And you're not entitled to a soapbox upon which to express it - meaning, if the host of a forum chooses to restrict how you can express it, they are entitled to do so. You can always establish your own place to express whatever opinion you desire, without restriction.

Quote

I've always just gotten a feeling of competition from this.

Since it's possible to use all three mods together, and since there is no "market share" to conted for, this cannot be seen as competition. The fact that they have all adopted (and contributed to) Forge shows that it is quite the opposite - it is, in fact, a cooperative effort. And, in case you haven't noticed, the "competition" of ideas is what drives innovation. Without competition, invention gives way to stagnation.

What have you got against competition? Especially when you benefit from it? By your definition, all mods are "competing" with Vanilla Minecraft - yet you use some of them.

Quote

And why do attempt's to unite them have to be squashed?

Because they are individual creative efforts. Because each developer has a different view as to how the same things should be accomplished. And why should any of them have to change the way they want to do something just because another developer wants to do it differently? Or, worse yet, because you feel it should have been done differently?

Quote

Why does the most challenging part of my game play have to be the part where I try to fit 5 different grids into my walls?[/i]

The obvious answer is "Because you're trying to do 5 different things". None of them requires the others for use, one could quite easily play without any or all of them. Taken together, the possibliities and capabilities are increased - and the complexity naturally follows.

Quote from Saul_Goode

Mojang does NOT however restrict people from extending their work the way that Eloraam does... kinda one of the points I've been trying to make. What was yours?

That Mojang does not restrict how developers control their product. Just because Mojang does it that way, others are in no way obligated to do the same. Clear enough?

Quote

Again, this isn't about license agreements' like you keep going on and on about. This is about what Eloraam considers a threat to RedPower.

So I'll just skip all the parts that drone on about licenses...

Of course - skip all of the parts that are relevant, because they don't fit your perception. You want us to buy your notion that Eloraam considers this a "threat", but you've offered nothing to support the claim.
But even if it were true, what's it matter? As stated before, she has the right to exert that control for whatever reason... or even no reason at all.

Quote

No, flaming me is when you make this more about past disagreements than the topic at hand. Attacking me is when you write-off things as 'Libertarian ideals you clearly don't understand'. It's a particular snide and flippant manner to the tone of your posts.

First of all, this isn't about "past disagreements" - it's about your historical tendency to act like you're entitled to something that you do not deserve. These developers do not owe you their continued support, nor do they owe you any explanation for their decisions. Yet you continue to behave as if they should be accountable to you.

As for "attacking" you, I must note to you that I am a registered member of the Libertarian Party - so it's clear that you do not understand what I was saying - nor do you understand the Libertarian ideal behind which you hide. You TALK as if you want to preserve indivudal freedom, but what you REALLY advocate is the freedom to do whatever YOU want, regardless of whose freedoms you trample in the process. You demand considerations that you're clearly unwilling to extend to those from whom you demand.

Quote

Not true, *I* am not the community, I am but one small part of the community. Just a tiny ant in the multitude... ...but an ant that carries a tiny little soapbox with him wherever he goes...

Then, you speak only for yourself - and thus, when you say:

Quote

Developers, I feel do have an obligation to the community- For at least as long as they decide to keep their project active and public.

... you are, whether you realize it or not, stating that you feel that you are entitled to something. If you do not understand the irrevocable relationship between the "obligation" of one party and the "entitlement" of another, then you do not even understand the words you use. One cannot have an "obligation" without owing something to another.

So, then, what do you feel developers owe you,, and why?

Quote

Not backpedaling at all and nothing like your skepticism backpedal.

I'm still skeptical of the "support" you claim to have received - because it's clear that it hasn't manifested itself here. How can I possibly "backpedal" on something that has yet to be revealed?
You made a claim but I've seen no evidence of it. Maybe you got PMs - but not from anyone who's willing to extend that support to you here, in public.

Quote

And it's not about equating it with anything, it's called a simile and it's a literary device @quote:wikipedia 'used to directly compare two different things.' DIFFERENT, not equal.

We're not interested in "literary devices" here. This is not a poetry slam, this is a debate. Stick to the facts, if you will.

Quote

stop twisting things out of context to suit your ends, I would greatly appreciate it as it would save me A LOT of typing.

The problem is, you haven't GOT a context to "stick to". You revise your alleged position on the issue as necessary, to suit your latest attempt at a point.

Quote

And by 'off-topic' I meant that it was getting back into the 'license argument, which this isn't about, so yes, off-topic.

Not at all - the topic is about the validity of Eloraam's actions. In your own words:

Quote

My goal with this post is to show that while Eloraam's reason's are understandable concerns, their validity is questionable.

Now, are you going to base that "validity" on your malleable opinion, or shall we just settle for the facts? You talk a lot about what's "right", but sadly, "right" is on her side here, not yours.

Quote

discussion is pointless when there is one person that insists on screaming down every person that tries to talk about anything other than what they want it to be about. It's not about her fucking license

I'm sorry - do you perceive this as "screaming"? I know you've adopted a lot of hyperbole in recent posts, but this is a new one.

You will never be convinced to accept anything that does not fit your worldview, and you haven't been able to convince anyone else that your interpretation is more valid than that of the author of the mod - so I'll ask you again: What are you trying to accomplish? And when do you intend to begin?

Quote

Your example is copyright law... Something that is widely disputed based on where the two parties are located (globally). One of the major fights today IS copyright law because countries cannot agree on what 'Fair-Use' actually is. In the context of the conversation, my opposition has a more United States-esque view of copyright law than I do, my definition of 'Fair-Use' is a bit broader. When I stated that 'the irony of this happening a day after the SOPA/PIPA protest's was not lost on me.' in my OP, I wasn't joking. In a microcosm kinda way this rings of it.

Ehm... Copyright is quite international and most important nations agree. The disagreement is about how to control it. SOPA and PIPA both don't change copyright, but inherit new ways of enforcing it.

Quote

In the context of this community- MayorMojang tabled a 'free to work with my work, just don't rip me off' motion.

Nope, Mohjangs attidude towards mods is based on buisness-aspects. Mods make people play minecraft, people playing minecraft bring money, so mods bring money. The only reason for them to allow mods is that forbidding them would hurt the company. They go a high risk at allowing this, since you could rip-off minecraft this way and even get away with it, because you could argue that they should have enforced there copyright better. If they won't have benefitted from this, they won't have allowed it most likely without their own modAPI.

Quote

No, but you should be willing to respect the way using someone elses work allowed you to get where you are with your work.

I don't really see where she got with RP. She has a mod, nothing more. And since she modded other things before, if not in minecraft she would most likely just have modded something else. And minecraft isn't something particularly nice to modders.

Quote

Right, Eloraam could start charging people money for RedPower at any time, just the same that Mojang does with Minecraft. Mojang CANNOT charge people for RedPower, only Eloraam can do that as RedPower is her work.

Mojang does NOT however restrict people from extending their work the way that Eloraam does... kinda one of the points I've been trying to make. What was yours?

Uuh... strange comparison. So because Mohjang sells minecraft, while eloraam provides free access to redpower she should allow modification the same way mohjang does? Oh actually she does allow it the same way mohjang does. Mohjang generally forbids modifications (they need to), but allow certain uses. Eloraam generally forbids modifications, but allow certain uses... anyway the comparison still isn't making sense since mohjang charges for minecraft and want to make money so they are in the need to do what the community wants... eloraam don't need to care for other, since it's not important to her if she has a few more or less people using her mod.

Quote

Developers, I feel do have an obligation to the community- For at least as long as they decide to keep their project active and public. Any Developer is free to stop at any time, but so long as they stay publicly active then yes, there is a certain obligation there.

Again... why should they agree on such an obligation? Most modders would rather quit modding. Modding is a hobby, just fun, there are no obligations connected to something you do for fun, that makes no sense at all.

Maybe we can say:
Eloram has the right to make her code closed source and forbid any use of it to others. Right? Right!
Good, this side discussion can be closed by this agreement.

And now, back to the thing that's more important. The real question is, it's good that she use this closed type of license?

For this, we have many points to discuss:
- Speed and quality of development
- Sharing of ideas (Something like take things that make the same into a new mod. Maybe a mod where only the Pipes from BC and/or the tubes from RP are in to make it as a plugin for other mods)
- And so on.

But all these points which have a large amount of pro and cons are very important but useless at the same time, when we have a person they could say: "You wouldn't play as i will? Fine, i close my mod and no one ever could use it. For that guys, do what i say, when i it say..."

For me, it is a big different when a person could say: "Do what i want or i close the mod and no one could use it anymore, because i have the right to do this." or "Do you no do what i want? Fine, here's the code, do with that what ever you want but i don't make nothing with this anymore."

And for this, i prefer the second one.

Quote from Saul_Goode

No, it's relevant to YOU Headhunter.
Eloraam didn't make it about her license (until after the fact, perhaps)

It's got nothing to do with me - if Eloraam's license didn't support the action, she would not have been able to act as she did. And THAT is why it's relevant to this discussion.
You may say it's irrelevant, but the fact is, it's the only thing that's relevant - the "court of public opinion" is immaterial to protection of one's intellectual property.

Quote

My issue all along was about Eloraam pulling the sub-mod, BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH HER OWN PLANS.

SO. WHAT.

Even if that's the ONLY reason, it's reason enough. It's her mod, she's quite entitled to make that choice. As I said, she doesn't need a reason AT ALL.

Quote

Again, it's not about 'entitlement' to me. But I will cop to feelings of obligation... not to me, butto the community, and that obligation exists so long as the project is publicly active.

So, because they give you something for free, and ask nothing in return, they owe you something more? (By "you" I mean "the community").

You can't say that you feel they owe the "community" without lumping yourself in with that community. And since the community has not appointed you its spokesperson, in truth you speak only for yourself. So it's clear that, despite your protestations, you do feel that they owe [/i]you[/i] something. Care to explain why?

Quote

The only entitlement I feel is as a part of the community, and considering the number of people in the community my 'share' of that entitlement is so miniscule that I don't really view it as worth consideration.

Then stop talking about it, unless you've been chosen as Community Liaison - because you can only speak for yourself and your own expectations.
Stop trying to act like you're speaking for others, but not for yourself - if you don't believe the things you say, then they are meaningless.

Quote

You asked why I feel this way? Because I am a developer myself and I feel a sense of obligation to my users.

Once more, that doesn't give you the right to extend that expectation onto others. You can't possibly tell me why other people should be required to act as you do.

Quote

And what would it take? An explicit declaration of 'I am the user that PM'd Saul_Goode. He has my full support and his words are mine by proxy.'?

Well, that would certainly do it - but it's not necessary since no one has come to the thread and even expressed the same opinion as you do.

Quote

So... you're not skeptical that I got a PM, but you are skeptical that it's in support of my opinion...? How does that work, I got a random PM and I'm just saying it's supportive in nature?

I phrased it exactly as intended. I explicitly stated that I am skeptical of the support you've received. That means, you may have gotten PMs from someone (likely singular) that expressed agreement, but those individuals have yet to come forth and express that opinion in public. Generally, that would mean they don't fully believe those principles, are ashamed to admit it, or are not confident that they can defend their views from public scrutiny. So "silent" support is meaningless, if your avowed aim is public awareness of the issue.

Quote

Read the thread title... 'Discususion', had I intended it to be a debate I would have titled it appropriately. A debate is just what it got turned into.

Very well - it's still not a poetry slam, and we're not here to write prose - so can the "literary devices" and stick to the facts. I know it may be hard for you to use those facts to support your opinion, but if you want "literary devices", save it for your MySpace page.

Quote

No, if it was all in context I wouldn't have had to start this post out by pointing out the the word 'license' didn't even appear in this thread until you brought it up in point #8. If it was all in context I wouldn't still have a need for similes about murder and child-abuse.

Notwithstanding the relevance of the license to the matter, here is the "context":
[b]Eloraam has the right to do whatever she wants with her property, and to control its distribution AND USE in any way she sees fit - for whatever reason, or no reason at all[b].

You're in no way obligated to "like it"; you can choose not to use the product at all if you wish. Your "rights" as a consumer have not been trod upon in any way.

Quote

The underlaying theme of my whole platform is Eloraams attitude before license even comes into it.

That's not a platform that has any relevance. Her "attitude" doesn't change her right to do as she pleases, nor does your disagreement make her wrong.

You're basically asking "what gives her the right to act as she did?", is that not correct?

Oh please Saul, give him right and let us get back to topic.

When not then we've here Battle for Verdun v2.0...

Quote from Moriarty

Oh please Saul, give him right and let us get back to topic.

When not then we've here Battle for Verdun v2.0...

Well without any argument to say why it should be better to put modders under the obligation to work for the community than rather putting their only obligation towards their own enjoyment this discussion is rather pointless.

In my oppinion it would be much better if someone will go to the supermarket and get some beer for me, since it's quite cold outside (brrrr... -12°C), but still without arguments to convince them why it should be good no one will do this. Actually this comparison is as pointless as providing an oppinion without stating why we should take it over.

The only thing i consider a "Real" obligation from devs to users/community its giving support and bug fixing, Beyond that the Dev dont really own you anything to anyone but themselfs, its their own creation they can do whatever they want with it.

The only reasons i see a dev doing a mod are:

-For fun, when you have the knowledge and a idea, nothing better than making it real.
-Skill developing, nothing better than constantly practicing how to code and see how one can improve their coding ability.
-Customization, they realized the main game was missing something essencial to make the game more enjoyable, so they decided to improve the game with their own idea.

To each developer its their own decision to whenever make public or not their code/mod, they dont own anything to the community when making their creation public, they simply decided to share what they made nothing more nothing else.

Just saw this today:

http://youtu.be/jedDiy8p4s8

Assuming everything said on this video is true (Jump to about 3:33) Then this is a mod that attaches to Red Power wiring, and does (In a more simplistic layout) The computer blocks that Eloraam is planning on adding. Since it attaches directly to a bundle of cables, one can assume that you would have to add functionality from Red Power in order to use the wiring.

Two main differences from this mod to the mod of discussion:

1: This mod does not touch systems that Eloraam has invented.

2: The mod author got permission.

However, this mod is still taking the place of a system that Eloraam will be designing in the future, so I just felt like pointing this out, since it invalidates my 'Previous mods that influence perception' argument. :B

It also invalidates Saul's "Eloraam will squash all competition" argument as well.

Some few things to note before saul start talking too much without going anywhere that we havent hear already:

-Computer craft its a STANDALONE mod.
-Computer craft doesnt touch much of Redpower code.
-Eloraam and the creator of Computer Craft talked before hand and decided that integration wasnt such a bad thing.
-Eloraam does indeed will create her own computing system for Minecraft, but since computer craft its a standalone mod that doesnt require anything of redpower to work, she does not have any authority over computercraft.
-Unlike the coversion system made by immibis, where it needed Redpower to even do something, so eloraam did have authority over that.

Cant think of anything else, but i guess that should cover the basic gist.

I get the feeling that ComputerCraft would have been released even if it could not interface with RedPower - as it does not strictly rely upon RedPower for its use.
That's an important distinction.

Quote from HeadHunter67

I get the feeling that ComputerCraft would have been released even if it could not interface with RedPower - as it does not strictly rely upon RedPower for its use.
That's an important distinction.

Computer craft was released Even before the integration with Redpower where in place.

I thought so. One could easily use it with vanilla redstone and probably with BC gates as well. Haven't really looked into it myself, it's not the sort of thing I'm looking for in Minecraft but it's a good example of how cooperative Eloraam can be when she is treated with respect.

Quote from HeadHunter67

I thought so. One could easily use it with vanilla redstone and probably with BC gates as well. Haven't really looked into it myself, it's not the sort of thing I'm looking for in Minecraft but it's a good example of how cooperative Eloraam can be when she is treated with respect.

Actually it was her community that talked her into allowing it. Since Redpower is mainly crowded by "tech-fanatics" that would really like a computer to play with. And since it only calls a RP-function for bundled cable-interaction she decided to allow it. Actually the mod started using bundled wires at a time eloraams copyright wasn't updated (it was the same copyright, but that much explanation as it has now.

Quote

Just saw this today:

Actually it is quite some time since computer-craft uses bundled cables (2. january eloraam allowed it).

Quote from Eloraam

Okay, ComputerCraft thing is resolved. I talked to the author, and I've decided to give him specific permission to use bundled cables like this.

That should work for everyone, yes?

Quote from Dan200

I have updated the OP with a brief statement about RedPower.
Here it is for posterity:

As you may be aware, version 1.1 of ComputerCraft added compatibility with RedPower bundled cables. I'm ashamed to admit this was done without the permission of Eloraam, as I didn't believe her to be approachable. Yesterday I found this belief to be wrong, and me and Eloraam spoke at length about the mod on IRC. During the very friendly discussion, Eloraam decided in the interests of both of our players to allow the integration.

A note though, eloraam doesn't want this to happen that often. But if other modders want to make small adjustments to there mod to better work with redpower she normally is quite helpful. But again under normal circumstances she only grants this right to a few people most of them other mod-developers.

No idea about what they talked, but actually she approached the CC-Developer, since he wasn't aware of this. He just acted in request of his community

Honestly, I don't know why I feel the need to explain this to you, because I'm quite certain you won't understand.

Quote from Saul_Goode

I didn't fail when you keep it in context.

Correct. I'm going to admit that you've actually convinced me of something. Your response proves that you lack comprehension and vocabulary-depth. This is not really any more failsome than everything else you've spewed on topic.

Except....

Quote

In the community it's generally held that killing your neighbor is a bad thing, but in some places killing someone in a neighboring town is celebrated. But if you start killing neighboring villagers they'll start coming to kill your villagers, eventually the chiefs have to come together and say 'no more killing, you handle your people, I'll handle mine.'

Then if you ride to a neighboring village and kill someone, YOUR village gets pissed because the whole mess is going to start again.

Is pretty much a rewording of what I said. It just ignores the fundamental reality that the chiefs frequently didn't just come together and talk it out. My chief decided it was okay to just slaughter your village and be done with the mess. If none of your people are around to affect my people, there's nobody to complain. And if your village was known as the place of the legendary complainers, it's entirely possible that this aggressive action would be ignored by otherwise unaffected villages.

Quote

It's a matter of scope and perspective and so long as you keep that in focus, then my logic is pretty clear.

I don't need to bother with scope and perspective as your logic is laughably fallacious at best. Understanding is a three-edged sword; what they believe, what you believe and the truth. You're trying to convince the other side that you're right and there is no truth. The other side is trying to convince you that their belief lies closer to the truth then yours. I'm afraid you don't understand that choosing such a battle is foolish.