SourceForts and Creative Commons.

[Klif]

Is SourceForts still licensed under Creative Commons? Will it always be, in the future?

[jlf]

I'm not fully aware of the legal status of Half-Life 2 mods, but will be taking the time to write a proper licence for v2. I very much doubt it will be the Creative Commons licence.

[Stinger]

Knifa's borked source code is covered under a CC licence. As our code is written from scratch by different authors, I guess it doesn't apply to us.

I certainly hope that my maps aren't under a CC license, because that would mean that people could rip my maps, edit them and re-realease them, and all they have to do is give me credit.

[guspaz]

Knifa's borked source code is covered under a CC licence. As our code is written from scratch by different authors, I guess it doesn't apply to us.

I certainly hope that my maps aren't under a CC license, because that would mean that people could rip my maps, edit them and re-realease them, and all they have to do is give me credit.

Unfortunately you don't understand how the CC licence works. It is not actually a licence per-se, but a 'build your own licence' kit.

I suggest you look at this web page:

http://creativecommons.org/license/

Notice that one of the options is to forbid modifications of your work.

In fact, it would seem that all HL2 mods without exception are effectively licenced under the Creative Commons. Not in actual fact, but their licences might as well be.

Think about it, most HL2 mods are distributed for free, without sourcecode (No modifications), and forbidding commercial use. That is exactly the same as one possible configuration of the creative commons.

Other HL2 mods do allow modifications. That fits under the CC too, but it is just one possible configuration of the CC.

So, since any licence that you guys come up with is effectively going to be identical to a possible configuration of the creative commons licence, it's probably better to use it. After all, it has been written by legal experts and lawyers who (no offence) can probably write better legal documents than you guys. On top of that, you get the positive publicity of using the creative commons licence. This could possibly lead to free promotion on sites such as slashdot or boingboing, if you play your cards right.

That's the great thing about the creative commons licence. People can get exactly the licence they want, except they don't have to pay a lawyer to get the real thing.

[guspaz]

Knifa's borked source code is covered under a CC licence. As our code is written from scratch by different authors, I guess it doesn't apply to us.

I certainly hope that my maps aren't under a CC license, because that would mean that people could rip my maps, edit them and re-realease them, and all they have to do is give me credit.

Unfortunately you don't understand how the CC licence works. It is not actually a licence per-se, but a 'build your own licence' kit.

I suggest you look at this web page:

http://creativecommons.org/license/

Notice that one of the options is to forbid modifications of your work.

In fact, it would seem that all HL2 mods without exception are effectively licenced under the Creative Commons. Not in actual fact, but their licences might as well be.

Think about it, most HL2 mods are distributed for free, without sourcecode (No modifications), and forbidding commercial use. That is exactly the same as one possible configuration of the creative commons.

Other HL2 mods do allow modifications. That fits under the CC too, but it is just one possible configuration of the CC.

So, since any licence that you guys come up with is effectively going to be identical to a possible configuration of the creative commons licence, it's probably better to use it. After all, it has been written by legal experts and lawyers who (no offence) can probably write better legal documents than you guys. On top of that, you get the positive publicity of using the creative commons licence. This could possibly lead to free promotion on sites such as slashdot or boingboing, if you play your cards right.

That's the great thing about the creative commons licence. People can get exactly the licence they want, except they don't have to pay a lawyer to get the real thing.

[Geogriffith]

I don't often agree with bumping old topics, but that was a very well written post.

[Geogriffith]

I don't often agree with bumping old topics, but that was a very well written post.

[guspaz]

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to date, only how far down the page it had traveled.

[guspaz]

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to date, only how far down the page it had traveled.

[jlf]

Thanks for the heads up guspaz. However, I am familiar with the Creative Commons licence, and my simple problem with it (while it's great for the Linux parts of my development) is that it can get too long.

[jlf]

Thanks for the heads up guspaz. However, I am familiar with the Creative Commons licence, and my simple problem with it (while it's great for the Linux parts of my development) is that it can get too long.

[Klif]

Thanks for the heads up guspaz. However, I am familiar with the Creative Commons licence, and my simple problem with it (while it's great for the Linux parts of my development) is that it can get too long....get too long?

expound, i don't understand.

[Klif]

Thanks for the heads up guspaz. However, I am familiar with the Creative Commons licence, and my simple problem with it (while it's great for the Linux parts of my development) is that it can get too long....get too long?

expound, i don't understand.

[guspaz]

I think he means the legal text. I'm not sure why that matters though, it's not like anybody but lawyers are going to read it.

When you generate a Creative Commons licence, they make a nice human-readable version. For example, here is the type of licence a Half-Life mod would be released under:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

They present it in a very clear format; user rights and restrictions are clearly listed, and a link to the full legal text is provided.

For those interested, the direct link to the legal text for this particular variation can be seen here:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode

It's actually a pretty short licence, only a few pages long.

Please note that while the Creative Commons licence generator links you initially to version 2.0 of the licence, there is a link at the bottom of those pages that links to a newer version (2.5) of the licence. The licence I've presented here is the 2.5 version.

[guspaz]

I think he means the legal text. I'm not sure why that matters though, it's not like anybody but lawyers are going to read it.

When you generate a Creative Commons licence, they make a nice human-readable version. For example, here is the type of licence a Half-Life mod would be released under:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

They present it in a very clear format; user rights and restrictions are clearly listed, and a link to the full legal text is provided.

For those interested, the direct link to the legal text for this particular variation can be seen here:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode

It's actually a pretty short licence, only a few pages long.

Please note that while the Creative Commons licence generator links you initially to version 2.0 of the licence, there is a link at the bottom of those pages that links to a newer version (2.5) of the licence. The licence I've presented here is the 2.5 version.

[jlf]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Now that's good... thanks for pointing that out.

My point about the licences is exactly that: For a mod, the licence is just as important to make our position known on people re-using SF content in their own projects.

[jlf]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Now that's good... thanks for pointing that out.

My point about the licences is exactly that: For a mod, the licence is just as important to make our position known on people re-using SF content in their own projects.

[Stinger]

Unfortunately you don't understand how the CC licence works.

Um, no. Knifa "built" his own CC license, as you say; which allowed for modification, re-release etc. But my maps were part of the package, and what I was saying is that I never wanted my maps to be under that kind of license.

I suggest you check out this page:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

This is the license Knifa assigned to SourceForts.

[Stinger]

Unfortunately you don't understand how the CC licence works.

Um, no. Knifa "built" his own CC license, as you say; which allowed for modification, re-release etc. But my maps were part of the package, and what I was saying is that I never wanted my maps to be under that kind of license.

I suggest you check out this page:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

This is the license Knifa assigned to SourceForts.

[guspaz]

An unfortunate decision by Knifa.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about your maps. Any serious modification would require using shoddy map decompilers, and just getting the maps fixed up to how they were before decompiling takes a lot of effort. It's probably not worth the time to most people when it might be more advantageous to create their own map from scratch.

[guspaz]

An unfortunate decision by Knifa.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about your maps. Any serious modification would require using shoddy map decompilers, and just getting the maps fixed up to how they were before decompiling takes a lot of effort. It's probably not worth the time to most people when it might be more advantageous to create their own map from scratch.

[jlf]

That doesn't prevent them using the whole map. Models are particularly prone to this.

[jlf]

That doesn't prevent them using the whole map. Models are particularly prone to this.