Framework
Framework copied to clipboard
AsYetUntitled
CC Noderivatives: it goes the other way around our framework.
We use a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, and so, our material (code) can't be distributed, if any modification is made. (That's the ND part of the license)
The issue here comes when we think about the way the framework is developed: user should do the changes he needs for his server, and so, our framework is just the base for building a server. With that in mind, using a license that doesn't allow derivatives doesn't seems to be the best way in our case.
I propose a change in the license, changing to: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
This license allows derivatives from the original material, but only if the changes made are using the same license. This seems to be the best for our case: allowing people to change the code, but not allowing them to keep their changes closed source or without the credits.
I think this boils down to the term 'distribute' being ambiguous. In most senses, distribute would mean for somebody to say, I remixed the Framework and gave it out to people on the forums. In the case of ArmA, although people entering your server are indeed downloading this code, it is still bound to the server you play on (they are personally using it), not necessarily distributing, per say.
I would class something like GitHub releases, or forum downloads, etc, as distributing. Do you agree?
The NonCommercial term needs revising as Tonic allowed Altis Life RPG to be used on monetized servers quite some time ago. [This is where I would put the link to that forum post - if it still existed. ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)]
@BoGuu, although I'd agree with you in this case, CC doesn't specify which kind of distribution is allowed and which kind is not and so, it's understandable that all kinds of distribution are prohibited.
@Jawshy you're right, but here comes the same problem @BoGuu stated for ND: if we allow it, we'll be allowing all kinds of comercial usage and then, people would be able to charge for missions scripts, etc.
We could use Arma's APL-SA It is the same as CC BY-NC-SA, but it is under the scope of BIS EULA (And so, approved monetized servers aren't seen as commercial trades)
I know this thread is old, but I want to give you guys my opinion on that. This whole project is developed as a Framework - an (somewhat) abstract version of what it could possibly be, so anyone can change and extend it to some degree so that it fits their need.
I agree with many things you guys said, but I honestly don't understand why you want to keep it ND? I don't see any negative impact on this project if you allow people to fork and modify this project. In fact, technically everyone forking this repo to create a PR, editing files and publishing them on Github is braking the ND-part of the license.
If you want to restrict people from using this project for commercial purposes (e.g. selling pre-made versions) you would just need to check if the license has that kind of clause - with an additional clause you could then allow monetized server usage.
We could use Arma's APL-SA It is the same as CC BY-NC-SA, but it is under the scope of BIS EULA (And so, approved monetized servers aren't seen as commercial trades)
Actually, that is not correct. As Karel Novák explained to me in a mail conversation, APL-SA in fact does not allow monetized servers to use the content unless explicitly stated otherwise.
@Jawshy you're right, but here comes the same problem @BoGuu stated for ND: if we allow it, we'll be allowing all kinds of comercial usage and then, people would be able to charge for missions scripts, etc.
As far as my knowledge goes, Bohemia Interactive allows people to sell scripts (other than mods). This means you cannot really stop people from doing this, even by keeping a ND/NC license - as long as people sell just the script and not a modified Framework they technically do comply with the license terms for this project. The same goes for selling services like installing a script, since they don't sell the Framwork but their work (at least that's my understanding of it).
If you really want to decide for a new license in the near future (which i would support a lot) in my opinion the following things should be taken into consideration:
- Allowing people to create and publish own derivatives (under the same license of course -> copyleft)
- Allowing people to monetize their server (otherwise non commercial maybe? could be done via a special clause that is allowing monetization restricted to Bohemias monetization rules)
- Restrict people from removing any Attribution
That's enough on my opinion, I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts tho
This whole project is developed as a Framework - an (somewhat) abstract version of what it could possibly be, so anyone can change and extend it to some degree so that it fits their need.
:+1:
I agree with many things you guys said, but I honestly don't understand why you want to keep it ND? I don't see any negative impact on this project if you allow people to fork and modify this project. In fact, technically everyone forking this repo to create a PR, editing files and publishing them on Github is braking the ND-part of the license. Most of the conversations around licensing, in the past, always tried to upkeep Tonic's wishes - this is the terms he set out with.
I've had a bunch of conversations surrounding forks in the past - it's a tricky one. The way I've viewed distribution is releases (or clear intent). It wouldn't be possible for people to contribute without the forks, so it's somewhat catch 22.
If you want to restrict people from using this project for commercial purposes (e.g. selling pre-made versions) you would just need to check if the license has that kind of clause - with an additional clause you could then allow monetized server usage.
We could use Arma's APL-SA It is the same as CC BY-NC-SA, but it is under the scope of BIS EULA (And so, approved monetized servers aren't seen as commercial trades)
As far as my knowledge goes, Bohemia Interactive allows people to sell scripts (other than mods). This means you cannot really stop people from doing this, even by keeping a ND/NC license - as long as people sell just the script and not a modified Framework they technically do comply with the license terms for this project. The same goes for selling services like installing a script, since they don't sell the Framwork but their work (at least that's my understanding of it).
:+1:
If you really want to decide for a new license in the near future (which i would support a lot) in my opinion the following things should be taken into consideration:
- Allowing people to create and publish own derivatives (under the same license of course -> copyleft)
- Allowing people to monetize their server (otherwise non commercial maybe? could be done via a special clause that is allowing monetization restricted to Bohemias monetization rules)
- Restrict people from removing any Attribution
That's enough on my opinion, I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts tho
I agree entirely with you, and as I've said many times to many people: if we were able to change the license, we would.
As there was no initial clause added when the project was formed, changing the license to something more permissive would require permission from every contributor (including Tonic). As one might expect, this is next to an impossible task - some of the people simply aren't around anymore, and there's a hell of a lot of them.
The easiest way about this would be getting a hold of as many as possible, and simply rewriting the rest in a non IP infringing way.