Proprietary and Free Maps
-
PingKing
- Posts: 662
- https://www.facebook.com/warszawa.kuchnie.na.wymiar/
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:14 pm
- Location: England
ghost does understand this becuase he is not a mapper this is a point from a non-mappper experience they probably think that mapping is easy put some doors in and some lights and preset walkways job sorted.... well its not it is a highly complex deatiled process that you must check and recheck continuously until the end project is satisfactory and people will enjoy it. Mapping requires good thought and hard work and non-mappers may not appreciate this like i never did but when i started mapping i appreciated maps for what they were.
-
}TCP{Ghost
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:40 pm
- Location: Holland
- Contact:
Sorry, I was a bit busy lately and so it took me a while to write this answer.
Natural Rights
One thing I read in your post was this attitude that it's the author's "natural right" to decide what happens with his work.
That is not really correct. When you create an intellectual work (such as a computer program or a map), the law gives you the "copyright", that means you have a full monopoly on this specific work and basically you can do what you want.
Now why does the state allow this? The answer is not that the states think you should have this rights naturally. The state gives you the right only to modify your behavior, so that you say "hey, cool I got money from creating intellectual works, I'll do that again". If you have an intellectual work in a society, this society profits from this work; therefore the state tries to motivate creators of those works to produce more and more and make society even happier. This is for instance the only reason why there is copyright in the USA now.
And you have also to see that freedoms are taken away from society if you have copyright. If a work is copyrighted and you get a copy of it, normally you are not allowed to copy or change it.
History of copyright
Now at the beginning of copyright in history, this was a sacrifice people could make. The only effective way to copy things were printing presses back then. And no normal person had a printing press in those time. So people gave up a freedom which they were not capable of exercising.
Things have changed. Now the act of copying is very simple. You have a file on a computer and press 'copy' and there it is. Everyone can copy now. So now the situation has changed: The copyright stayed the same, basically, but now everyone is affected by it and not only big companies with printing presses. And I think we have to reconsider copyright. Would you stop producing maps just because you don't have the right to take away freedom of people who like your map?
Someone can change the map for the worse and people will think I am a bad mapper
This is a very practical argument and parts of it are true. Let's look at the worst case:
1. You make an awesome map.
2. You allow modified changes but force modified versions to name you as an author.
3. Someone else is taking the map and making it really crappy.
4. People think you are a bad mapper.
There is a very good way to prevent this: Along with the map you give a file called AUTHORS and CHANGELOG (or something similar). Every author is named there and not only his name, but also the date of his change and what exactly he did change. Via copyright you can force people to write down changes. You can also write down in those files: For a list of modified versions see http://mycoolut2k4maps.org/list.html . There you can list all versions of the map and people who are interested can download them.
Just because everyone is free to change the map, that doesn't mean you can't have a bit of controll. Forcing authors to pass over the AUTHORS file is totaly ok. (Perhaps there is even a way to store it in the map file so that it won't get lost if someone uses Coco's cache extractor?)
I think there won't be many 'bad' modifications of your maps. If people spend time on working on a map the motivation is usually to improve things. Even if that doesn't succeed, players don't like bad maps and they just won't be played (and as far as I understood you it is better if people don't play your map, than if they play a crappy modified version and think you are a bad mapper.)
@Wolf:
If you put your work under a copyleft license, for programs that'd be the GNU General Public License, you won't have this problem. Everyone who modifies or copies your program must release it under the same license as you did, and must say that it's (a modified version of) your program. If he doesn't do that, he violates the GPL and the law, so this is very serious and I recommend you to visit http://www.gpl-violations.org/, maybe they can help you.
Natural Rights
One thing I read in your post was this attitude that it's the author's "natural right" to decide what happens with his work.
That is not really correct. When you create an intellectual work (such as a computer program or a map), the law gives you the "copyright", that means you have a full monopoly on this specific work and basically you can do what you want.
Now why does the state allow this? The answer is not that the states think you should have this rights naturally. The state gives you the right only to modify your behavior, so that you say "hey, cool I got money from creating intellectual works, I'll do that again". If you have an intellectual work in a society, this society profits from this work; therefore the state tries to motivate creators of those works to produce more and more and make society even happier. This is for instance the only reason why there is copyright in the USA now.
And you have also to see that freedoms are taken away from society if you have copyright. If a work is copyrighted and you get a copy of it, normally you are not allowed to copy or change it.
History of copyright
Now at the beginning of copyright in history, this was a sacrifice people could make. The only effective way to copy things were printing presses back then. And no normal person had a printing press in those time. So people gave up a freedom which they were not capable of exercising.
Things have changed. Now the act of copying is very simple. You have a file on a computer and press 'copy' and there it is. Everyone can copy now. So now the situation has changed: The copyright stayed the same, basically, but now everyone is affected by it and not only big companies with printing presses. And I think we have to reconsider copyright. Would you stop producing maps just because you don't have the right to take away freedom of people who like your map?
Someone can change the map for the worse and people will think I am a bad mapper
This is a very practical argument and parts of it are true. Let's look at the worst case:
1. You make an awesome map.
2. You allow modified changes but force modified versions to name you as an author.
3. Someone else is taking the map and making it really crappy.
4. People think you are a bad mapper.
There is a very good way to prevent this: Along with the map you give a file called AUTHORS and CHANGELOG (or something similar). Every author is named there and not only his name, but also the date of his change and what exactly he did change. Via copyright you can force people to write down changes. You can also write down in those files: For a list of modified versions see http://mycoolut2k4maps.org/list.html . There you can list all versions of the map and people who are interested can download them.
Just because everyone is free to change the map, that doesn't mean you can't have a bit of controll. Forcing authors to pass over the AUTHORS file is totaly ok. (Perhaps there is even a way to store it in the map file so that it won't get lost if someone uses Coco's cache extractor?)
I think there won't be many 'bad' modifications of your maps. If people spend time on working on a map the motivation is usually to improve things. Even if that doesn't succeed, players don't like bad maps and they just won't be played (and as far as I understood you it is better if people don't play your map, than if they play a crappy modified version and think you are a bad mapper.)
@Wolf:
If you put your work under a copyleft license, for programs that'd be the GNU General Public License, you won't have this problem. Everyone who modifies or copies your program must release it under the same license as you did, and must say that it's (a modified version of) your program. If he doesn't do that, he violates the GPL and the law, so this is very serious and I recommend you to visit http://www.gpl-violations.org/, maybe they can help you.
Hi the_kay!
I can understand most of the things you wrote. But still, there's one thing that I see differently. Your main argument in all these free software / copyright / author rights on maps discussion is freedom. Of course, for any individual it is best to have as much freedom as possible. But whenever an individual deals with other individuals, general freedom is not easy to define, because freedom for one of them might be a loss of freedom for the others.
If someone feels anger against some other person and has the wish to kill him/her, he's not allowed to do so. In this sense, the law cuts his freedom, which is good, to protect the person's right to live.
Similar to this, you can't just see the user's side of software / maps / music or whatever. If you grant them the rights to do anything (or even just the things the GPL allows) with it, you restrict the freedom of the authors on the other side.
Your idea with the changelog is nice. But to be honest, if I (or you) play a map and don't like it, I wouldn't search for a changelog to check out who is responsible for the details that I didn't like. I just blame the author...
It may be lazy, but that's the way it is.
Coco.
I can understand most of the things you wrote. But still, there's one thing that I see differently. Your main argument in all these free software / copyright / author rights on maps discussion is freedom. Of course, for any individual it is best to have as much freedom as possible. But whenever an individual deals with other individuals, general freedom is not easy to define, because freedom for one of them might be a loss of freedom for the others.
If someone feels anger against some other person and has the wish to kill him/her, he's not allowed to do so. In this sense, the law cuts his freedom, which is good, to protect the person's right to live.
Similar to this, you can't just see the user's side of software / maps / music or whatever. If you grant them the rights to do anything (or even just the things the GPL allows) with it, you restrict the freedom of the authors on the other side.
Your idea with the changelog is nice. But to be honest, if I (or you) play a map and don't like it, I wouldn't search for a changelog to check out who is responsible for the details that I didn't like. I just blame the author...
It may be lazy, but that's the way it is.Coco.
What you say is really true, Coco. There is a conflict between the author's freedom and people's freedom.
But what is more important, the freedom of the whole society or the selfishness of an author who wants to take freedom away from others?
In my opinion society's freedom is more important.
However you are right that we shouldn't ignore interests of authors completely. Some of them think that attribution is important, so let's give this freedom to them. Some of them don't want others to modify their version and make it proprietary, so let's copyleft works of authors so that it will be free for everyone and forever.
In some special cases this might get even further. Some people think that authors should be allowed to say their work must not be used commercially. Or that changes are not allowed (in essays where you express an opinion for example). Those freedom and restrictions are debatable.
To the changelog:
I personally wouldn't even bother to find out the authors name if there is a bad map. I would just not play it and perhaps say it is not a good map. But I would not take the effort to blame one specific person. On the other side if I think a map is cool, maybe I try to find out who made it.
But what is more important, the freedom of the whole society or the selfishness of an author who wants to take freedom away from others?
In my opinion society's freedom is more important.
However you are right that we shouldn't ignore interests of authors completely. Some of them think that attribution is important, so let's give this freedom to them. Some of them don't want others to modify their version and make it proprietary, so let's copyleft works of authors so that it will be free for everyone and forever.
In some special cases this might get even further. Some people think that authors should be allowed to say their work must not be used commercially. Or that changes are not allowed (in essays where you express an opinion for example). Those freedom and restrictions are debatable.
To the changelog:
I personally wouldn't even bother to find out the authors name if there is a bad map. I would just not play it and perhaps say it is not a good map. But I would not take the effort to blame one specific person. On the other side if I think a map is cool, maybe I try to find out who made it.
-
}TCP{Wolf
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:30 pm
- Location: https://signal.me/#eu/4zInut2kHeg_ry0GD ... pdqka17o2F
- Contact:
No, not for UScript mods. Read the UCC/UEd Eula.}TCP{the_kay wrote: @Wolf:
If you put your work under a copyleft license, for programs that'd be the GNU General Public License, you won't have this problem. Everyone who modifies or copies your program must release it under the same license as you did, and must say that it's (a modified version of) your program. If he doesn't do that, he violates the GPL and the law, so this is very serious and I recommend you to visit http://www.gpl-violations.org/, maybe they can help you.
With that, you take away an author's motivation to do ANYTHING. Also, talking about "selfishness" towards authors who share their work without asking for money (mappers, UScripters) is totally misplaced. What the hell is selfish about giving something to others for free use?}TCP{the_kay wrote:What you say is really true, Coco. There is a conflict between the author's freedom and people's freedom.
But what is more important, the freedom of the whole society or the selfishness of an author who wants to take freedom away from others?
In my opinion society's freedom is more important.
I disagree.}TCP{the_kay wrote:In some special cases this might get even further. Some people think that authors should be allowed to say their work must not be used commercially. Or that changes are not allowed (in essays where you express an opinion for example). Those freedom and restrictions are debatable.
I'm not an expert in which license to choose; I once asked in IRC (Freenode, #gnu) about what license one should choose for a ut2k4-map and they told me to take a CreativeCommons license... If you are interested I can give you contact stuff where you find people who can help you.
Yes, I am talking about selfishness. Because what is the motivation that leads someone to say "haha, I use my power to deny you your freedoms"?
Not everyone is that selfish. People who release their work under free licenses are not very selfish.
You said "free use" in the context of "use without paying". This is a bit confusing, because unfortunately the English term "free" has two meanings: 1. Free as in freedom. 2. Free as in free beer (it does not cost anything).
The first freedom is important, while the second doesn't really matter much.
So, if someone gives his work for "free use" (as in freedom), I don't think this is selfish.
Yes, I am talking about selfishness. Because what is the motivation that leads someone to say "haha, I use my power to deny you your freedoms"?
Not everyone is that selfish. People who release their work under free licenses are not very selfish.
You said "free use" in the context of "use without paying". This is a bit confusing, because unfortunately the English term "free" has two meanings: 1. Free as in freedom. 2. Free as in free beer (it does not cost anything).
The first freedom is important, while the second doesn't really matter much.
So, if someone gives his work for "free use" (as in freedom), I don't think this is selfish.
I don't think so. There are in fact many people releasing their work under a free license. I am an Wikipedian, and my main motivation is the fact that it is a free project; that I contribute to a social movement that tries to help people instead of restricting them.With that, you take away an author's motivation to do ANYTHING
-
}TCP{Ghost
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:40 pm
- Location: Holland
- Contact:
-
}TCP{Ghost
- Posts: 1232
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:40 pm
- Location: Holland
- Contact:
..-
}TCP{Wolf
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4663
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:30 pm
- Location: https://signal.me/#eu/4zInut2kHeg_ry0GD ... pdqka17o2F
- Contact:
Again, read the EULA of Unreal Ed / UCC. Epic basically reserves ownership of all maps and mods created with it and excludes ALL other licenses than their own (unless they changed that with ut2k4 which I strongly doubt). With that, you CANNOT choose a license in this particular instance, so the whole licensing question with regards to maps or mods is moot. You can, however, add a few usage rules yourself (and if you call that EULA then that's your perogative).}TCP{the_kay wrote:I'm not an expert in which license to choose; I once asked in IRC (Freenode, #gnu) about what license one should choose for a ut2k4-map and they told me to take a CreativeCommons license... If you are interested I can give you contact stuff where you find people who can help you.
"Free" for you is always "grand scale". When I say "free use" I mean "free to use as is". In your definition, that would be selfish (or in the beer example "doesn't matter much" as you probably won't use your freedom to change the beer in anyway when you get it), whereas I say it is not. Because I still create something and give it to others "free to use and free of charge", but not "free to modify". If you think this is selfish, then so be it. The possibility that you ever have or want to create something you don't want anyone else to change (for whatever reason) is currently beyond your imagination.}TCP{the_kay wrote: Yes, I am talking about selfishness. Because what is the motivation that leads someone to say "haha, I use my power to deny you your freedoms"?
Not everyone is that selfish. People who release their work under free licenses are not very selfish.
You said "free use" in the context of "use without paying". This is a bit confusing, because unfortunately the English term "free" has two meanings: 1. Free as in freedom. 2. Free as in free beer (it does not cost anything).
The first freedom is important, while the second doesn't really matter much.
So, if someone gives his work for "free use" (as in freedom), I don't think this is selfish.
My opinion does not reflect on "wiki"-like projects which duly rely on everyone (or almost everyone) to add, change and deliver input. But the scope of such projects is different. I also love the GPL and it's a good thing, but you can't apply it everywhere and it doesn't make sense everywhere, and that is what you don't see.
The one doesn't necessarily exclude the other. Just look at traffic lights, you have the freedom to ignore them, but at your and others' peril.}TCP{the_kay wrote:...that tries to help people instead of restricting them.
It doesn't really matter, we both have our own views and that's that. I am not changing yours and you're not changing mine
That's actually funny bcause you should have noticed that I largely agree with you except on giving everyone freedom todo anything with everyone else's work...-=]I AM GETTING TOO OLD FOR SUBTLETY[=-
mail: chaos.worx[at]gmx.net
IRC Quakenet +OTR: }TCP{Wolf @#oldunreal @#tcp.clan
Jabber/XMPP +OTR: Wolfy359@jabber.org
Threema: CR6Y9YSS
Signal: see profile
ICQ: dead since russian takeover disables OTR
mail: chaos.worx[at]gmx.net
IRC Quakenet +OTR: }TCP{Wolf @#oldunreal @#tcp.clan
Jabber/XMPP +OTR: Wolfy359@jabber.org
Threema: CR6Y9YSS
Signal: see profile
ICQ: dead since russian takeover disables OTR
Hm, doesn't that mean that it doesn't matter if I say "you can change my map" or "you can't change my map", because epic has the copyright? :-/Again, read the EULA of Unreal Ed / UCC. Epic basically reserves ownership of all maps and mods created with it and excludes ALL other licenses than their own (unless they changed that with ut2k4 which I strongly doubt). With that, you CANNOT choose a license in this particular instance, so the whole licensing question with regards to maps or mods is moot. You can, however, add a few usage rules yourself (and if you call that EULA then that's your perogative).
No, I think some things shouldn't be changed by everyone, but I think maps should.The possibility that you ever have or want to create something you don't want anyone else to change (for whatever reason) is currently beyond your imagination.