Modding, copyright, and related issues.

When you have the source code, sharing is a piece of cake!

that's a strong exaggeration)

Added 1 minute later

but mostly it's still hex editors in action

respect to them; if they add a proper 9th Castle to the game, I'd gladly switch to their "banners"—making a Naga city

Added 2 minutes later
but the point of the message wasn't really about 5.5, but something else, and I would really like to hear your feedback on this.

FrozensoullMany people, myself included, are ready to support and defend this position, it's just not entirely clear how to do it. Simply screaming at people who use others' materials is a counterproductive solution. It's also unlikely we can influence this on a mass scale, but communicating specifically with project authors is a completely different matter.

Obviously, "theft" must be fought, but the question is how? Should all authors unite and build something common? Does that mean we're coming back to a "monopoly" again?

I have some thoughts and concrete plans of action regarding this; some others still need to be formulated and discussed together.


In order

First, regarding groups.
If you have a good mod that you want to publish? Besides publishing it here on the forum, or somewhere on your own, it might be worth contacting the admin of this group. You can reach out directly or through me, if you aren't on VK or simply find it inconvenient.

This is just a simple, useful contact I made for all of us by reaching out to the person and trying to explain my point of view. Things could have gone differently and the person could have been not so great, but we got lucky and they turned out to be quite reasonable and responsive. It makes sense to publish in their group; it will help them (new content) and us (additional attention, which is actually greater than the primary one).

The idea is that nothing stops you from making and sharing similar contacts with the Community.
It would be very good if we had more than one such contact. In the future, we could start a thread on the forum listing such places whose admins are worth contacting.



Second, regarding large mods.
Here, we need to change the approach together.
To start with, we need to speak individually with the authors of modpacks about ensuring that authors of borrowed resources are credited and links to them are provided. Fanaticism is, of course, harmful here, but if we can convince a few authors of large packs to cooperate under such a scheme, that would already be a big victory. It's a step in the right direction, but it obviously won't be enough.
There are several problems at once: ingrained unhealthy borrowing rules, half-dead resources, and the lack of awareness of the typical mod user (though I've met many players who understand how mods are structured and can adjust them for themselves). Making a large modpack ourselves is not an option; there wouldn't be enough time for proper resource production. Forbidding others from using our work, even if it were technically possible, would also be harmful to us.

I have a proposal on how we can change the situation for the better.
I'll be glad to hear your thoughts on this.
Basically, we need to make it so that our resources are so easy to use that anyone could "steal" them.
To achieve this, first, an equal (or at least not significantly smaller) number of people need to know about our resources as they do about large projects. Second, the resources must be prepared for use. And third, more people who can take these resources and use them must emerge.
I'm saying all this based on how things work in the Mount and Blade modding community, where there are many well-known people who engage exclusively in producing "free" packs. And where no one is surprised by yet another "everything and anything" mashup pack, and such a pack never becomes popular unless it has some unique feature of its own.

Concrete plans for this point.
Any small mod (for example, replacing a creature with a new model) should be made in two versions: for users (the creature is replaced by a new model) and for modders (the pack file contains only new resources for the creature and they don't replace anyone).
Naturally, for this scheme to work, resources must be created so that there are no conflicts between them (don't replace original game files, but create new ones). Ideally, you should also separately record the paths to the new model so that your resource is easier for a modder to use.
Preventatively, you should write in large letters on the page: "Feel free to use it, I don't mind. But do this: put a link to my resources inside your mod files, and anyone who wants to play your pack should download my original 'modder's version of the mod'; it will already work with your mod if you specified the paths correctly." Well, that's the ideal, of course. To start with, it would already be good if pack authors learned to at least provide links to the original content and author. And there aren't that many such authors, after all; you can reach an agreement with everyone.

It's also unlikely we can influence this on a mass scale

Only on a mass scale will it work. If we all together create healthier and more mutually beneficial rules of coexistence. Everything unnecessary and harmful will, naturally, die out.