Community Content Licensing [Archive] - Fantasy Grounds Forums

Moon Wizard

January 27th, 2020, 23:36

Three of Swords

January 27th, 2020, 23:56

As someone who does not create content, I don't feel I should have a say in this. I'm hoping that you give more weight to those that do create content than those that do not. While this community isn't that bad, entitlement is a serious issue of the day.

Kelrugem

January 28th, 2020, 00:04

With some recent user departures on the forums where community content was taken down by those users, we wanted to start a dialogue about the availability of community content on the forums, and the associated licensing.

Currently, any developer who builds a product and shares it with the community is free to determine under what license that content can be shared. This includes the ability to take it down whenever they want.

However, we feel that when you begin to sell items (either separately, or for items which depend on community content) or take donations, you generally have a greater obligation to your customer. For anything we sell in our storefront, we do not allow the developer to remove those items or to assign a license that would allow that. We consider that to be bad customer service as a content provider. Additionally, we feel that anything freely shared with the community becomes part of what makes the community better.

So, we are considering whether to re-evaluate content licensing allowed for FG materials posted on DMsGuild and/or posted on the forums. To be clear, we don't want to remove anyone's rights to ownership of their materials, but we do want to protect the community from currently available community content suddenly disappearing. The current ability for users to remove their community content at will does not benefit the community, and we would prefer that those users not share the content in the first place.

We haven't made any decisions on this matter; but feel that this is a good time to have the discussion and come up with a plan that makes the community better as a whole. We would most likely do this by placing a statement on the forums stating that any content freely shared on the community remains the owner's property, but that the owner is also granting a perpetual license for it to be shared on the forums.

Regards,
JPG

Thanks for your insight :)

I would indeed recommend that any freely published extension/module for FG should stay available even after it got removed. Of course it is very nice and good that someone shares his work with others :) But since I started to code extensions I also realized how strongly users can depend on such an extension; just to name an example:

I coded some extension for 3.5e/PF1 which allows certain effects to be applied only when certain conditions for some actions are met (like an automation for save boni versus poisons), and many other effects. Some users of my extensions were writing me private messages about how happy they are and that they now spend some (a lot of) time to recode all their effects, spells and actions. Some others even changed the death overlays I made to have their own images while they told me that they would not have known how to code it, they replaced the images. Some other person wrote me that he coded something additionally to my extension to make it even better.
So, I want to point out that people can spend a lot of time using the extensions and preparing their campaigns. When I would now suddenly take my extensions down without allowing the users of my extensions to reupload them such that someone else could take over, then all their work they did on top of my extension would probably be "worthless" when the next update for 3.5/PF1 comes, resulting into incompatibilities with my extensions. This may result that people get discouraged and stop using extensions, especially when these are big extensions.
That's also the reason why I didn't ask for money of my little work, too, because I can not assure to work always on it since I am just a normal community member; maybe my PhD gets too time-expensive and then I can suddenly not update my extensions. Then I would be happy when someone else can update it :)

Taking out some risk of using extension of the forum would surely be nice for some users :)

I hope one knows what I want to say (I have headaches at the moment, thus, I might write strange things :p), nothing is meant to be offensive to someone :)

Have fun :)

damned

January 28th, 2020, 00:07

Hi Moon Wizard

My thoughts -

I agree people should be able to post their work under a license of their choosing
I agree that if you sell something or you sell a product that depends on some FG component that you should support it at least for a period of time.

I wonder if you might also think about allowing FG content to be sold on OBS outside of the DMsGuild and have OBS manage the SW licensing side for you still?
Allowing newer content creators who do not qualify for either the FG Store or DMsGuild to publish their material for FG.

Neovirtus

January 28th, 2020, 00:11

I also am hesitant to weigh in on this issue, as I don't have much knowledge in the area. Instead I will ask a question. Is it typical for software companies to allow users to distribute "mods" (and I mean that it the more traditional, software sense, rather than modules as they exist in FG) and retain ownership? I feel like SW would be well within their rights to require that all extensions be distributed under an open license, and continue to allow people to sell content (tokens, map packs, adventures, etc) as those are software agnostic, and not a variant of their proprietary software.

All that said, I'm not a programmer, and recognize that a programmer's code is traditionally their own IP. But I do feel that SW would be justified in requiring modifications of their software not be restricted IP, but be listed under some kind of open license, especially if it's going to be distributed through their site/forums.

LordEntrails

January 28th, 2020, 00:21

However, we feel that when you begin to sell items (either separately, or for items which depend on community content) or take donations, you generally have a greater obligation to your customer.
Agreed. Donations is less clear to me, but in general I believe people are are assuming a greater obligation to the community with each 'level' of financial recompense.

The current ability for users to remove their community content at will does not benefit the community,
I don't think I agree with this statement. I think their are potential devs who would not share anything via this forum is any such changes were to be made. I doubt what has now become the 5E Enhancer extension would exist if Ken L had not shown what was possible. And the New MK sounds extension which might soon surpass the revoked DOE Sounds extension certainly seemed to have been inspired by that revoked work.

and we would prefer that those users not share the content in the first place.
Understandable, but you can't/won't stop users from sharing content in a way in which they can revoke sucht. I fear that if you impose any such restrictions, you will simple move distribution of community extensions to other distribution channels. One's that you will not have near enough awareness of, nor ones that will be so easy for your community to access. You will fracture your community. You will drive value from the forums. How much I do not know.

We haven't made any decisions on this matter; but feel that this is a good time to have the discussion and come up with a plan that makes the community better as a whole. We would most likely do this by placing a statement on the forums stating that any content freely shared on the community remains the owner's property, but that the owner is also granting a perpetual license for it to be shared on the forums.

Its always important to discuss such, and I appreciate your openess. But I fear that this will not help any healing, it will only surface emotions that have otherwise relegated to trivia.

Also how would you propose to handle everything that has been posted to date? You can not retroactively claim perpetual license for everything that has already been posted. So you would have to put an effectivity date on your claim. Which would again only lead to division.

Final point, imo, now is not the time for quick decisions.

celestian

January 28th, 2020, 00:43

The current ability for users to remove their community content at will does not benefit the community, and we would prefer that those users not share the content in the first place.

Relating to content posted here on the forums I agree with this 100%.

I wasn't affected when Ken punched out but this latest example has got me developing a replacement. I'd rather be working on other things but I want something that'll work with FGU.

GeorgeOrr

January 28th, 2020, 01:19

As a grateful consumer and not creator of content I understand the interest in some stability when you rely on what's been posted. BUT it sounds like the community would essentially be claiming some right to other peoples works with this approach.

I don't have a right to other peoples works. Even after they've been kind enough to offer ... especially when they are crystal clear about the terms of their offer. I can read the terms under which they post, I can make a decision myself as to relying on content.

As a practical matter I think it may lead to at least some hesitation to post things by the very people who put the most time and effort into doing so.

damned

January 28th, 2020, 02:19

Releasing your extension/mod/ruleset etc really should come with a license statement of some sort.
Maybe SmiteWorks might suggest some but Devs should still be able to choose their own.

One of the reasons some of these licenses exist is because creators do sometimes change their mind and if they have released something with an explicit license then everyone knows.

Maybe the license is "this product and code belong to me and I reserve the right to pull this product at any time" or "this product is free to use, reuse, adapt in other free products with attribution and under the same license and this license cannot be revoked" or "this product is free to use for all purposes and this license cannot be revoked" etc

Ofc these are one liners and not meant to be actual licenses but more to show some samples of possible intent by the author.

Then anyone using the product knows where they stand - and the Author also knows what they have committed to.

The Author may release a newer product with a different license but they cannot revoke their original license and product pairing.

LordEntrails

January 28th, 2020, 03:04

For those who want to know a bit more about existing open source licenses and types;

- A summary of the various types of open licenses with links to some of the more common/popular ones https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/5-types-of-software-licenses-you-need-to-understand/
- A discussion of some specific open source licenses https://fossbytes.com/open-sources-license-type/

esmdev

January 28th, 2020, 03:33

This is one of the main reasons I avoid community extensions that are restricted like that. I would not want to be in the boat of all the GMs out there now who have put hundreds or thousands of hours into campaigns that use the extensions for so many things that are screwed by his take my toys and go home decision. I totally understand him being upset with Smiteworks but he took it out on all his loyal fans and followers. Ken did the same thing awhile back just because he imagined a problem that might someday be a thing but wasn't then and hasn't ever happened since.

As much functionality the extensions add its just not worth the risk, which makes me a sad panda.

I would like to say that people who do community development work hard and really advance FG, they deserve total credit for their efforts, but when you release something into the community and promote it as the big awesome for campaigns across many rulesets there should be some recourse that doesn't involve trying to untangle all of the data stored in the extensions so that it can still be used after one upgrade or another causes a conflict.

deer_buster

January 28th, 2020, 04:06

As an extension developer, part-time developer of SFRPG rule set, and real-life software engineer, the following is my own personal, non-binding, opinion (your's may vary).

I make extensions for the betterment of the community. I also help rule set developers make the rule sets better for the community. I haven't done it for money, as it isn't my paying job to do so. I've done it for love of the community and to make my own games more enjoyable.

IMHO Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) should be the license that all extensions/mods (or any other code that executes within FGC/FGU) are required to adhere to, except if financial claim is made

if you lay financial claim to the code that executes within FGC/FGU, you are expected to support that code, and developers must receive permission to alter or otherwise use your code.

If you abandon the code (and/or community), the code should automatically become free to use/modify (i.e. unlicensed) at will by the community, regardless of whether or not you have had financial claim to it. This is to protect the community more than anything else.

If you develop a tool that interfaces with, but does not execute within FGC/FGU then that code remains 100% the responsibility of the developer whether or not they remain a part of the community or continue to support it, unless that developer authorizes another to take it on.

dulux-oz

January 28th, 2020, 09:52

... his take my toys and go home decision. I totally understand him being upset with Smiteworks but he took it out on all his loyal fans and followers. ...

I did not "take it out on all my [his] loyal fans and followers" - at least, that wasn't my intention. My intention was to PROTECT everybody by removing a set of extension that would not be receiving ongoing support from me. I never said anyone had to STOP using the DOEs, or anything else I'd contributed, but I took down my stuff (ALL my stuff, across a number of sites) because I didn't want anyone to expect that it was still supported.

It wasn't a "take my toys and go home decision", it was a "how can I minimise disruption to everyone (including myself) while still maintaing my values and integrity decision" while I try to work things out. The DOEs will continue to work with FGC into the forseeable future - unless SW does something radical, which I can't see them doing, considering FGU has just taken all that. No-one's "screwed" and everyone can still play their campaigns and still use the stuff they've spend 100's of hours on. The DOEs haven't had many major bug fixes in a while bcause they are pretty stable, and its only been new Rulesets compatabilities and updated graphics that have gone in to them lately. Yes, I was working on some new features, but there is nothing - absolutley NOTHING - stoping anyone who has copies of the DOEs from using them now and into the future.

I am sorry that some of you feel that I've "screwed" you, because that wasn't my intent. Would you have prefered I'd have simply walked away without any notice, just disappeared, and therefore left everything up with the expectations of support (retorical question)?

There was no good (short-term) solution, but this was the best one I could come up with. Hopefully there'll be a better long-term solution - and that's something I'm working towards - but people DON'T know the full story, even with Moon's and my expanations over in the other post - and to ascribe to people motivations such as "tantrum", "take my toys and go home", and similar motivations is just plain straight out wrong!

And as far as "forcing" people to license their creations under OpenSource, then I for one would never and will never have placed anything on these forums under those conditions - unless FG was under OpenSource Liccensing as well, and then I'd consider it. I'm a big fan of OpenSource Licensing, and actively participate in a couple of projects, but only where the "main application" is OpenSource as well. Forcing devs to be licensed in that way will only drive the creations onto other sites / distribution methods, or cause the devs not to dev at all.

PS Thank you, everyone, for all the nice things people said over in the other post. I've just read them all, after having been informed by a friend that they were there. I haven't been on-site since I wrote the inital GoodBye post, and only came on now because my friend said I should.

Silversteel

January 28th, 2020, 12:30

Keep coming Dulux - we all love you. Things happen sometimes - no-one's perfect and communication is so prone to breaking down even when there is no ill intent and even when emotions aren't running hot. Take a deep breath and realise everyone wants you back.

esmdev

January 28th, 2020, 13:29

I did not "take it out on all my [his] loyal fans and followers" - at least, that wasn't my intention. My intention was to PROTECT everybody by removing a set of extension that would not be receiving ongoing support from me. I never said anyone had to STOP using the DOEs, or anything else I'd contributed, but I took down my stuff (ALL my stuff, across a number of sites) because I didn't want anyone to expect that it was still supported.

While maybe it wasn't your intention, it may not even be the most diplomatic way I could have put it, from my viewpoint and (my opinion only) it is basically what you did. Sudden removal of ongoing support and not allowing people to fix any potential problems or incompatibilities that come up doesn't really help anyone. That the extensions are no longer available isn't really my point.

It wasn't a "take my toys and go home decision", it was a "how can I minimise disruption to everyone (including myself) while still maintaing my values and integrity decision" while I try to work things out. The DOEs will continue to work with FGC into the forseeable future - unless SW does something radical, which I can't see them doing, considering FGU has just taken all that. No-one's "screwed" and everyone can still play their campaigns and still use the stuff they've spend 100's of hours on. The DOEs haven't had many major bug fixes in a while bcause they are pretty stable, and its only been new Rulesets compatabilities and updated graphics that have gone in to them lately. Yes, I was working on some new features, but there is nothing - absolutley NOTHING - stoping anyone who has copies of the DOEs from using them now and into the future.

It is the nature of software development that it must be maintained in a dynamic environment or eventually it will no longer function correctly. I have been in software development since mainframes and COBOL were still cool, so I've seen it repeat over and over.

I am sorry that some of you feel that I've "screwed" you, because that wasn't my intent. Would you have prefered I'd have simply walked away without any notice, just disappeared, and therefore left everything up with the expectations of support (retorical question)?

I don't feel screwed by you at all, I don't use your extensions for the very reason I said. On the other hand, how many people that used the extensions you wrote and promoted will inevitably lose access to the data. Your application might be super robust and solid now, but how will it be years from now. What about the people migrating to Unity, how will it effect them as Unity expands and grows, these are things you can assume will be fine but you cannot know for sure.

There was no good (short-term) solution, but this was the best one I could come up with. Hopefully there'll be a better long-term solution - and that's something I'm working towards - but people DON'T know the full story, even with Moon's and my expanations over in the other post - and to ascribe to people motivations such as "tantrum", "take my toys and go home", and similar motivations is just plain straight out wrong!

As much as I was hopeful for what he might produce, you basically got in a forum fight with an epic **** that had gotten in fight after fight after fight AND specifically with people who were trying to help him.

As a moderator (again my opinion) you really should have taken the high road and said, your belief is your belief but it's not reality and left it at that. You had already given him permission to use the code, so everything else he said was just him basically being confrontational. He/She was an odd, confrontational person. A quick scan of his post history and blog might have given you a better handle on what sort of person you were getting into it with.

I'm not defending his behavior, I often commented to my roommate that he wasn't really helping himself by alienating everyone trying to help him. While moderators are human beings we hope that they will step back and take a break before getting into it with someone.

And as far as "forcing" people to license their creations under OpenSource, then I for one would never and will never have placed anything on these forums under those conditions - unless FG was under OpenSource Liccensing as well, and then I'd consider it. I'm a big fan of OpenSource Licensing, and actively participate in a couple of projects, but only where the "main application" is OpenSource as well. Forcing devs to be licensed in that way will only drive the creations onto other sites / distribution methods, or cause the devs not to dev at all.

One is a platform that is for sale and clearly licensed. One is a bundle of scripts designed to work within that platform that works off features that are part of the platform and was distributed freely. One is not the same as the other.

First, I don't think that a developer should be forced to support their product forever, especially not a freely distributed product. People lose interest, people's lives get in the way of development, etc. I do think that developers should consider how many people use their software and how it will impact them if they don't provide some avenue.

A simple statement in the top and end of the DOE forums that the product is no longer supported and that users might consider testing their campaigns before major releases for compatibility issues would go a long way.

I don't think that they should force developers to open source, but I do think that they should force developers to state specifically if an extension or ruleset can be repaired, improved or upgraded in the event that the developer leaves for whatever reason or, hopefully not, dies.

Just so you know, this isn't specifically aimed at you. I have said this over and over again about Rulesets that are sold in the store. They really need to put something about the level of support for those rulesets into the sales. Since support is only really required for 1 year, and some of the stuff in the store is no longer supported, it is really hard to figure out what is worth buying and what isn't. They also need to indicate if a ruleset is still in development (like being upgraded) or if it is in what they consider a final state.

I think that this thread is a good point for me to bring up that Smiteworks needs to look inward as well as the Community developers about how they present what is for sale.

PS Thank you, everyone, for all the nice things people said over in the other post. I've just read them all, after having been informed by a friend that they were there. I haven't been on-site since I wrote the inital GoodBye post, and only came on now because my friend said I should.

I was one of those people, btw. I really do feel for you, but I also feel for the people who use your extensions.

I have looked at the DOE extensions in the past and the level of information that they contain is really incredible. That is, or eventually will be, the problem. Campaigns that rely on these extensions could lose them without warning with any future update. While it is true that it might not ever happen it is just as possible that it might.

dburger70

January 28th, 2020, 13:45

Removing extensions that are heavily used is definitely taking it out on the community. That may not be the intention but in the end that is the results. I know other developers quit and left their code for others to pick up. Maybe that is one rule that can be put in and if nobody else picks it up then so be it.

What really needs to happen is the popular or heavily used extension need to be put into the game by SW. They are heavily used for a reason, which is they are needed. I know some of those take time but some of these extensions have been around for a long time. Layers is a good example that they are finally adding to Unity. The more of these features put into the base game then the better it will be without relying on several outside (outside of SW) to create features in the game we all need.

Neovirtus

January 28th, 2020, 15:41

The current ability for users to remove their community content at will does not benefit the community, and we would prefer that those users not share the content in the first place.

I don't think I agree with this statement. I think their are potential devs who would not share anything via this forum is any such changes were to be made. I doubt what has now become the 5E Enhancer extension would exist if Ken L had not shown what was possible. And the New MK sounds extension which might soon surpass the revoked DOE Sounds extension certainly seemed to have been inspired by that revoked work...

Understandable, but you can't/won't stop users from sharing content in a way in which they can revoke sucht. I fear that if you impose any such restrictions, you will simple move distribution of community extensions to other distribution channels. One's that you will not have near enough awareness of, nor ones that will be so easy for your community to access. You will fracture your community. You will drive value from the forums. How much I do not know.

I think you're invalidating your own point a bit here. Yes, some devs may choose not to participate if they are unable to maintain full rights over their work, but what has happened in the past when someone has "packed up their toys and left"? Other people have come in and made something bigger and better. Not for profit, but for the good of the community. Not to expand their IP, but to make something that makes the software better.

I think right now we're in the Wild West, and SW needs to take this opportunity to control the way derivative code for their software gets distributed. Maybe Unity is a good chance to draw a line in the sand. I know technically many of the extensions made for FGC should work in FGU, but isn't it possible to require extensions to fork a new version for use with Unity? Build into the software some check that the extension has been given a "For Unity" tag? Such a tag could come with a requirement for some version of Open License. (please forgive my lack of technical expertise in this area, hopefully my idea is communicated clearly despite this not being my strong suit).

The community is already fractured. We have people distributing everything under the sun, free and otherwise, on the Fantasy Grounds Forums, DMs Guild, DriveThru RPG, Kickstarter, and I'm sure myriad other sites. Though there will be costs, I think there needs to be a unifying set of rules for what people are able to own the rights to with regards to content in FG. I have my own ideas about that, which I'm sure would be controversial, but I think it's an idea worth discussing. I don't believe avoiding the topic to soothe emotions is a good idea, as the conversation is overdue, and the recent drama is a direct result of not having done so earlier.

We do agree though, that a hasty decision is not likely to be the right one. I'm just glad SW is including the community in the discussion.

deer_buster

January 28th, 2020, 23:31

Please note, the word "you", as used below, applies to anyone and everyone, and not to any one specific person. I have nothing but respect for the work that has been done (by all the community developers), but I don't agree with the decisions to limit the use of what has been done, by anyone.

Honestly, open source for extensions and mods is kind of the best resume you could have. People see the work you do and you could well be commissioned to do additional work for actual pay if that is what you so desire. If I had a job for a LUA developer, I would look at the people that create content for the community out of love of the community rather than people that try to limit creativity of others by placing unnecessary rules and limitations on code that they have written using a freely available scripting language and xml made for a bunch of nerds that love to swing virtual swords and shoot virtual guns.

BearWok

January 30th, 2020, 18:04

I'm typically not too active on forums so I'm not sure how much weight my input has. I've been using Fantasy Grounds for about a year now and love the platform. I've invested a lot of time and money into Fantasy Grounds with the intent on using it well into the future. One of the core reasons I chose FG over competing VTTs was its wealth of user created content which I found very appealing. Having said that I am saddened by the community's loss of dulux-oz and his extensions, some of which I use.

On one hand:
I greatly enjoy the creations in the community that a license free environment has provided.

On the other hand:
Having a larger set of features, protected by a license, that I don't need to worry about losing sounds nice.

I'm wondering if there could be a middle ground in which we could have some of both. Could SW pursue a more aggressive approach to adding features based on community demand? Perhaps features could be voted on in a prompt when FG is launched, and limit it to 1 vote per license? As someone who spends lots of time in Fantasy Grounds, but not much in the forums, it would be nice to have a more "in your face" prompt to give feedback and suggestions.
I know SW has a lot on their plate with Unity just around the corner. I also know this solution would add to development time and cost, but it might be a good long term solution that would also provide a more feature rich product.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

dulux-oz,
I wish you all the best in whatever you do. You have immense talent, and I hope some day you'll bring those talents back to the FG community.
Thank you for all your work!

bojjenclon

January 30th, 2020, 18:28

Fantasy Grounds is a niche product within a niche hobby. It's intrinsically only going to attract a very small subset of the population, and of that small subset will be an even smaller subset who can code up extensions/rulesets/etc. This means that content not produced directly by SmiteWorks is inherently going to be somewhat... rare.

For the community to grow and flourish, I personally think one of two things needs to happen. Either:

1. SmiteWorks opens the door for community content creators to more easily license and sell their own extensions for the product. For this to work, I think there needs to be a full system in place for the hosting of extensions and automatic updating. Part of what makes Roll20 appealing to creators is the ability to put things up for sale on their market. I know SW does this to an extent (particularly I've seen it with token creators), but it seems to me the system for that is a little lacking in some aspects (not knocking SW here, I know its a small company with limited resources). If, as a community, we really, genuinely want creators to be enabled in marketing and selling their products, than the storefront has to be enhanced in my opinion. This means a way for people to submit their content more easily, a review system, an updater for said content, etc.

Or, 2. We accept that a niche community such as this one thrives on openness and make community content accessible to all. With this approach, I think it should be allowed for content creators to link to something like a PayPal or a Patreon, but these things shouldn't be required to access their content. I personally -as a software engineer myself - am a huge proponent for the open-source movement, so I very much lean toward having a community that is ready and willing to share their wealth of content and knowledge for all. I very much shy away from the idea of something like a function within a block of code being copyrighted, as I feel this just weakens the community and makes it harder for future people to contribute. So from my perspective, if we don't want to just go straight to the monetization route (as noted above), I think we should instead lean into promoting a wealth of community enabled content.

All that being said, I do believe more could be done to make it easier for content creators to share and update their work. Obviously, the current focus is on Unity's release. But once that's out the door and stable, I'd very much like to see a content management system that doesn't rely on users checking if a forum thread has been updated. Even if this simply means SW opens up APIs for someone else to build a content management system on top of (I know there was an effort to do so once before, but I'd like to see something that doesn't rely on too many hacks or workarounds in the product).

damned

January 30th, 2020, 22:36

deer_buster

January 30th, 2020, 23:31

I would like to see the ability for other content devs to be able to sell the products.

Until/unless there is some kind of licensing scheme that protects the content from being shared without paying, then it might as well just be donation-ware so that those that find it useful donate a small amount to the developer to entice them to add features and continue to support it. But I still revert back to my previous statement that if said developer abandons the community/code, it should become public domain.

IF a licensing scheme were to be put into place to protect content in this manner, that still leaves the community vulnerable to support drying up / being abandoned...granted the same thing could happen to FG, but FGC is usable as-is with/without any additional support.

Ckorik

January 31st, 2020, 00:08

Well - I do code but haven't for this system (yet) - I want to just point out a couple of things here:

Open source doesn't really solve anything - someone else who blew up here had all their stuff explicitly open source and they essentially tried to take all their toys with them when they left - I know the projects are still around but that's just because some people had backups :)

As to Delux-Oz - his stuff has had explicit license info on it all and he was pretty upfront about it in all postings he made - I don't think anything would change here.

I wonder - would developers like Delux that hold their code close - would they accept some kind of terms that would allow abandoned projects to be maintained for future compatibility as long as those changes do not constitute a revocation of copyright, or license at the time of publication?

I'm not even sure how that would need to be worded to pass muster. I would think it could be a happy middle ground.

damned

January 31st, 2020, 01:48

Until/unless there is some kind of licensing scheme that protects the content from being shared without paying, then it might as well just be donation-ware so that those that find it useful donate a small amount to the developer to entice them to add features and continue to support it. But I still revert back to my previous statement that if said developer abandons the community/code, it should become public domain.

IF a licensing scheme were to be put into place to protect content in this manner, that still leaves the community vulnerable to support drying up / being abandoned...granted the same thing could happen to FG, but FGC is usable as-is with/without any additional support.

That still happens for commercial add ons for commercial software. The fgu networking engine appears to be one of those hence testing of another is now happening.

damned

January 31st, 2020, 01:51

Griogre

January 31st, 2020, 21:28

So, I have strong feelings on this subject. I don't think SW should be imposing *any* license restrictions on anyone not working for them. I'm an old Fantasy Grounds developer working before the current ownership of Smiteworks. I worked for a third party. Even though this niche has grown - its still a niche of a niche, and developers for pretty much anything other than WotC and a few others are at best making "Beer Money" - enough money to buy a case of beer, or two, and reflect on that awesome code you wrote - and that's it.

I have a couple of skin extensions out there - and I explicitly gave copyright to Smiteworks for those because I used all their art assets or slightly modified some LUA. That is a massive difference from what Dulux-Oz did. He did original work and added brand new capability to FG through his extensions and efforts. He clearly is an experienced developer who has been around the block a few times, and also clearly stated, upfront, the extensions were his property.

There is nothing worse for a developer, after spending time and effort, than to have his work ripped off and stolen. This is what an *after* the fact license would do.

I also think it would be chilling for new content to be put under some restrictive community license. I think this thread was started because of the fear that a bunch of community members would be left in the lurch if Dulux-Oz's stuff went unsupported. I would like to point out this was a false fear, since at least one substitute quickly appeared.

But let's say it was a well founded fear - mass numbers of the community were totally screwed because some community extension was no longer supported. You know what? Moon Wizard and the rest of the Smiteworks team would have learned that extension was a key feature of FG. I have total confidence they have the ability to quickly add the features of any community extension into the base FG app in a few days, ending any real crisis.

So, no I don't think anything needs to change with Community Content Licensing.

celestian

January 31st, 2020, 21:33

There is nothing worse for a developer, after spending time and effort, than to have his work ripped off and stolen. This is what an *after* the fact license would do.

Pretty sure they are not trying to change the license after the fact.

Griogre

January 31st, 2020, 21:45

Pretty sure they are not trying to change the license after the fact.

I don't know if it's true or not but it felt like to me there were some thoughts about "pressuring" Dulux-Oz to do this or that or you DM's Guild stuff is no long FG approved - which seems uncomfortably close to forcing a change to me.

deer_buster

January 31st, 2020, 22:32

While I'm active don't fork it without permission. If I'm no longer active it becomes available for someone else to take over if they want to.

This is effectively (or maybe ineffectively) what I have been saying all along.

There is nothing worse for a developer, after spending time and effort, than to have his work ripped off and stolen.

Can you steal code that is free and unsecured? "Ripped off", yeah, okay, I can see how some would feel like that. Personally I find it to be high praise if anything I "created" is considered good enough to be at least partially used by others. However, if I had secured paid-for code that I wrote that had been subsequently reverse-engineered and stolen in that manner, then yeah, I would be pissed and lawsuits would ensue.

I think that there is nothing worse, as a developer, than to feel like my hard work and time is unappreciated. If I am getting paid for it, that is my "appreciation". If I am not, then knowing that it was useful to more than just myself is appreciation enough. I do not want to worry about the standards that are expected of paid-for code to be likewise applied tot code that I have not been paid for, nor the responsibility.

Moon Wizard

January 31st, 2020, 22:41

Nope. There was no pressure made on Dulux-Oz to return his content, or any intention of enacting an "after the fact" scenario.

When we allow people to sell DLC through the store, we require in the initial agreements that the publisher/developer allow us to continue selling even if they discontinue sales of the product or discontinue the relationship (i.e. future sales); as well as give us the right to maintain the product in those situations. As you know in the industry, licensing policies can change direction within a company, or license agreements can even change companies. We do this to protect people that have already purchased content through our store from being subject to the changing business environment, because we felt that it was the right thing to do.

This discussion was started to have a dialogue with the overall community about whether we should enforce some sort of license or license modification for any content we allow posted publicly in the forums. The goal is protect the average user that is heavily impacted by people yanking their content. If we were to enact this, the developers could make their decision prior to posting any content, and we would come up with a plan for any existing content that protects the developer's rights by giving them choices.

There's no wrong or right answer to this question; but it's more of an open-ended discussion due to the community growing larger and some prolific community developers suddenly yanking significant content and heavily impacting users. As has been mentioned during this discussion, there is some fear that people will just not create community content at all with something like this enacted; but on the other side of the coin, if content can be yanked at will, why would the average user or us as a company want users to grow to depend on content if it could go away overnight? This is why we opened the discussion to the community to weigh in on the subject, before we even seriously considered taking any actions.

Regards,
JPG

TheoGeek

February 1st, 2020, 00:51

Just my $0.02...maybe $0.10...

- I get wanting to protect uniquely designed code. Developers should not need to be concerned with someone taking their code and using it as their own.
- I get wanting to protect the user community from super useful extensions being removed from "the store" as it were.

I'm speaking for myself, but if I code something to be used in FantasyGrounds as an extension, that's literally the only place it can be used. It's not like it'll show up on Stackoverflow or something for others to use in their own FG replacement or something. My "Improved Critical" extension was something I made for my group because I wanted to give them options. I want to give the user community the same options, so I put it on the forums.

Could I sell it?

Nope. I bought the rights to the icon I'm using for that extension with the express requirement that I cannot sell it without removing that icon. I like the icon. It's staying with the extension.

Likewise, I'd like to think that since I'll never sell it, and since I put it up in the forums for people to use, that they should be able to use it long after I'm gone.

Transferring upkeep is the trickiest part of all this in my mind.

I totally get the concern that leaving old extensions up without updating them to work with the current rulesets can be problematic. And in that case, as far as my extension goes, I'd be fine with someone else taking the torch and running with it, in fact, this has already been done once before by someone who was not me - combining my extension with a vitality extension. He credited my work which is all I really asked for.

Given my license with glassstaff, I'd probably need to remove the icon in the case that someone else takes it over since his license is with me specifically, but the only other requirement I'd have is to have it say something like "Theogeek's Improved Critical...maintained by (username)" and it be known that it will always and forever be free as long as my codebase is used.

And, because I am completely unfamiliar with licensing agreements, I have no idea how to say all that the right way. ;)

I'm curious to see how this develops.

Thanks for considering this, protecting IP is pretty critical, but so is protecting the user community.

Kelrugem

February 1st, 2020, 01:07

After reading through here I guess it would be at least good when every developer makes then a bit clearer how and whether the code can be used :)

And I want to point out that when someone says that the code should be "open" for the community even after the developer stopped working on the extension/module, then that doesn't necessarily mean that the code is allowed to be "stolen" or ripped off. When I used the code of someone else then I asked that person first and was then putting that person's name into the extension like I would cite someone's work. But as far as I understood this is already required here on the forums (at least asking the other developer) and that should still be done such that it is transparent who contributed :) So, a civilized re-use/citation should be the foundation of course

DM_BK

February 1st, 2020, 02:22

What a sticky and silly situation. I believe SW should amend the licensing/TOS related to any user created content, shared on this forum, to be completely free use and retaining no rights what so ever. It's a user community, not a software store.

I'm appalled that one person decided to punish the entire community in a fit of...every word I come up with ain't too nice, so I just leave it at that. That was entirely unhonorable behavior and should be stopped from happening again in the future.

LordEntrails

February 1st, 2020, 02:38

Something everyone should be aware of, and I mentioned it in passing before, every item (code, images, fiction, etc) that is posted on these forums (or any other forum of an American company posted on a US hosted server) already has strict IP rules and licenses associated with it. (And most countries have similar laws.)

I know a lot of people are not aware of that and think any image (or any other creative work) posted on the internet for free can be freely distributed by anyone, and that is not true (even if it might be common practice). But, anything posted on these forums, unless otherwise explicitly specified) have all rights including distribution reserved to the author/creator/poster.

Now, I think it's smart for anyone to explicitly state what they want done with their "stuff" when they post stuff on the internet. I do, and for example on my maps page I state "License: You are free to use these for any non-commercial purposes."

There are lots of example each person can use (and I linked them before), but even stating something like "Hey this is mine, don't use it with out permission. But if I can not be reached on these forums or through the following email for 30 days then someone else can take over maintenance and distribution as long as distribution remains free."

What I'm just trying to say, everyone already has specific rights (generally the most restrictive ones), but go ahead and make your wishes clear, and don't worry about the legalese.

damned

February 1st, 2020, 04:47

DM_BK

February 1st, 2020, 13:58

Some extensions take an hour to write
Some take weeks of effort
The person putting that effort in deserves some say in what happens to their code

It's a labor of love. Most of us would freely share regardless. Most people would give credit where credit is due. Because we have a passion for this.
Or don't share, if you have a copyright hangup - it doesn't matter.

What matters is continuing to allow for a bad actor to disrupt the community and possibly reflect badly on the product. That must be stopped.

damned

February 1st, 2020, 14:33

It's a labor of love. Most of us would freely share regardless. Most people would give credit where credit is due. Because we have a passion for this.
Or don't share, if you have a copyright hangup - it doesn't matter.

What matters is continuing to allow for a bad actor to disrupt the community and possibly reflect badly on the product. That must be stopped.

The specific motivations of each author are very likely different to be different to the specific motivations of any other author.
There are a bunch of extensions that are only available for purchase on the DMsGuild for example.

bojjenclon

February 1st, 2020, 14:38

I personally would rather see less extensions overall if it means those that are created are done with a fair and open mindset. As I alluded to in my earlier reply, I think prohibitive licensing on community content simply stifles newcomers.

Let's look at it this way:
Say you know you want to create extension Y. There is already an extension X on the forum that has a similar functionality, so you think "Oh I'll crack open the code for that and use it as an example for my work!" But while downloading extension X, you read the post on the forum and realize its author has an extremely prohibitive license that restricts you from reusing any aspect of the extension. Well now, chances are high that you'll just avoid looking at the code overall, for fear you may inadvertently copy something and "get in trouble."
In cases where we're talking about more general programming this may not be a problem - there should always be another point of reference you could learn from (e.g. Stack Overflow). But lets face it, FG doesn't have the greatest documentation for developers. It can be very difficult to get up and running. So having the ability to lean on the work of those who came before you in the extension/ruleset space is a tremendous boon to getting onboard. Allowing that to be taken away, especially in regards to prolific extensions which likely push the boundaries of the software (and thus can be amazing learning opportunities), just limits the community as a whole.

notrealdan

February 1st, 2020, 15:38

Perhaps there could be two options for extension distribution...

1. An official extensions "store" managed by SmiteWorks that provides a mechanism for automatic installation and updating of extensions. If authors want their extension distributed this way, SW could require some terms and conditions that could allow for them to provide and maintain the extension in the future, if needed.

AND

2. There would still be a way to manually install extensions. Anyone could write an extension for themselves and share it (if they wish) with others with whatever license they deem appropriate. Just like how it works today.

I feel like this would give the community some protection from an extension suddenly disappearing or not working (and not getting fixed). Plus all the benefits of an official "store" (it would be easy to find the best extensions, easy to install them, automatic updates, and some level of official support), all while still offering authors flexibility and control in how they distribute their creations (in the store on SW's terms or on their own with their own terms).

Maintaining an extension store and all of the extensions there would be added development and customer support burdens on SW, but they could also limit how many extensions they accept (only the ones they consider to be "best of breed" perhaps or that meet some criteria they would set).

Moon Wizard

February 1st, 2020, 17:24

notrealdan

February 1st, 2020, 18:27

@notrealdan,

This is something that we have talked about quite a bit internally. I think it's something we want to do anyway; but it's a project of its own. (UI for developer management/maintenance, file uploading, file storage, linking file storage into patch system, UI for user management and/or purchase, store integration, etc.) Our initial thought is to only offer for free community content originally, but to grow from there. But, as I mentioned, it's currently in the "Want To Do, But Not Enough Time" category.

Regards,
JPG

Thanks for the response, MW! I seem to recall something like this being discussed before this thread.

In case I wasn't clear before, as the coffee hadn't quite kicked in yet when I wrote that, my point is that SW could enforce a license of their choosing for anything in such a store, giving them more freedom/control over those extensions if and when needed, while still allowing others to distribute on their own if they prefer a difference license. The store, and thus SW's license terms, would be optional from the extension developer's perspective. There are clearly some strong opinions about the license terms, and that could leave the door open for contributions from some.

SW could perhaps also in their license include a path for the most popular/useful extensions to someday be absorbed into FG itself in some way. What that might look like, I have no idea, and I'm sure there would be some strong opinions about that. I'm sure SW would be fair and considerate with any such arrangement.

Then again, maybe this all further complicates and already complicated topic...? I'm neither a developer nor a lawyer.

I completely understand the "Want To Do, But Not Enough Time" sentiment, especially with FGU still under very heavy development!

LordEntrails

February 1st, 2020, 21:37

What matters is continuing to allow for a bad actor to disrupt the community and possibly reflect badly on the product. That must be stopped.
We have had no 'bad actors' of any significance. The two significant community developers over the years since I have been here that have left and pulled their content were nothing like a 'bad actor' and both have been within their legal and moral rights to do what they have done. Yes the actions of these two have caused disruption within the community, but much less 'bad' than the 'good' they have contributed, by many orders of magnitude.

Any draconian measures or attitude that 'bad actors must be stopped' or the like causes significant harm to this community. Let us not go there.

I personally would rather see less extensions overall if it means those that are created are done with a fair and open mindset. As I alluded to in my earlier reply, I think prohibitive licensing on community content simply stifles newcomers.

Agreeing on what a 'fair and open mindset' is, is perhaps the core of this discussion. And I'm not sure finding a middle ground is possible, or at least possible without alienating community members on both ends of any spectrum :( Though I too agree any prohibitive licensing, or perception of such, will stiffle newcomers (and I'm sure existing members).

Perhaps there could be two options for extension distribution...

1. An official extensions "store" managed by SmiteWorks that provides a mechanism for automatic installation and updating of extensions. If authors want their extension distributed this way, SW could require some terms and conditions that could allow for them to provide and maintain the extension in the future, if needed.

AND

2. There would still be a way to manually install extensions. Anyone could write an extension for themselves and share it (if they wish) with others with whatever license they deem appropriate. Just like how it works today.
...
Funny, I had this idea while laying in bed last night.

I appreciate MW's response on this, though I would urge that any change in such policy be done with something like this. Access to the updater engine and automated extension installation in exchange for a license that would allow continued distribution and maintenance would be, imo, a valuable exchange for a community dev. It would also protect the community users, since they can have some elevated confidence in the continued availability of any such extension they chose to use.

Trenloe

February 1st, 2020, 23:41

We have had no 'bad actors' of any significance. The two significant community developers over the years since I have been here that have left and pulled their content were nothing like a 'bad actor' and both have been within their legal and moral rights to do what they have done.
Assuming one of these people is Ken L, then that is not strictly true. Ken released his very useful and innovative extensions under a specific license. This license had numerous features to it - one of which meant that SmiteWorks couldn’t use any of that code in their products (as they’re commercial) and another feature of interest was that once the code was released to the public under the license, that license couldn’t be revoked. However, Ken did exactly that - revoked the public license he released the software under. He removed all of his extensions from the forums and when they were added back by a community member (which was completely within the bounds of the license they were originally released under) Ken complained and asked them to be removed again. We respected his wishes as the original code author, even though this was against the license he released the code under.

I don’t mean to get into a discussion about that specific issue - that’s all water under the bridge and, as I say, we ultimately respected the code author’s wishes. Why I mention it is this - if you do release your code under a specific license, be very aware of what that license entails because it may restrict you from doing something later with the code (e.g. including it in a commerical product, taking the code down, using other people’s code in your product, etc.).

LordEntrails

February 1st, 2020, 23:51

... they were added back by a community member (which was completely within the bounds of the license they were originally released under) Ken complained and asked them to be removed again. We respected his wishes as the original code author, even though this was against the license he released the code under.
...
I was unaware they removed a second time (as I wasn't a user of them). Thanks for clarifying.

damned

February 1st, 2020, 23:54

Yes, Ken did remove his extensions and I put them back up because of their license.
I did remove the modules because they didnt have a license attached and he claimed copyright over the format.
I did think that the extensions remained except that Stymir forked the main one and then that one was removed.

That is one of the main reasons that those licenses were written - to formalise protection for users of the software.

Callum

February 4th, 2020, 15:41

It seems that these two things are desirable:

1. Community developers feel happy to make their creations available to the community, on the terms they choose, without unnecessary restrictions.

2. Users of community creations feel happy to make use of them, without worrying that a creation that they have come to depend upon might suddenly become unavailable (or incompatible with the current version of the main software).

I don't think these two are incompatible, and the point where they meet seems to be the idea suggested by Moon Wizard in the first post of this thread, and further refined by Ckorik:

I wonder - would developers like Delux that hold their code close - would they accept some kind of terms that would allow abandoned projects to be maintained for future compatibility as long as those changes do not constitute a revocation of copyright, or license at the time of publication?

I'm not even sure how that would need to be worded to pass muster. I would think it could be a happy middle ground.

esmdev

February 4th, 2020, 17:53

DM_BK

February 5th, 2020, 21:12

Both people were bad actors for different reasons and at different times. MooCow was right to call out someone for copyrighting 6ish lines of code that loop through a key,value array (or whatever it's called in LUA). I can't believe anyone couldn't see the implications of being able to copyright something so simple. MooCow then handled everything from there poorly....and also keep in mind your seeing moderated replies from both parties - after the dust cleared. I assume both people were quite nasty and we just aren't seeing everything.

Ultimately though they both "took their toys and went home" that alone makes them bad actors. Both are trying to punish SW for the incident which incidentally is punishing everyone. We'll recover, its fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Earlier when I proposed, everything shared on this forum is free-use, with no restrictions...I want to point out that I said: On this forum. By all means, publish your work anywhere else on the internet(DMs guild, your blog site, etc) and impose whatever copyright you deem necessary. I think that gives everyone what they are looking for and helps prevent issues like this.

LordEntrails

February 5th, 2020, 21:34

I can't believe anyone couldn't see the implications of being able to copyright something so simple.
What can and can not be copyrighted is not something that can be resolved on this forum. The only place it can is in a court of law under the relevant jurisdiction. If someone claims copyright to something you think they can't, the only definitive way to decide is to end up in court over the issue. Non legal people discussing it outside of there is... of minimal value.

Earlier when I proposed, everything shared on this forum is free-use, with no restrictions...I want to point out that I said: On this forum. By all means, publish your work anywhere else on the internet(DMs guild, your blog site, etc) and impose whatever copyright you deem necessary. I think that gives everyone what they are looking for and helps prevent issues like this.
And I will point out that in my opinion, placing such a restriction on things posted on this forums WILL divide the community. Plus you have two significant issues; everything posted prior to that point in time would fall under the old license (because SW can't retroactively change a license on someone), and two could face difficult legal challenges if challenged because a poster could easily claim they were not aware of such a restriction and that would force SW to prove that the person knew.

Of course, all of that only matters if something ends up in court of law. What matters is what the perceptions of any such changes would make on the user community and RPG community as a whole. Last thing I want is another inaccurate but common myth about FG ('Oh yea, that's the VTT that claims copyright on anything the community creates.') THAT would do harm to the community and SmiteWorks.

celestian

February 5th, 2020, 22:31

What can and can not be copyrighted is not something that can be resolved on this forum. The only place it can is in a court of law under the relevant jurisdiction. If someone claims copyright to something you think they can't, the only definitive way to decide is to end up in court over the issue.

There is not a court in the US that would have supported copyright on 6-8 lines of code, a few of which are API calls and the bulk of the remaining is an iteration loop.

That said, he's welcome to claim Copyright... but, you can't expect people to not boggle at the idea (MooCow trolling aside).

I think perhaps what might be a solution for everyone is to make sure there are moderator highlights to content posts from people claiming copyright or limited licenses on their work so that all users are aware that it could be removed without notice by the author.

Bidmaron

February 7th, 2020, 02:01

Plus you have two significant issues; everything posted prior to that point in time would fall under the old license (because SW can't retroactively change a license on someone), and two could face difficult legal challenges if challenged because a poster could easily claim they were not aware of such a restriction and that would force SW to prove that the person knew....[/I]

LE, SW owns these forums. Just because someone posts something before the change doesn't mean its license can't change. SW can remove the content on their own if the author refuses to make the change willingly. After all, there are alternative places to post, as someone else already stated. There are other places to post, and the poster could reference that location on these forums.

I'm not trying to endorse any particular course of action, I'm just saying SW is within their rights to make a decision and enforce it, should they choose to do so.

DM_BK

February 7th, 2020, 22:23

I did find myself wondering how privacy terms can change at-will but forum TOS/licensing can't? Seemed fishy to me but I'm am not a legal expert.

damned

February 7th, 2020, 23:39

Valarian

February 8th, 2020, 09:42

Personally, code I develop for the community is just that and can be considered CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). I've certainly learnt Lua and the Fantasy Grounds framework by looking at content from other developers, and adapting the code or the concept to suit the situation. My hope is that new developers can learn the same way, and that the community remains open.

That said, there could be a market for commercial extensions. A community store, with the same code protections as for the commercial store, could be an idea to suit this market. Encrypted and locked extensions would protect the developers who want to sell a novel concept or piece of code. This would add an administrative burden on Smiteworks to manage the community store and to verify the code on the store as safe to use.

Rulesets are a little more tricky to sell commercially unless there is agreement in place, as they are supporting a commercial game and the publisher of the game should get a say in whether it's okay for someone to make money from their game - even if there is no copyrighted content.

deer_buster

February 10th, 2020, 04:04

When you agree to an initial agreement it may allow the agreement to varied and may specify a process for varying the agreement.
For services that you continue to use they may vary the agreement and require you to accept the agreement to continue using the service.

You cant impose new restrictions on other peoples work unless you had an existing agreement with them that permits this already.

Hmmm, simplest way I can think of doing this is to drop support for all community extensions without a valid API key that requires a certain license with SW. Code can easily be ported over to this, and everyone starts and continues with the same license that is modifiable by SW at any time.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy

LordEntrails

February 10th, 2020, 17:33

Why would the community want such a restrictive way to contribute?

DM_BK

February 10th, 2020, 19:32

Hmmm, simplest way I can think of doing this is to drop support for all community extensions without a valid API key that requires a certain license with SW. Code can easily be ported over to this, and everyone starts and continues with the same license that is modifiable by SW at any time.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy

I like it! And also fairly common way it's done these days(not just in the VTT space).
Although the Roll20 policy of charging extra for API access was... less welcome.

Bidmaron

February 10th, 2020, 21:43

Why would the community want such a restrictive way to contribute?

LE people can still post a more liberal license externally and refer to them here. Dulux used to do that with github and a lot of folks are doing that now.
I hate having to go elsewhere but if SW wants to do this to try to protect their user base from another event like this (as we speak there is still no suitable substitute for locations, e.g.) it seems a reasonable compromise.

LordEntrails

February 11th, 2020, 01:03

LE people can still post a more liberal license externally and refer to them here. Dulux used to do that with github and a lot of folks are doing that now.
I hate having to go elsewhere but if SW wants to do this to try to protect their user base from another event like this (as we speak there is still no suitable substitute for locations, e.g.) it seems a reasonable compromise.
I took the suggestion that an API key would be required to make extensions would mean that such keys would be required and would only be made available to those that agreed to a specific license. Based on this statement;

is to drop support for all community extensions without a valid API key that requires a certain license with SW
That would mean that that 'split' distribution model as is currently the practice would not be relevant, because an extension would only work in FG if a specific API key was embedded in the extension. Which would mean those keys would have to be managed, and would have to be something that simply could not be copied and pasted from text file to text file. There are all sorts of problems / challenges with such a model that I won't bother going into.

Honestly I just don't see these events as so traumatic in the big picture. I'm sure they are quiet disappointing to those that have invested so heavily in the extensions that have been withdrawn, but how much does that differ from someone simple choosing not to maintain an extension anymore? (SmiteWorks certainly doesn't have the desire to maintain such or they would have incorporated into the base code.) IMO, the 'proprietaryness' of any code is not that big of a deal, look at how quickly 2 sound extensions have emerged, or a campaign/world/location extension. Once how to do something is developed, reproducing it is much easier.

I just don't think the benefits of trying to protect user by restricting community developers outweigh the negatives to the community.

Bidmaron

February 11th, 2020, 03:44

I misread what deer_buster was saying. I would absolutely be against that, and nothing MW has said leads me to believe he is contemplating anything so draconian. His posts have been along the lines of what is posted on these forums, which they are entitled to regulate (of course they could do the code thing too, but I don't believe the community would support that -- I certainly wouldn't).

deer_buster

February 11th, 2020, 05:49

Yeah, I meant it to be clear that an API key, which would only be obtained after agreeing to abide by SW license requirement would be a way to go. API keys are not that difficult and are in no way "restrictive", or "draconian" to developers (other than applying to get the key in the first place). Many, many platforms use them (e.g. Discord is the first one that comes to mind, because I use that every day)

In this manner, SW could also have a license model that allowed developers to sell their content/extensions/whatever in the store, and have that code protected, as long as they support it. Developers would not be able to rescind their license, but could transfer their license to another to take on support. I'd add that any abandonment of code would be cause for it to revert to public domain.

Beemanpat

February 11th, 2020, 12:10

I'm not a dev but I am a user so devs forgive my ignorance and I dont want to take anything away from you yall. But I think ideally the heavily used extensions should become apart of fg. Maybe there could be a page like the idea informer page where we the community can upvote extensions to be made officially apart of the game especially if the dev consents to it. Anyways it's just an idea; devs keep up the good work. The DOEs are missed but now were there was only one sound extension there is two. So some good did come from this sad event.

Bidmaron

February 11th, 2020, 13:29

Beemanpat, that sounds like a good idea but it would actually stifle innovation. Consider as an example the big 5e add on. That received huge support right out of the gate, and would certainly have met any criteria for folding into FG. but most of the improvements since release would not have occurred. When something gets incorporated (like tables), it takes several revision cycles before SW has the time to improve it. In the case of tables, it was at least 10 upgrades just to fix the synchronous roll problem that was widely known.
The better consideration is once a popular extension goes say 6 months without anything more than big fixes, then it is considered for incorporation.

Beemanpat

February 11th, 2020, 13:34

Yes make sure its stable. I understand. And that is true.

bojjenclon

February 11th, 2020, 14:15

I keep seeing this argument used, "well new extensions popped up fast to replace the ones that were removed so its not actually a problem!"

I don't really feel like that's a good plan for future-proofing the product/community. Especially since in this particular case it seems to me part of the motivations - part of the reason why these new extensions emerged so quickly - is precisely because of how volatile this whole situation was. It garnered a lot of attention, and roused a great deal of opinions on the matter, which spurred some people to action.

The problem with that is: we can't always assume that will occur. Sure, it worked this time. But do we really want the game plan to just always be, "Oh, someone will replace it, don't worry!" That seems a little foolhardy to me. It's also somewhat disrespectful to the other active devs in the community, as you're essentially putting the onus on them to step up when someone else throws a tantrum. I would much rather see the original content creators assume responsibility for publicly sharing their work, rather than expecting others to step into their shoes when they leave, but that's just me.

Ampersandrew

February 11th, 2020, 14:58

I'm not in favour of forcing a change of license on community developers. Nor am I in favour of an API key being necessary.

Forcing community developed extensions into the vault would be a catastrophe! Please do not do this.

Ampersandrew

February 11th, 2020, 15:01

There is not a court in the US that would have supported copyright on 6-8 lines of code, a few of which are API calls and the bulk of the remaining is an iteration loop.

That said, he's welcome to claim Copyright... but, you can't expect people to not boggle at the idea (MooCow trolling aside).

I think you're wrong about the scope of copyright. Also, wrong about what the US courts are prepared to support.

However as has already been stated the only way to know for sure is to litigate.

LordEntrails

February 11th, 2020, 15:35

I keep seeing this argument used, "well new extensions popped up fast to replace the ones that were removed so its not actually a problem!"
That's not what I said. Nor am I aware of anyone else making that statement.

Please understand nuance. I said to 'me it was not a significant problem. To me it is much less of a problem than the harm I believe will happen if their is an attempt to force a license upon community devs'. This 'harm' has been supported by community devs who have stated they are opposed to such mandatory licensing. Their is a very big difference between my stance and the one you say people are arguing.

It's also somewhat disrespectful to the other active devs in the community, as you're essentially putting the onus on them to step up when someone else throws a tantrum. I would much rather see the original content creators assume responsibility for publicly sharing their work, rather than expecting others to step into their shoes when they leave, but that's just me.
It is disrespectful to demean someone by saying "throws a tantrum". Though that may be your interpretation of what happened, I'm pretty certain both SmiteWorks and the dev who recently left the community stated that was not what happened. And, disrespecting community devs by demeaning their choices certainly doesn't help the community.

I'm not a dev but I am a user so devs forgive my ignorance and I dont want to take anything away from you yall. But I think ideally the heavily used extensions should become apart of fg. Maybe there could be a page like the idea informer page where we the community can upvote extensions to be made officially apart of the game especially if the dev consents to it. Anyways it's just an idea; devs keep up the good work. The DOEs are missed but now were there was only one sound extension there is two. So some good did come from this sad event.

The first thing you have to understand is that when a community developer posts or shares an extension, they retain all rights to that extension unless they explicitly state otherwise. That's the way the law works (despite what many people assume; that once something is posted to the internet anyone can use it however they want). Their is a common understanding that anything posted on these forums can be used non-commercially by anyone (hence why it's posted), but their is still the understanding that any other dev who wishes to use the code should ask before doing so (which as far as I know has always been granted). Even SmiteWorks is restricted by this, they too need to ask before they incorporate someone's code.

Yeah, I meant it to be clear that an API key, which would only be obtained after agreeing to abide by SW license requirement would be a way to go. API keys are not that difficult and are in no way "restrictive", or "draconian" to developers (other than applying to get the key in the first place). Many, many platforms use them (e.g. Discord is the first one that comes to mind, because I use that every day)
API keys stored in plain text files distributed via a forum are not secure. Unless such extensions where distributed via the FG Updater and stored in the vault, anyone could simple open up an extension and pull out any other dev's API key and use it to 'authorize' their extension. Plain text API keys can be secure, but not in the current FG distribution model and not without other infrastructure. But, lets really not devolve into a big debate on specifics of API keys, because any API key structure require infrastructure. Infrastructure that requires resources, that takes away from SmiteWork's ability to otherwise support and enhance FG.

In this manner, SW could also have a license model that allowed developers to sell their content/extensions/whatever in the store, and have that code protected, as long as they support it. Developers would not be able to rescind their license, but could transfer their license to another to take on support. I'd add that any abandonment of code would be cause for it to revert to public domain.
This, enforcing a licensing in order to obtain a API key is what is restrictive. Not the API key itself. A license by its very definition IS restrictive, even copyleft type licenses are restrictive because they restrict the creator's right after initial publishing. Some people think any restriction is draconian. Some of those people are or might become FG Community Developers. People who perceive things as 'draconian' are likely to react by not contributing.

Right now (because their is no forced license community content must be released under) devs who feel all such community content should be released to the public domain can do so. Devs who feel that they should retain some or all of their rights can do. All devs can contribute in the manner in which they feel is appropriate.

deer_buster

February 12th, 2020, 00:34

agree to disagree

Phystus

February 12th, 2020, 03:57

Naturally, if you used and appreciated the extensions in question, it sounds very appealing to advocate that any code posted to the forums should remain there in perpetuity. But I think it's really a terrible idea.

Consider this: if someone posts a useful extension, but then becomes unable or unwilling to support it (for example, they die, or quit gaming), nothing really changes at first. But eventually, it's likely the ruleset they extended will change enough that the extension will break. What then? At that point it seems to me that keeping the extension available would be a disservice to the community.

I certainly feel that creators have the right to cease supporting content they post for free on this or any other forum. And I fail to see how attaching strings to their ability to freely share the fruits of their labors with the community can have a positive effect.

It gets a bit trickier in a case where the content creator solicits donations for their work. It certainly starts to feel more like a business transaction. But even then, paid software doesn't come with a guarantee of perpetual support. Software companies go out of business all the time. If the fellow you donated to stops distributing his wares, is that really different than a software company going out of business and taking down their website?

None of the proposals I have heard sound to me like an improvement over the status quo. Whether or not I agree with a creator's decision to remove their content, I do support their right to do so.

~P

DM_BK

February 12th, 2020, 23:15

That's not what I said. Nor am I aware of anyone else making that statement.

Please understand nuance. I said to 'me it was not a significant problem. To me it is much less of a problem than the harm I believe will happen if their is an attempt to force a license upon community devs'. This 'harm' has been supported by community devs who have stated they are opposed to such mandatory licensing. Their is a very big difference between my stance and the one you say people are arguing.

It is disrespectful to demean someone by saying "throws a tantrum". Though that may be your interpretation of what happened, I'm pretty certain both SmiteWorks and the dev who recently left the community stated that was not what happened. And, disrespecting community devs by demeaning their choices certainly doesn't help the community.

The first thing you have to understand is that when a community developer posts or shares an extension, they retain all rights to that extension unless they explicitly state otherwise. That's the way the law works (despite what many people assume; that once something is posted to the internet anyone can use it however they want). Their is a common understanding that anything posted on these forums can be used non-commercially by anyone (hence why it's posted), but their is still the understanding that any other dev who wishes to use the code should ask before doing so (which as far as I know has always been granted). Even SmiteWorks is restricted by this, they too need to ask before they incorporate someone's code.

API keys stored in plain text files distributed via a forum are not secure. Unless such extensions where distributed via the FG Updater and stored in the vault, anyone could simple open up an extension and pull out any other dev's API key and use it to 'authorize' their extension. Plain text API keys can be secure, but not in the current FG distribution model and not without other infrastructure. But, lets really not devolve into a big debate on specifics of API keys, because any API key structure require infrastructure. Infrastructure that requires resources, that takes away from SmiteWork's ability to otherwise support and enhance FG.

This, enforcing a licensing in order to obtain a API key is what is restrictive. Not the API key itself. A license by its very definition IS restrictive, even copyleft type licenses are restrictive because they restrict the creator's right after initial publishing. Some people think any restriction is draconian. Some of those people are or might become FG Community Developers. People who perceive things as 'draconian' are likely to react by not contributing.

Right now (because their is no forced license community content must be released under) devs who feel all such community content should be released to the public domain can do so. Devs who feel that they should retain some or all of their rights can do. All devs can contribute in the manner in which they feel is appropriate.

Disrespectful or not, they (because it was more then one) DID throw a tantrum...just because one person said it wasn't a tantrum doesn't make it true, actions speak very loudly.

I think we all understand that most any change to the licensing is going to require some sort of change on the part of SW to support it - APK keys or otherwise. I think that's one of the reasons we are having this conversation.

API keys are a very common way to handle community extensions/mods/etc through out the world and they work very well. Restrictive isn't a common complaint with that method. And we all know that it's not going to stop people from putting out extensions...maybe not the same people but it's not going to suddenly cause everyone to stop because they need an API key, which most people are already well acquainted with from other products. And it would settle this issue once and for all.

"Change is bad" is sorta the feeling I'm getting from a lot of this thread...maybe I'm misreading it.

LordEntrails

February 12th, 2020, 23:45

API keys are a very common way to handle community extensions/mods/etc through out the world and they work very well. Restrictive isn't a common complaint with that method. And we all know that it's not going to stop people from putting out extensions...maybe not the same people but it's not going to suddenly cause everyone to stop because they need an API key, which most people are already well acquainted with from other products. And it would settle this issue once and for all.

"Change is bad" is sorta the feeling I'm getting from a lot of this thread...maybe I'm misreading it.
It's not implementation of an API key that I think would be a bad decision. It is only giving API keys to developers who agree to a single license for their content.

Now, community devs have often asked for the ability to have their content included in the FG Updater. I think access to the official FG Updater / patch system in exchange for a license that allows SmiteWorks the ability to carry forward abandoned content or even incorporate code would be a fair and welcome 'trade' while allowing content to be distributed and licensed in the current manner as well. To me, that is the best 'new process'.

Change is not bad, 'change management' is part of what I do professionally. And part of managing change is realizing the value of existing systems and not just throwing them out because their are new ways to do things.

Diablobob

February 13th, 2020, 03:20

I disagree with the API key idea... for one reason... you are stating a generality that “they are common around the world”... what world? Because last I checked, not everyone on these forums is a professional software engineer...

And the primary draw I had to fantasy grounds is the ability to add and contribute what you feel like putting your efforts into... this includes modules, campaigns, images, and yes extensions...

Rulesets are also not specified... all are welcome!! Regardless of what you do or play!!! It’s about gaming, not stove piping!

That being said, I do understand your point of view. I am just simply stating that I do not feel that it is such a good idea for the community.

I try to help out people on several discord servers to learn how to edit or make their own extensions... because that’s what really makes fantasy grounds great, the ability to add and make it what you want! Not someone else’s vision... the fact that some people, professionals, hobbyists, or someone that was curious on how to change some little toggle; decided to try their hand at something and then share it with the community is a truly great aspect of this community... it means you can make and play YOUR game...

Not all people can developer extensions... but if you look at the originating posts, this is not only about extensions... which is the only thing api keys would really affect... and the people who want to start poking around, and learning how to code, shouldn’t be hampered by closed doors... this is a welcoming platform and community! I feel like whatever decisions are made, I truly hope keep the doors open and the platform welcoming...

Incase anyone wishes to point out the obvious: Yes I know I sell my codes on DMs Guild. It is how I afford to continue gaming and can justify the hobby to my wife. I love gaming and FG! I truly do! However, because I sell my codes, I feel as though I owe it to my customers more than a little do-hickey and then walk away... I try to improve it, add to it... make it worth their time and money... I do have emergency plans in place if things suddenly prevent my continued support of the products (another coder will take over sustainment and development)... as I feel that I owe the stability to those who purchase my codes... so I get that philosophy! I truly do...

If there should be a change in licensing though... I’d probably recommend adding the option of adding a license to the post if the author wishes... like a checkbox of “if like to add x license rules to this extension”... that would be awesome... but I’d humbly request to not make it mandatory... once chosen, like a fully open license, then keep that post and contents available in accordance to the license... but don’t force it on people... I feel that would squelch the actual open sharing and development of the community. So that is my personal view on the matter... I guess what I’m really trying to say, is not everyone is a professional coder or writer... let the hobby be a hobby, that’s why we’re here!

rob2e

February 13th, 2020, 04:55

Paperclipkiller

February 13th, 2020, 05:32

Regarding DMs Guild content specifically, I don't think there is any discussion to be had. I don't mean this negatively, it's
just as I understand the TOS for DMs Guild specifically, once a creator posts an item there be it a PDF, an FG mod/extension, or any other form of media, Wizards of the Coast has EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS and OWNERSHIP of said material, and there is no right granted to the creator except that of revenue sharing.

With the DMs Guild (specifically) you post it there, they own it. End of story.

I thought this wasn't the case? Granted I haven't read the ToS, but here it says that you do in fact own what you post. At least that's how I read what it says in the section "Does Wizards own any unique IP that I create in my DMs Guild publications?"

https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217520927-Ownership-and-License-OGL-Questions?mobile_site=true

rob2e

February 13th, 2020, 05:40

It seems they HAVE changed their TOS..

Does Wizards own any unique IP that I create in my DMs Guild publications?

Wizards does not own any of the unique IP that you create in your publications. Wizards does own the IP that they contribute, plus the DMs Guild agreement will grant Wizards and other DMs Guild authors a license to use your IP.

That said, if your work merits incorporation into canon, Wizards will contact you about purchasing your IP outright.

Paul Pratt

February 13th, 2020, 05:42

I never thought of attaching a license to the rule sets I have developed and posted to the community. I used in a large part the existing framework provided by SW from Core RPG and 3.5e. The core is theirs. The fact I reshaped or extended some lines in lua or xml I figured was SW allowing me to use their product for my ideas.

I am not a developer or software professional, and my personal feeling is that if I left this community, I would leave my posts with the hopes someone would take over. Having said that, I was irritated when WHFRP 4e started to be developed and was piggy backed off my 2e set, with zero credit given to me. It's a dead issue, but I see the issue. I don't feel 2e "belongs" to me, but my months (yes months to develop a ruleset - 40k is over 6 months with the skin and the work), I thought it was bad form that I was to receive zero mention for 4e. To me it was poor form, and a bad way to treat a fellow community member.

I see this happen a lot in WoW and ESO that allow mods. I write mods for both, and all across the various forums someone takes a mod, uses essentially the core code and the same libraries, and calls it their own. How does Wow, or ESO handle their community mods?

I am probably not much help here as I don't have strong opinions and since I am not educated with licensing at all - I am left wondering, in an effort to keep the discussion positive and moving forward -

What are good examples of communities that users here find to be working in a manner in which this community would like to emulate?

Trenloe

February 13th, 2020, 08:46

Having said that, I was irritated when WHFRP 4e started to be developed and was piggy backed off my 2e set, with zero credit given to me. It's a dead issue, but I see the issue. I don't feel 2e "belongs" to me, but my months (yes months to develop a ruleset - 40k is over 6 months with the skin and the work), I thought it was bad form that I was to receive zero mention for 4e. To me it was poor form, and a bad way to treat a fellow community member.
I agree - it annoys me when people re-use code another developer has spent many, many hours writing and debugging without asking them or mentioning them. This was why I wrote some guidelines at the bottom of post #1 in the CoreRPG extensions thread (see the “Developers” paragraph): https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20320-CoreRPG-Community-Extensions

These are, however, just guidelines and are more about being polite and community minded than any specific licensing model.

Oberoten

February 13th, 2020, 21:50

I agree - it annoys me when people re-use code another developer has spent many, many hours writing and debugging without asking them or mentioning them. This was why I wrote some guidelines at the bottom of post #1 in the CoreRPG extensions thread (see the “Developers” paragraph): https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20320-CoreRPG-Community-Extensions

These are, however, just guidelines and are more about being polite and community minded than any specific licensing model.

... And this is why the Ars Magica ruleset has one of the longest Thank You notes of any rulset out there. :) Going all the way back to Mossfoot and Toadwart who helped me grasp the basics once upon a time. :)

- Obe

Speculi

February 13th, 2020, 22:37

From a copyright point of view it is pretty simple: If somebody didn't explicitly give you permission to use their code, you must not use it. (Even if they abandoned it.) Afaik in the US and Europe copyright protection will last at least for 70 years AFTER the original author died. There are some specific laws around trivial works which will not be protected by copyright laws and laws which allow for extended copyright. You also can't directly protect the idea or the rules behind your work, but still nobody is allowed to copy your code, even if it is in plain text like the source of extensions, websites and so on and easily accessible over the internet.

I see this happen a lot in WoW and ESO that allow mods. I write mods for both, and all across the various forums someone takes a mod, uses essentially the core code and the same libraries, and calls it their own. How does Wow, or ESO handle their community mods?

Unfortunately, if somebody takes your stuff and violates your copyright, you will still have to go to court against them if you really want them to stop and they don't comply at your request. That's expansive and also why it is often kinda ignored in the non-commercial world of community addons/extensions and stuff like this. There is just not enough money in it. Also most of the time it won't be hosted directly on the platform of who ever owns the game, but some community modding site.

It is annoying for everybody who liked and enjoyed using it, when people who made something public go and take it away. No matter if they paid for it or not. Still it is the right of the author to do exactly that even so they can't take away rights they already granted. So even after it is taken offline, if you had the right to use it, you still can. If you had the right to modify or redistribute it, you still can.

Obviously Smite Works can say everybody has to use a certain license if they want to publish their works on SWs platform or even just to use the FG API. They are also free to only allow extensions to load, which have some sort of API key or something like that. But honestly API keys in the current FG platform would be useless, because everybody could just take the key from another extension. Even the vault wouldn't really protect that... it just makes it harder for new creators to learn from others.

API keys are useful to authenticate you with an API. Usually APIs you use over some kind of network, but you should never ever put the key into a distributable like an extension, because then everybody who gets a copy can use it as if they were the owner of the key. The key has to stay private and under your control at all times!
You could require signing of extensions to make sure they are from a certain author you have an agreement with. But this would either make the creation of extensions a pain, or would need to allow for a dev mode, where you can still load unsigned extensions. To verify the signature, you would also need to have the public key somewhere in FG to run offline. Since the FG application itself is running on my machine, I once again have access to all of this. It makes it harder, but if you think about tools like Cheat Engine, tricking your FG into believing the signature is valid would still be possible. So no real win here and a lot of work just to make everybody's life harder.

My personal opinion on the community license:

I believe Smite Works should encourage people to use a permissive license for free community extensions/rulesets/modules, maybe even suggest one or two and appeal to the openness of the community. The suggested license could also allow SW to use the code in FG commercially (i.e. MIT license).
Maybe they could even be a role model and open the official rulesets, if they are allowed t, and encourage community devs to help with further development. This may or may not result in faster development, since this process also has to be moderated and somebody has to pick which changes ultimately make it into the official rules.
I don't think SW should enforce a specific license. Everybody should be able to pick the license they want to distribute their works under.
It might make sense to enforce that every (new) work published here should have a clearly stated license (any license at all). This would make it clear for everybody what they can and can't legally do with it. My hope would be, that most creators will pick the permissive license, so if they leave somebody else would be able to take over or create derived works.