Community Content Licensing

[deer_buster]

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]

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]

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]

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

[bojjenclon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

agree to disagree

[Phystus]

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