Factorio Forums

the_burner wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:25 pm Can you please clarify how the original license is violated? It explicitly allows compatibility changes

I am not looking at the license specifics, I am not commenting whether it is violating the license or not
The one thing I do not like is the transfer of authorship without consent from the receiver.

And with regards to the license/copyright complaint I received, I am just passing it along to the mod author.

Oktokolo wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:43 am Looks, like you missed one.

Yea looks like he did it 2 times, also reverted that authorship change. I assumed he would only do it once...

Deadlock989 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:09 am by the thief and parasite ptx0, who even bragged about doing it on the forum.

Calling people this way with this kind of wording without having clear proof of him being a 'thief' could not only get you banned in some areas, but also being fined. So i would propose to think about your wording in this manner.

As someone who followed the complete discussion about this, i never read one word about him 'bragging' on his actions. He was just attacked because he released an altered version of a mod, which clearly was linked to the original author, under his name. To try to calm down the ONE person who really was offended by this and who attacked him about that he changed this and released it again under the originals authors name. Which gave him just more attacks of this one person - and of course the trolls that stepped in to pour a bit gasoline in the fire of the discussion. Which lead to the discussion we're in here now.

As i can see it the whole discussion is circling around the ego of just one person who is offended here and it seems more and more clear, that this persons top priority in modding isn't the fun that players have with the game and the mods, but the recognition that goes with it. The satisfaction of an ego. Sad story.

The players on the other hand are surely happy that ptx0 stepped in and helped, where the big ego refuses to. Because like it seems, it's not a big deal to make the mod compatible. Surely it could have been done in a small amount of time by the person who's so offended here. But no - just because - its not done. Better waste time and energy bashing on someone helpful. Don't know where's the satisfaction here but there seems to be some - for this one person.

I can confirm your statement Boeng01. But i also would add something

From what i observed is, that the true intention of Optera license was to us the phrase "such as" to limit modification to the mention files. From his point of view he totaly legitly complaining a license violation. (@Optera: please correct me if im wrong)

BUT: Using the phrase "such as" is ambiguous and can also interpreted as "as example" which is nonrestrictive to the mentioned files. If you follow that interpertation there is no violation of the Optera license by ptx0.
There are cases where jugges decided: "The court found that the term "such as" in Section 3.1 of the license agreement meant "for example,"" (source: https://casetext.com/case/lawler-manufa ... ley-corp-2)

@Optera: if you threaten ppl with a lawsuits, you should make sure your license is precise and not have the potential for confusion as it happend now.

Optera wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:35 pm I would like for fair moderation with common sense rather than having to add 100 page legal documents to each of my mods and threaten lawsuits.

And you can like it or not, using "such as" in your license terms have that potential to be interpreted as nonrestrictive. (https://www.adamsdrafting.com/such-as/)

Boeng01 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:54 am
As i can see it the whole discussion is circling around the ego of just one person who is offended here and it seems more and more clear, that this persons top priority in modding isn't the fun that players have with the game and the mods, but the recognition that goes with it. The satisfaction of an ego. Sad story.

Not saying this is is the reason the offended person did this, because my magic crystal ball is under maintenance right now. But to be fair, "the recognition that goes with it" would be quite a very acceptable and valid reason to do it.


Anyway, it seems to me everyone needs to calm down a bit. Both sides had their reasons, now we got some attention on this matter and it will hopefully be sorted out. Lets get back to being friendly again, shall we?

In before the lock :

Stimpatch wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:43 am

Boeng01 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:54 am
As i can see it the whole discussion is circling around the ego of just one person who is offended here and it seems more and more clear, that this persons top priority in modding isn't the fun that players have with the game and the mods, but the recognition that goes with it. The satisfaction of an ego. Sad story.

Not saying this is is the reason the offended person did this, because my magic crystal ball is under maintenance right now. But to be fair, "the recognition that goes with it" would be quite a very acceptable and valid reason to do it.

It was not my intend to say 'this is how it is' but more 'this is what it seems to me'. My personal opinion. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I'm not native english speaker, so i hope it's acceptable if i clear things up afterwards.

And you're totally right, everyone should calm down and be nice to each other. That's why it's hard for me to accept that people who are helping other people are called 'thiefs' or 'parasites'.

It would be totally understandable if it were the offended persons work which was altered. But it isn't. And i still cannot believe - and this also is my personal oppinion - that the original author of this mod would be happy to see that his work is abandoned and lost. Since there would be no recognition at all then.

Optera wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:07 pm

ptx0 wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:28 pm you would have to point out the text in the license that disallows the modification I made for compatibility reasons - oops, no, that exception is granted in the license.

Presumably you are talking about my License.
Again here's the exception granted to specifically two files:

Exceptions to the no modification rule include:

- Minor bug fixes/tweak for compatibility reasons, such as altering the dependencies line in info.json to force a load order in a modpack.
- Config - Any config.lua file may be edited and freely redistributed by itself.

Odd you don't instantly start arguing Github would overrule my license like you did on the deleted post on your ripped mod.
That debate came up before and let me tell you, Github does not overwrite project licenses.

Licensing aside, what do you hope to gain from picking a mod with thousands of downloads and slapping your name on it? 5 minutes of fame!?
I highly doubt you'd be capable of maintaining Edurans work.

Sorry, optera, but you used the vague wording "such as". That makes altering the info.json an example of what could be altered for compatibility reasons. Fixing any file in the mod to make it work with 0.18 certainly falls under "tweak for compatibility". If you wanted to only allow editing info.json then your wording is just to imprecise. It definetly does not limit anything to "specifically two files".

So please don't call other people names just because they follow the license you wrote instead of the license you wanted to write. Let's keep this thread about mods that are actually stolen. There's been enough mud slinging in the LTN thread about this already.

PS: Did you ask ptx0 to remove the mod in private? I only saw the mud slinging in the ltn thread and by now it's probably a lost cause asking everyone to be sensible and civil as you've both drawn lines in the sane. But trying to resolve this quietly should have been the first step in such a case that clearly hinges on the interpretation of your license.

Maybe he got impatient of waiting for it to be updated

To help the situation I've implemented an extra step when adding a collaborator. First an invitation is sent, the recipient gets a notification and has to accept the invitation to become a collaborator. Only then a mod transfer is possible.

ignore me i made a mistake and got lost on 2 different disputes



BUT mod.factorio cant ever be sued trust me i work for google

RabbitKiller wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:05 pm well on the 25th of JAN the Mod author abandoned the Mod and even OPTERA said he/she wont take it on. so no one can cry about it being stolen when someone else is keeping it running, theres 100s of mods on factorio that are being kept alive cause mod authors have left it or havent had the time to update it.

Generally: The mod author may come back. And then he can sue mods.factorio.com for knowingly violating his license. So apart from the moral standpoint of it being plain wrong to steal other peoples work, factorio should very much care about this just from a legal standpoint. A mod being abandoned does in no way invalidate its license. And even if it did then plain copyright would hold and be even more strict. So those 100s of mods where the authors have left are simply lost work. That is unless the authors explicitly licensed it so other could take over.

In this case: The mod you refer to has a strict license (written by optera) that allows some modifications for compatibility. The wording is vague though. Optera, from his reaction, clearly mend only info.json may be edited for compatibility. But the text can equally well be read that fixing info.json is just an example on what compatibility changes are. Ptx0 read it to mean fixing code to make the mod compatible with factorio 0.18 is allowed. As the author of the license, I think optera has very much a say in how it is interpreted even when other mod authors use it for their mods. He's probably the only person with any right to comment on that for the missing author.


To all mod authors: Please think carefully about the license you use. Think what will happen if you loose interest or even if something happens to you tomorrow. Do you want your mod to die because nobody has the right to take up the work? Do you have a designated person that can take over? Is your license free enough so someone can legally take over?

Sanqui wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:48 pm To help the situation I've implemented an extra step when adding a collaborator. First an invitation is sent, the recipient gets a notification and has to accept the invitation to become a collaborator. Only then a mod transfer is possible.

Thank you. But that still leaves the ownership transfer without consent or notification as far as i understand it?

eradicator wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:31 pm

Sanqui wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:48 pm To help the situation I've implemented an extra step when adding a collaborator. First an invitation is sent, the recipient gets a notification and has to accept the invitation to become a collaborator. Only then a mod transfer is possible.

Thank you. But that still leaves the ownership transfer without consent or notification as far as i understand it?

It means that you can only transfer ownership to collaborators. And collaborators have to accept being collaborator before they become one. So... should be safe? (Yes, you can transfer ownership among collaborators w/o consent... but that does not seem problematic... they're all authors of the mod in question)

mrvn wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:58 pm Sorry, optera, but you used the vague wording "such as". That makes altering the info.json an example of what could be altered for compatibility reasons. Fixing any file in the mod to make it work with 0.18 certainly falls under "tweak for compatibility". If you wanted to only allow editing info.json then your wording is just to imprecise. It definetly does not limit anything to "specifically two files".

Intent didn't translate to written words. I've remedied that by now.

mrvn wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:58 pm PS: Did you ask ptx0 to remove the mod in private? I only saw the mud slinging in the ltn thread and by now it's probably a lost cause asking everyone to be sensible and civil as you've both drawn lines in the sane. But trying to resolve this quietly should have been the first step in such a case that clearly hinges on the interpretation of your license.

In such cases I always leave a note in the mod portal first informing the author.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/ptx0_LTN_ ... 000dc50064
I think I was quite friendly considering Loader Redux also had just been pirated.

planetmaker wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:33 pm

eradicator wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:31 pm

Sanqui wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:48 pm To help the situation I've implemented an extra step when adding a collaborator. First an invitation is sent, the recipient gets a notification and has to accept the invitation to become a collaborator. Only then a mod transfer is possible.

Thank you. But that still leaves the ownership transfer without consent or notification as far as i understand it?

It means that you can only transfer ownership to collaborators. And collaborators have to accept being collaborator before they become one. So... should be safe? (Yes, you can transfer ownership among collaborators w/o consent... but that does not seem problematic... they're all authors of the mod in question)

Agreeing to help out an author is one thing, being transferred all (public) responsibility is another.

In any case, I had personally reached out to Optera before this to point out inconsistencies in their stated licensing and they locked the thread when their license is brought up - every time. just like they locked the LTN Tracker thread.

ptx0 wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:41 pm In any case, I had personally reached out to Optera before this to point out inconsistencies in their stated licensing and they locked the thread when their license is brought up - every time. just like they locked the LTN Tracker thread.

Perhaps you are referring to this viewtopic.php?p=473010#p473010
Wording matters. With the way you present yourself it's hard to see you as anything but a troll trying to derail a thread into another flame war about licenses in my forum.

can you talk less about how others come off and how we look like total morons to you, because clearly you think less of others with comments like "knows nothing about licensing" but here we are.

I believe your actions and constantly shifting arguments speak for themselves.

and so does the fact that you updated your license.

Optera wrote: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:53 pm I believe your actions and constantly shifting arguments speak for themselves.

also, if this is true, why do you keep feeling the need to put this out there? to shit all over someone who - by all accounts - has only tried to help other players. don't you see others supporting me here and asking you why you are being this way?

i think you be projecting, sir.