Messages

I'll give that a try, thanks for pointing that out.

Debugging is painful as is, but I don't think that going through those steps will be good enough. What I really wish I could do is attach a debugger to the native dll. If I correctly fixed all 2k+ errors leftover from the decompilation, I could create the pdb during my own build of rimworld. That, or maybe someone could convince Tynan to release a build in debug mode. Until then, logging and what not will be the bread and butter.

I just now finally got past all of the documentation I needed to write for the senior project (requirements document, a presentation, etc...), and coding can begin again. If I'm to graduate in April, this needs to be done by April, so expect that to be the release time (procrastination is the hardest thing...).

Good news, this has been officially accepted as a senior project for my bachelor's degree.

@lperkins Thats true, but the author of Harmony mentioned that he had the requisite upgrades in the pipeline, I was waiting for him to figure it out. If he hasn't in the past 3-4 months, I'll go ahead and add in the functionality I need. The IL Transformation stuff is the thing that needed to be fixed. Making a second mod seems very excessive. The only benefit I really get from the update though is increased compatability with other mods.

I've updated a few mods for my own use for B18. Some, I've listed in the relevant github repos or steam workshop pages as an "unofficial" update, but I'm not sure if thats the best way to go.

Disregarding individual licensing (assume all mods I talk about have no license listed), what is the proper way to release mod updates that won't offend?

A few mods I've update have not been updated officially for some time. Is it right to snag the code and change it to my own tastes, and only list the original author as an original author? The EULA states I can, -but- I disagree with the terms of the EULA (although I follow it), and would prefer an argument based on courtesy rather than legality.

So, the TL:DR....

1. Assuming the original author cannot be reached, how should I annotate/publish an update to a mod?
2. Assuming the original author cannot be reached, how should I annotate/publish a mod using code from another mod, but drastically altered? Is it even right to do so, should I be expected to start from scratch?

[or]

You quoted the EULA as if it said something bad, but it actually was pretty benevolent. It said, in short "if you want us to use your code, publish it in the workshop, if you dont, publish it somewhere else". You have the two options and are crying about one... Well, use the other one. In most of EULAS wont ever tell you "go somewhere else", they will just say nothing.

The only thing that is not very sure is that publishing them in these forums counts as giving permission.

I'm no lawyer... but I do know basic logical constructs.

"However, by creating any Mod or derivative work from RimWorld or making any content available on or through the Software, you agree to.."

Every mod can be used without explicit permission. Every derivative work can be used without explicit permission. And every other piece of content (such as artwork) made available on steam or the software can be used without explicit permission.

Sure, legality can kill a small company. That doesn't make the EULA agreement moral.

Now, hopefully in practice, this is different, but it doesn't appear so.

"This EULA is not required to protect the game. It's only required in order to protect -theft-."

I correct myself:

"This part of the EULA is not required to protect the game. It's only required in order to protect -theft-."

I don't believe that is the case.

You could, for instance, state that the concept of the mod is public domain, but the implementation should not be used without consent. Reimplementation should be expected. While it may be common for games, the gaming industry is the exception in this case. Consider JetBrains for VS, and many other mods/plugins for other programs. EDIT: They can sell thier plugins, and the program developers cannot just take code from them.

Modding adds value to the game, the game developer should be thankful for an active modding community. What the EULA states is essential "All your mods are belongs to me". It completely infringes on any idea of intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights seems to have a bad rep. But let me ask you this: If no one was paid to program, would Rimworld even exist? Ludeon should respect IP rights because it's only product is IP!

This EULA is not required to protect the game. It's only required in order to protect -theft-.

Once again, I am not accusing Ludeon of theft, they may have asked permission in this case. But I find it highly, -highly- disturbing that they can just take whatever they want without consent. If a mod is wanted really badly in Rimworld vanilla, either A. they should reimplement it or B. they should ask for/pay for it. Don't just plagiarise.

When you make mods for a game that is still in development, you are well aware that your mod could later become obsolete or not work or need substantial rework to continue to work. And yes, your mod may be incorporated into the game.

Here's the thing. As modders, we put a lot of content out there. So it is inevitable that a mod matches up with something on the to-do list for the game. Just like it's inevitable that another modder looks at your code and figures out how to do something similar.

If you feel like your content has been copied and passed off as something new, I can understand the frustration in that. And maybe there's a complaint to be made, I don't know.

If the conditions for making mods no longer suit you, or you get bored of making a particular mod, or indeed if you can't really continue your mod as it is because it's now in the game, there's always the option to move on and do something else.

And as for the EULA itself, frankly I find it indecipherable and frustrating to read, like so many others that have come before it. Without the right context and history, you can read the words, but you have no idea what it means.

As stated before, ideas are cheap. BUT TAKING CODE IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT. Sure, Ludeon may had the idea before you did, they can develop that with thier own time and resources. But just willy nilly going into your mod and take the CODE that you developed, and copy paste that, that's morally wrong.

I had a brillant idea: I looked at the EULA. In it:

"You own content you create. However, by creating any Mod or derivative work from RimWorld or making any content available on or through the Software, you agree to give Ludeon permission to use, copy, modify, adapt, distribute, and publicly display that content, for free or as part of a commercial arrangement. This permission is irrevocable and lasts forever. You also agree to let Ludeon permit other people to use, copy, modify, adapt, distribute, and publicly display your content, for free or as part of a commercial arrangement. This permission can be sold or licensed to anyone. Though we generally like to credit everyone for their work, we're not required to credit or acknowledge you if we use anything you created, or if we allow another to do so. If you don't want to give us these permissions, do not make content available on or through the Software. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it may be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don't like."

In other words, screw modder's rights. This is downright theft, and I will discontinue making mods publicly for Rimworld, and will encourage others to do the same. I bet a large part of Rimworld's success has been because of modders (How many of you play the game unmodded)? We like the experience modded, we encourage others to buy it because we know it has a lot of mods. So the game makes more money. But the modders don't have to be compensated in -any- way for it, let alone acknowledged, even if their code was copy-pasted directly into the game. Licensing be damned.

@Spacedorf
You edited while I was posting

The code in question is not a "what", it's a "how". It's not a new feature, it's how a new feature was accomplished. I'm pretty sure the idea for the mod has been around for awhile. But taking the -implementation- of the idea (or part thereof) should be frowned upon. Anyone can come up with ideas of what's cool, but developers get paid 60-150k yearly because implementing them is -hard- and they are the only ones who can do it.

@Sadpickle
Very, very, very, very close is close enough (I program for a living too).

Plagiarism does not have to be identical, just within reason. In my earnest opinion, it looks like the code was copied over, and then more code was added to handle a different feature later on (which is still not allowed by the Creative Commons License found under the specified mod).

I certainly do think that Ludeon would ask permission, but if they went through that much trouble they would have done more to change the code AND they would still have to list the original authors as per the creative commons license (although that's my layman's understanding).

Looking on the internet for help with code is common. However, once an example is found, you don't copy the code. You understand the code, and then reimplement it without looking at it. This doesn't look like what happened.

However, I'm more interested in whether or not my own mod will be absorbed. If I spend time working with their code base, creating something that adds value to the game, would I get any credit if they put the functionality into vanilla?

@Canute/Spacedorf
I've seen that topic, the mod in question is not there. It's not really a "great honor" to have a mod in the game TBH. In fact, the opposite happens: your mod is added, and then nobody gives you recognition for your hard work anymore. The game becomes more popular, making the company more money, not you, and in fact you lose any money you may have been making via donations. *shrug*, to each their own I guess.

"Without {Ford}, there would be no {Falcon}- Without {The Falcon} there would be no {intermittent windshield wiper system} for {The Falcon}. How many different ways can you {Manufacture} to get the same result? Isnt it {The Falcon's} {Manufacturing process} in the first place?"

If you don't know the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

"No one has licensed Unity separately for Rimworld." --Most certainly they have: Ludeon studios has to pay the creators of Unity for commercially using their software.

Did Ludeon copy the code? It looks very, very, very, very close to it. How many ways could the same problem be solved? A few. But using nearly identical variable names?

What if the modder had a patreon to fund his development?

Been around awhile, I'm Frodo (or fifthelement). I'm a java programmer who likes to mess around with decompilation and mods.

and... yeah. Life's good.

I skip the arrest, recruiting is a bum. I just beat the person down. They'll recover in a day or two, doctors get to practice... yeah

I was updating some other people's mods today when I noticed that some of the new code in B18 look eerily similar to the code in one of the mods I was working with. The mod in question was listed as having the creative commons license, meaning that it could be copied and adapted, but not for commercial use.

I don't have all the facts, I'm not accusing Ludeon Studios of anything (I am giving the benefit of the doubt and believe that they asked permission first). However, I don't see any credit given either.

Can/will Ludeon Studios just take mods and "absorb" them? What about copying the code from mods?

Created a temporary patch for B18, and sent a pull request to the author. If you want an unofficial version, download the zip here:
https://github.com/FrodoOf9Fingers/SimpleSidearms