Guidelines for Releasing MODs on LL Without Full Permissions Obtained

[varenne]

.

[BruceWayne]

While I'm not sure who wrote that quote (I have an idea though), that is not our official stance here. General modding etiquette (like the one you describe) applies on LL just as much as anywhere else. 

[gregathit]

Any "implied" reputation is merely conjecture.  I can think of several cases in point where we removed plugins or links to plugins at a mod authors request.  Montana was one that comes to mind.  

 

Modding etiquette is and should be the same here as it is on most sites.

[gregathit]

When someone spends a large amount of time working on something it is only natural to be both proud and a bit possessive of it.  Nothing sinister at all about it.  Since modding generates no income it is just natural that folks would like to know that the work they did won't be re-branded and re-released (often with lower quality or a bunch of bugs) a week or two later.

 

Whether folks eventually allow modding or redistribution of their work boils down to their personality and motivations.  There is no "right" or "wrong" way.  

 

Personally, I feel that after a set amount of time (say a year), that a mod author is not actively working on things (or if they clearly have abandoned it), that permissions should revert to the community under free and fair use.  Full credits of course must be issued AT ALL TIMES, but that is it.  HOWEVER, it should be noted that this is JUST "my opinion" and not how this site looks at things.  Again, there is nothing evil or wrong with a mod author forbidding his\her work to ever be touched.  They made the mod after all and they ultimately are final say.  Sucks at times but that is just life.

[Nepro]

In my opinion there shouldn't be any limitations on using other people resources as long as you credit the source. Hey come on this is how the academic environment works. You borrow from someone make something up yourself and always underline the source & borrowed ideas. Why shouldn't this be the case for mods? 

Also one can enter the legal arguments since the game is privately owned by a company/corporation you can't climb anything that is adjusted to work with the game as your own. So you shouldn't put any restriction on other modders borrowing your resources as long as they give you the credit. 

[gregathit]

Most communities that I have ever been a part of follow the unwritten rule of if you attempt to contact the mod author and are unable for a period of 2 months or better, then you post what you have done with a full credit to them and give them an easy way(s) to reach you if they want it taken down.  

[Montana]

Any "implied" reputation is merely conjecture.  I can think of several cases in point where we removed plugins or links to plugins at a mod authors request.  Montana was one that comes to mind.  

 

Modding etiquette is and should be the same here as it is on most sites.

 

LL has acted honorably in this area as far as I'm concerned, and i appreciate it.

 

Here's my position. I gave my mod freely to the people who dl'd it while it was available. If in private correspondence you wish to share a copy of a legitimate dl with a friend, that's ok with me. Just don't publish my work and associate it with your name. This has always been my position. My readme reflects this. Nothing has ever changed as far as how I feel about it.

 

 

Montana