• Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
  • Read Evilhog's interview with Gregory Alper, the original composer of the music for WarCraft: Orcs & Humans 🔗Click here to read the full interview.

part of the forum for open-source and permissive licensing questions

Level 4
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
10
i have so many questions about licenses. who owns my map, does it depend on which editor i use- followup questions like which editors are there.

questions about specific models: "hey @ is your model using blizzard textures and would you consider declaring you mean it's under a permissive license, instead of just saying use as you wish since that alone a license doesn't make."

i suppose there are more questions but i raise only two to keep this focused.

suggestion is to open up dedicated place to licensing talk OR to point me to some nook i haven't found yet :ogre_kawaii:

thanks for reading and goodnight
 
Level 28
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,491
This topic is probably more suitable for general discussion, and is not site related;
Warcraft Discussion

If I remember correctly, the newer EULA for reforged was almost the exact same as the older versions of wc3; it's just that it got a lot of attention at the time since people thought it was a reason why Reforged "failed".
So, which editor you use does not likely matter. More importantly, the % of people who make a map that could actually make money off of it is so low that the EULA does not matter.

Your question about the models is not that clear. Are you asking for model makers to start giving permissive licenses in the descriptions of their models so people can use them outside the game? I doubt that will ever become a trend, and people will likely become suspicious if random people start asking if they can use their resources for non-free non-wc3 stuff.
 
Level 4
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
10
so, if i've made a campaign with mini-games and my own touch on gameplay then i remake it outside of the World Editor... literally copying the concepts, the behaviour, the looks of models... will Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard have legal ownership over the game i made in WE? also the game i made outside of world editor?

Free Libre Open Source Software is a matter of principle: is it mine, can i sleep at night, or is my effort subject to legal claim by others? knowing licensing leaves no room for vague speculation. good sleep with a good license, i say.
to reformulate the question on models: when you make your awesome warcraft 3 style inspired model and don't license it, will there be legal precedent to copyright strike you for using it in your other games? will some company have the right to take what i made and claim it's theirs to use in a videogame without even acknowledging "hey, thanks HiveWorkshop"

the permissive licenses are very varied: there are those that deny derivative works, those that deny profiting, those that require attribution to the creator, those that require all of the previous or none of the previous. all with an author's right to change licensing. /info
such a license comes from ownership... and if no one owns the models they made that contain blizzard textures nor the games they make in the world editor... then no author has any claim to their work - it may in practice seem like it's all inconsequential, but it's an open-air kind of prison. you can't leave even though it seems to be fine as is.

i'm not saying i'll want to leave warcraft 3, in fact i'm constantly coming back since almost two decades back soon. that's the point of contention to me: reforged just ripped out the physical possibility to play the game you always had installed, by legal precedent. there are no good graces from a company that apply when it comes to the right to deny that company's agenda, as reforged shows that's not a speculation. legal precedent matters when thinking ahead. so it's gotta be clear as day conclusions to rest assured. /info
 
Last edited:

Ralle

Owner
Level 79
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
10,212
I have it on my list to be able to set a "license" on your profile which would affect all your content. And the ability to set a license on a piece of content.

The big problem would be "what's the default license?". It would have to be implied based on the assumption around uploading resources for others to use.

It's on my list but most of the time it's not super high priority.
 
Level 28
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,491
I have it on my list to be able to set a "license" on your profile which would affect all your content. And the ability to set a license on a piece of content.

The big problem would be "what's the default license?". It would have to be implied based on the assumption around uploading resources for others to use.

It's on my list but most of the time it's not super high priority.
Hopefully the implied assumption is based on a resource being used for non-profit.
 
Level 4
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
10
I have it on my list to be able to set a "license" on your profile which would affect all your content. And the ability to set a license on a piece of content.

The big problem would be "what's the default license?". It would have to be implied based on the assumption around uploading resources for others to use.

It's on my list but most of the time it's not super high priority.
licensing is really neat and you can make your own!
licensing falls into groups, meaning while licenses may seem like snowflakes... there's stereotypical patterns emerging. in cases of the Mozilla (Firefox browser) and Apache (webserver) and MIT and BSD (operating-system) licenses they're all categorized into one bundle. so while a license can be as snowflake special as you'd like, for example a public domain license can be in effect a copyleft license and a copyright license can in effect be a permissive license, sole differences being the leeway in changing the terms upon publishing (copyright licenses can make complete rugpulls in who gets to legally use what whereas copyleft licenses always leave past versions unchanged to added terms) in TLDR they're six groups on a sliding scale.

licenses.png


with copyright described with the above "rugpull" and copyleft defined in a way by not letting such happen, it should be noted that all license groups to the left of it also deny "rugpulls". so the more distinct description of copyleft specifically should be said "(you must) pay it forward" in one phrase, while permissive licensing and public domain licensing say"use as you wish --- don't hold me accountable for giving you a hammer when your thumb's aching. no need to pay this forward." with the permissive licenses rigid on not supporting "pay it forward" clauses. public domain licenses call these "share alike", meaning "share whatever you make of it like it was shared to you". this clause isn't integral to public domain, and as said not included at all in the permissive licenses. the public domain licenses should rightly be considered as the most flexible license whereas the permissive license is a sort of CC0 without added clauses. rigid in saying "god bless and fuck off, i've got other things to worry about than how you use this." permissive licenses are like a "it's licensed, get out." just like CC0 (a subset of public domain licenses) in my eyes, but i'm just a simple observer after all.

now a default licensing suggestion for hiveworkshop models seems proper to put in place as most won't read or care about licenses, for what my thoughts are worth I agree. a noncommercial license may be the most safe bet since it leaves others to riff on the models and upload variants while also disallowing commercial use. being a copyright license it's likely ruled to apply changes retroactively, so retrofitting the HiveWorkshop License should work out well over time as issues arise is my assumption. do quote me on that but let me know if i'm making an ass of myself saying that.

as for other licenses: i think stereotyping it and not giving the option to apply share-alike licenses eases everyones life, irregardless of how much i ideologically stand with copyleft (as it means alot to keep knowledgebases and codebases "alive") this function doesn't facilite art exchanges in a "laise a faire" way. introducing any sort of "share alike" to models on HiveWorkshop i'm certain would give everybody rightful headache and needless drama. so no "share alike", again for what my thought on this is worth.

i'll continue being proactive by suggesting a slider gimmick for the uploading menu, complete with some quote or something for ease of adoptability.
(don't mind the drawing quality)

example-licensing-quotes.png


cited page
 
Last edited:
Level 4
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
10
oh and a box for "i swear this model doesn't contain material which i don't have the right to and i acknowledge it is my duty to read the brightly coloured licensing text on a model page."
or something =9
can be continued with like "in lying or being ignorant about what's mine to publish on HiveWorkshop i acknowledge i have forfeit my claim on this model."
 
This is probably all particularly relevant if Warsmash gains more traction. I already have videos on my YouTube channel of playing maps that included @UjimasaHojo models downloaded from Hive, among others - but where the map was played on Warsmash, which is more derived from LibGDX, Ghostolf mdx viewer, and Retera Model Studio than it is from the Warcraft III game.

I have had at least one goober on Discord make claims to me that he was going to edit Warsmash to put new/different art, and then publish the result as an RTS on Steam for profit. (This was probably back when Warsmash was listed as MIT licensed, although it is now listed as AGPL.)

I am doubtful whether the fellow followed through with his plan, but I didn't really pay attention.What if he did? Would Hive artists be incensed if their MDX files show up in a Steam game? I would sort of assume so, but only for some of them. How do you know which ones?

Free Libre Open Source Software is a matter of principle: is it mine, can i sleep at night, or is my effort subject to legal claim by others? knowing licensing leaves no room for vague speculation. good sleep with a good license, i say.
We want that principle. But how do you get it? What if it is a lie?

I am going to write something here which I hope will keep you well-informed and thoughtful, even though the act of me writing this betrays the trust of a past associate and indicates to the world that you should not trust Retera with your secrets anymore:

In 2022, I made a very stupid parody of myself on my YouTube channel. I had lost my job, been rehired, and was about to leave on a long, strange vacation. So I pretended to disappear like Bilbo Baggins putting on his magic ring, and I put a bad photoshop of a cease and desist letter (as if from Activision Blizzard) in the background.

Before I deleted the video 2 days later, it received more attention than all the creative modding content I had previously published, combined. Then when I deleted the video, the YouTube metrics indicated that 80+% of viewers were clicking a link from Reddit, watching 15 seconds of the video despite it being several minutes long, and then leaving.

So, none of these people were interested in me or my life story or the truth of what was happening. They were there because some force other than me online wanted to further damage Activision's reputation. And I had accidentally become useful to that force for this purpose - because it knew people aren't interested in details.

But this is where the story took another interesting turn that not very many people know about, and that I'm "not supposed to tell you" for some reason. Someone online purporting to be a former Activision employee or contractor reached out to me to express their condolences, and indicated that Activision had also taken legal action against Loria RTS and Purple War RTS, forcing these to become free to play or to be taken down, based upon the premise that these games look vaguely similar to Warcraft III RTS. (Of course, this person probably later realized that my project had not been issued a take-down notice, and so I was not under any pressure from Activision to do anything, really, nor to be silent, about anything.)

I made a YouTube video making fun of this called, "Retera Finds the Evil Plans," expressed as a Warcraft 3/Warsmash cinematic (
), but when people asked me about it I told them that it was totally made up because I figured it was better for the poor sod who confided in me about Activision's past activities on this topic if folks thought it was a joke I dreamed up.

I am under no NDA, and no agreement, pertaining to Warcraft or Activision/Microsoft. I can say that you should watch "Microsoft Sucks," an excellent YouTube video by the creator Dunkey. I can say that Microsoft and Activision are poo poo/pee pee heads, or that they sent a Cease and Desist letter to Osama bin Laden to stop him from doing terrorism in Loap maps, and yet he kept doing it. I can say any silly thing, but a question you might ask yourself is: what do you believe? Do you really believe that you would sleep well at night if you made your own RTS? Why? The legal system in most countries is not based on what is true versus what is false. Rather it is based on who has the most money. Do you have the most money? If not, why would you sleep well at night?

Look up Uzi Nissan. This man bought "nissan.com" and was its rightful owner, because he ran his own store named after himself. But Nissan cars bullied him for a dozen years and cost him millions of dollars so that he could keep his rightfully purchased domain. They got courts to file official rulings that he could not speak bad of Nissan cars, which he then overturned and filled his website with notes about how "NISSAN CARS SUCKS" for a few years, etc. Then when it seemed he had finally won, he died of COVID19.

There are people whose entire job is to make the law service the needs of wealth, and the law is written to be so nonsensically complicated that it can always be bent to their will. I have even had Hive posts of mine deleted mysteriously for speaking bad of Microsoft in the last 6-12 months. Evil walks among us, why the heck would you think you could "sleep well at night" if not but for your own willingness to demand it to be so until death?

We all want the right to sleep comfortably, but some of us want it a little bit more than most people. I'm going to take a nap.
 
Last edited:
Top