- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,306
In this discussion, I am going to cover what I believe does and doesn't deserve credit in any given resource.
To begin with, I raise this point up now as this is starting to become a large issue in the JASS section (primarily between me and well, everyone else). Certainly, someone should always be credited for their work. If you are using their work without crediting them, that is tantamount to stealing their work. If you were to use a model in a map without crediting the person who made that model, that is almost like saying that you made the model yourself, which is lying about your own work. This dishonesty is usually not tolerated in communities, both professional and unprofessional.
When is a person due credit for their work? If you were to create your own footman model, would you then need to credit Blizzard for the creation of the footman model? Does Blizzard need to credit every other game in existence that has ever made a footman model?
My thoughts are that you should never have to credit anyone for any ideas. People should only be due credit when their actual work was used. For example, if the footman model was simply edited, Blizzard should be credited for the original model. If the footman model was completely made from scratch, none of Blizzard's own work went into that model, so they aren't due any credit.
In code, things can become a bit trickier as you don't just reuse someone else's code as it is. You implement someone's design into your own code. Does this mean that you have to credit the first person to ever make a queue for that queue simply because you are using it? No. Does this means that you need to credit any external resources that you are using like Jasshelper or other libraries? No. What this means is that you need to credit people for implementations that you are actually using as a direct result of their resource (meaning that you took their implementation/code). This can involve rewrites of resources or even brand new resources.
Yes, the U.S. government does allow you to patent ideas, but this then leads to absolutely whacked out things like Microsoft attempting to patent the word "word," as in Microsoft Word. Rather than patenting ideas, people should only be allowed to patent the implementations of those ideas, for example, patenting the Microsoft Word software. This doesn't mean that someone else can't make exactly the same software, this just means that someone can't go out and steal your work and then claim it as your own.
Let us now delve into a few recent developments in the JASS section. purgeandfire111 wrote a resource called Damage Control that allowed users to prioritize damage events. I looked at this resource and thought it was a great idea. I quickly looked at the implementation that it was using to see if it actually pulled that idea off well and discovered that it didn't. Upon learning so, I then wrote my own implementation that did exactly the same thing and had purge's resource graveyarded. Was this unfair? Was this me stealing his work?
The big question here is does being the first one to write a resource, even if that resource was written horribly, give you the right to deny anyone else of ever writing the same resource ever again even if they wrote their own implementation completely from scratch? This is where we must define what a resource is. Is the resource defined by what it accomplishes or is it defined by its actual code: the implementation. If it is defined by what it accomplishes, then anyone making any footmen wars map shouldn't be allowed to make footmen wars maps because someone already made it, thus giving them control of the entire genre.
If we look out to real world example, we'll see how companies have taken DotA's idea and turned it into real games. Did they give credit to the original DotA? No. The reason for this is because they didn't use any of the actual implementations that DotA used. They used the idea, but they didn't take from any of the work that the original creator of DotA did. In the same way, my new resource that did exactly the same thing as Purge's resource did not take from any of Purge's code and had a very unique implementation. Because the mechanics behind the two resources are different, the two resources are different. Furthermore, Purge did not receive any credit as none of his implementations went into the new resource. He did not even get credit for the idea of prioritized damage.
Now we look to Bribe's Missile Recycler resource. In the same way, I looked at his resource and came to the conclusion that it was done poorly. I then told him why and he began working towards improving it using the designs I gave him. I then decided that as those designs were my own, I should just submit my own resource. From here, I only credited Bribe, the original creator of the resource, for one small pitiful feature: timestamps for delayed recycling. He didn't get credit for the idea or any of the countless hours he spent on creating his resource. Of course this is going to make him feel bitter, but does he deserve credit for my own work?
I now come to the final conclusion. A person shouldn't be credited for anything other than any of their original work that was used. For models, this could mean working from someone else's model (an edit, even if the edit results in something totally different). For textures, this could mean working off of someone else's texture. For maps, this could mean using someone else's map template or code or models or anything else that someone else made that was put into the map. For coding resources, this would mean only crediting people for their algorithms/code that made it into the new resource.
If two models or resources end up looking identical but the second person did not use any of the first person's work to create that new identical thing, then the first person doesn't deserve any credit for that new identical thing as their work in no way contributed to it being created.
This may not fall in line with how U.S. patenting works, but U.S. patenting is done in a messed up manner anyways.
You may say that just having the idea is a valuable thing, but actually implementing that idea is much more work than suddenly thinking, "wouldn't it be cool if I made a game that did so and so."
The implementations of an idea are what are important, not the ideas themselves.
I thus end my argument on what deserves credit and what doesn't. I look forward to hearing everyone else's take on the issue.
To begin with, I raise this point up now as this is starting to become a large issue in the JASS section (primarily between me and well, everyone else). Certainly, someone should always be credited for their work. If you are using their work without crediting them, that is tantamount to stealing their work. If you were to use a model in a map without crediting the person who made that model, that is almost like saying that you made the model yourself, which is lying about your own work. This dishonesty is usually not tolerated in communities, both professional and unprofessional.
When is a person due credit for their work? If you were to create your own footman model, would you then need to credit Blizzard for the creation of the footman model? Does Blizzard need to credit every other game in existence that has ever made a footman model?
My thoughts are that you should never have to credit anyone for any ideas. People should only be due credit when their actual work was used. For example, if the footman model was simply edited, Blizzard should be credited for the original model. If the footman model was completely made from scratch, none of Blizzard's own work went into that model, so they aren't due any credit.
In code, things can become a bit trickier as you don't just reuse someone else's code as it is. You implement someone's design into your own code. Does this mean that you have to credit the first person to ever make a queue for that queue simply because you are using it? No. Does this means that you need to credit any external resources that you are using like Jasshelper or other libraries? No. What this means is that you need to credit people for implementations that you are actually using as a direct result of their resource (meaning that you took their implementation/code). This can involve rewrites of resources or even brand new resources.
Yes, the U.S. government does allow you to patent ideas, but this then leads to absolutely whacked out things like Microsoft attempting to patent the word "word," as in Microsoft Word. Rather than patenting ideas, people should only be allowed to patent the implementations of those ideas, for example, patenting the Microsoft Word software. This doesn't mean that someone else can't make exactly the same software, this just means that someone can't go out and steal your work and then claim it as your own.
Let us now delve into a few recent developments in the JASS section. purgeandfire111 wrote a resource called Damage Control that allowed users to prioritize damage events. I looked at this resource and thought it was a great idea. I quickly looked at the implementation that it was using to see if it actually pulled that idea off well and discovered that it didn't. Upon learning so, I then wrote my own implementation that did exactly the same thing and had purge's resource graveyarded. Was this unfair? Was this me stealing his work?
The big question here is does being the first one to write a resource, even if that resource was written horribly, give you the right to deny anyone else of ever writing the same resource ever again even if they wrote their own implementation completely from scratch? This is where we must define what a resource is. Is the resource defined by what it accomplishes or is it defined by its actual code: the implementation. If it is defined by what it accomplishes, then anyone making any footmen wars map shouldn't be allowed to make footmen wars maps because someone already made it, thus giving them control of the entire genre.
If we look out to real world example, we'll see how companies have taken DotA's idea and turned it into real games. Did they give credit to the original DotA? No. The reason for this is because they didn't use any of the actual implementations that DotA used. They used the idea, but they didn't take from any of the work that the original creator of DotA did. In the same way, my new resource that did exactly the same thing as Purge's resource did not take from any of Purge's code and had a very unique implementation. Because the mechanics behind the two resources are different, the two resources are different. Furthermore, Purge did not receive any credit as none of his implementations went into the new resource. He did not even get credit for the idea of prioritized damage.
Now we look to Bribe's Missile Recycler resource. In the same way, I looked at his resource and came to the conclusion that it was done poorly. I then told him why and he began working towards improving it using the designs I gave him. I then decided that as those designs were my own, I should just submit my own resource. From here, I only credited Bribe, the original creator of the resource, for one small pitiful feature: timestamps for delayed recycling. He didn't get credit for the idea or any of the countless hours he spent on creating his resource. Of course this is going to make him feel bitter, but does he deserve credit for my own work?
I now come to the final conclusion. A person shouldn't be credited for anything other than any of their original work that was used. For models, this could mean working from someone else's model (an edit, even if the edit results in something totally different). For textures, this could mean working off of someone else's texture. For maps, this could mean using someone else's map template or code or models or anything else that someone else made that was put into the map. For coding resources, this would mean only crediting people for their algorithms/code that made it into the new resource.
If two models or resources end up looking identical but the second person did not use any of the first person's work to create that new identical thing, then the first person doesn't deserve any credit for that new identical thing as their work in no way contributed to it being created.
This may not fall in line with how U.S. patenting works, but U.S. patenting is done in a messed up manner anyways.
You may say that just having the idea is a valuable thing, but actually implementing that idea is much more work than suddenly thinking, "wouldn't it be cool if I made a game that did so and so."
The implementations of an idea are what are important, not the ideas themselves.
I thus end my argument on what deserves credit and what doesn't. I look forward to hearing everyone else's take on the issue.
