Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Bioware Revises NWN EULA 216

Posted by michael from the legalese dept.
malaire writes "Assistant Producer Derek French of Neverwinter Nights has posted the new EULA for all to see. This addresses most concerns raised by the community about user-created content for the game." Our story noting the EULA concerns makes interesting, if somewhat confusing, reading.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bioware Revises NWN EULA More

Bioware Revises NWN EULA

Comments Filter:
  • Like anyone is going to read the EULA now anyways.....
    • It doesn't really matter if you read it... you're still responsible for having read it and will be dealt with as such. Read it. Don't read it. Users will still be accountable for what it says. The revision is nice to see and shows that at least some people are paying attention.

  • Bioware did a Good Thing (tm) (Score:5, Informative)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:21AM (#3721162)
    Okay, if anyone actually bothered to READ the EULA, they will see that Bioware has actually done a Good Thing (tm). Now you actually have to distribute your module, as opposed to simply "serving" it. Which I suppose means that if 5,000 people play under me as a DM, they cant touch it, but if I send it to Billy Bob jr to play on his Lindows machine, its fair game. :)
  • I've already bought this game on the promise of a multiplatform game that will run on my linux machine out-of-the-box. Bioware ships the game with no linux client - with the old 'linux client to follow' excuse. Now this.

    We just can't catch a break ... of course, none of this will matter, because the 200 people that are about to post 'don't buy the game', 'let your wallet do the talking' or 'boycott Bioware' will be doing the same damn thing I'm doing today - calling the store like madmen so we can skate work early and begin playing.
    • Unfortunantly it SHIPS today, and is out tomorrow... of course, I will be the first through the door if thats not true. :)
    • I have a mac, I'm stuck until November which is exactly when I won't have time to play.
      • Cool part is that by the time we Macsters get it we'll have Jaguar and it's lovely full on hardware accelerated OpenGL implementation via honest to goodness Apple detailed/anal-retentive/attention to details and the love of a really well respected port company (who have BTW ported several games into more efficient and better coded versions than the originals).

        That is not to mention that there will be all those wonderful new mods out there to play with and all the stupid last minute bugs will have been fixed.

        Luckily this is also a game which will become timeless, unlike the MMOGs out there that seemed to get rooted and hax0r3d by the time we get on the scene, mostly 'cause it is independent of a 'super-server' world system.

        Maybe X-mas vacation is more your style anyways.

    • I won't be rushing out the door for it!

      I'll be waiting until after Origins, when I don't have pressure to finish other things ;)

    • Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No kidding, with all the people rushing out to buy Linux games it makes you wonder why Loki went out of business. Oh, wait...

    • I won't be telling people not to buy it.. I'll be first in line at the store when the Linux clients become available.

      Although, with the kernel oops I just got (probably) from using the NVidia kernel driver, I wonder how smart an idea it is to try and do 3d gaming on Linux. Sure would be nice if there was some way for NVidia to take the source code for their kernel driver over to RedHat or SuSe or somebody and have it checked out.

  • Too bad they still get to sleep with your mom, or your sister, or your dog. I had enough of that with the Baldurs Gate 2 EULA. (read the forums)

  • I like this part -- (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tranvisor ( 250175 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:25AM (#3721178) Homepage
    6. Revocation of Rights. Infogrames and/or BioWare may at any time and in their sole discretion revoke your right to make your Variations publicly available (whether you are Distributing or Serving), provided that Infogrames and/or BioWare shall not revoke your right to Distribute a Variation if Infogrames and/or BioWare is, at the time of such revocation, using or distributing such Variation.

    So they actually put in their EULA that if they sell a expansion pack with your mod in it, they won't take away your distribution rights of said mod just to bump their profits. :)
    • 6. Revocation of Rights. Infogrames and/or BioWare may at any time and in their sole discretion revoke your right to make your Variations publicly available (whether you are Distributing or Serving), provided that Infogrames and/or BioWare shall not revoke your right to Distribute a Variation if Infogrames and/or BioWare is, at the time of such revocation, using or distributing such Variation.
      There is nothing to prevent them from revoking your right to make your variations publicly available just before they start using or distributing your variation.

      That is, the EULA says they can't revoke your right when they are using or distributing your stuff; but, they leave the door wide open to take away your rights...and THEN start using and distributing your stuff.
  • Is having a developer who cares more about the players, and the game itself, than anything else(i.e. money) Any game with a developer who doesn't LOVE thier game is doomed.

  • Lending illegal? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bollie ( 152363 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:35AM (#3721194)
    From section 2:

    You may not copy, rent, lend, lease, sublicense, distribute, publicly display, create derivative works based upon the Software (except as provided in Section 3 below) or otherwise commercially exploit the Software (including, without limitation, hosting pay-per-play servers).

    Copy, rent, lease, sublicense and all those junk I understand, but forbidding me to lend it to my friend is going overboard. Ah, well, I'll just have to exchange it for another game then ;-)

    Also, since the end-user can't publicly display NWN, it seems like they'll be releasing them in nondescript black boxes then...

    • This is nothing new. Ever read the FBI WARNING that comes on before movies on VHS/DVD/etc? Unauthorizedending isn't allowed. Most CD audio, especially from the big labels, has a prohibition against unauthorized lending of the CD to anyone if you look hard enough.

      While making me technically a criminal because I lent my copy of Alpha Centauri or the latest Britney Spears album to a friend, they really don't want to go after me. This basically allows them to come down on anyone who rents movies, video games, CDs, etc, without paying them a juicy licensing fee for the priviledge. Of course, regular public libraries get around this somehow, either by statute or custom, or both, not sure.

      • Re:Lending illegal? (Score:4, Funny)

        by dfenstrate ( 202098 ) <(dfenstrate) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:31AM (#3721430)
        You have ever right to lend the latest Britney Spears album to a friend. It falls well under fair use, and they can't take that away by simply putting in an EULA for a freakin CD.

        For movies, last time I read the FBI warning, it mentioned things like 'public viewings' and 'commercial displays'. It never says anything about lending. Go read it again.

        The thing that sould most interest you, however, is how good of a friend you lend it to. If they never give it back, they have your best interests in mind, and have shown there trueness.

        Now, a Satriani, Mudhens, or Beethoven album, they damn well better give back.

        • Actually, I recall this being claimed on a few DVDs and CDs I've seen. See, the reason they can supposedly claim 'no lending' in an EULA is because some idiot Federal judge back in the 80s ruled that installing or running software involved making a copy. Not only that, but paying the software company for a copy of the software did not innately grant you a right to make this copy. So EULAs were supposedly legal because of this, despite violating practically every aspect of contract law. (No reference, sorry. Anyone care to provide one that proves/debunks this?)

          Well, guess what? It can be argued, probably with a fair chance of success given the typical American ignorance of technology, that the same legal theory can be applied to digital media. As the player has to use a copy operation to read/process the data. So you're making a copy of a copyrighted work, which means you're an evil, child-raping pirate unless you've got a valid license. Which, incidentally, the friend you lent that Star Wars DVD to doesn't have!

          Not that they'd ever enforce it. It looks bad, and this legal argument's on very shaky ground. A technically competent judge or lawyer could demolish it in minutes. Not that you'll ever find one (other than maybe Lawrence Lessig), or that the few there are would ever be allowed near a case involving this precedent.

        • Yay! Satriani!

          Sorry, just had to chime in with agreement. There aren't nearly enough Satch fans. :)

  • soul (Score:4, Funny)

    by dallask ( 320655 ) <codeninja.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:35AM (#3721195) Homepage
    Im still looking for the part where I agree to give my soul to bioware when I buy the game. That always hapens when I buy one of these games.

  • 95% perfect, good but not great. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psoriac ( 81188 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:42AM (#3721220)
    Well, this is good news; the rewording is a large step in the right direction although they still haven't crossed the finish line yet.

    Essentially they have revised the clause everyone was upset over to read "we can force you to stop giving away your mod, but only if we're not selling it too". This addresses the concerns people had with Bioware stealing their customers' mods, while still giving them a legal right to stop the distribution of mods they/someone finds offensive. While cencorship is still implied, it at least removes the possibility that they can unfairly profit off your hard work.

    However, they still added the weasel words that would allow them to include your mod in a CD they're selling and not give you credit for it. While it does they they will make every effort to give you credit, it does not say they *have* to; in fact they give themselves permission to forget; so it basically still boilds down to "we'll give you credit if we feel like making the effort".

    Oh well, if your mod is that popular, people will most likely have already heard of you and know you made it. I know that I for one now feel no hesitation in designing and distributing my own mods; whether people will want to play them is another matter. ;)

    • Re:95% perfect, good but not great. (Score:5, Informative)

      by dallask ( 320655 ) <codeninja.gmail@com> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:00AM (#3721301) Homepage
      in legal jargon, they cant say that the WILL give credit, if they miss placeing your name somewhere, you could sue the shit out of them, instead, they say use the phrase "make the best effort to" to imply that they will do their best.

      to put that in context... its the same as me, a freelance software developer, saying in a contract:

      "my company will make the program so that it cant be hacked"

      or

      "my company will make the best effort to construct the application in such a way to avoid user hacks"

      • embed your name in any custom graphics you create or name all the NPC's in the game after family and friends.

        I did that in my D&D modules way back when, of course it wasn't to protect any IP rights I might have had.
    • "Essentially they have revised the clause everyone was upset over to read "we can force you to stop giving away your mod, but only if we're not selling it too". This addresses the concerns people had with Bioware stealing their customers' mods, while still giving them a legal right to stop the distribution of mods they/someone finds offensive. While cencorship is still implied, it at least removes the possibility that they can unfairly profit off your hard work."

      If they ever prohibited you from distributing your mod AFTER you had already put it up for download, the thing would spread like wildfire through the P2P networks and underground NWN community. The distro channels for this kind of stuff is amazing. My brother runs one of the most popular independent BG/IWD/Planescape/etc mod/customiztaion sites out there and I can tell you that with people like him making mods and running the scene, Bioware will NOT be able to retroactively prevent distribution of mods.

      Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's out.

      • Yes, but at that point you are distributing it without their authority, so *they* can't be sued for your disgusting and offensive module. This clause is for their protection against litigation, not to shut you up.
    • Level designers do this all the time. It's a nice sure way of ensuring posterity and guarantees people will pay some attention to the name of the author.

      I'm sure Bioware is just covering it's butt for the case where somebody felt they weren't given 'enough' credit. Put a nice easter egg in your maps which clearly identifies you as the author and you'll be guranteed your authorship will be hard to remove even accidentally.
  • I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is a "good enough change." I can say that they made an effort. Basically, as the EULA now reads, you can "serve" any game you want and BioWare won't take it and distribute it and prevent you from doing so (the worse-case). If you distribute your Modules at all, you grant BioWare the free, permanent (etc etc) right to distribute it too and they can sell it. You still can't sell it.

    They also mention that if they distribute your Mod, they will make "reasonable commercial efforts" to credit the original creators. That is important. If I put my name/company name in the Mod, it is pretty and it is pretty easy to find, I'm pretty sure that BioWare will put my name on the Mod.

    The thing I am unclear on is this: am I allowed to create a Mod, keep it on my own server, never distribute it, and charge people access to it? I'm not selling the Mod. I'm not sure -- I'll need someone who says "IAAL" for a living confirm that one.

    Overall, a good response from a company who is listening to their potential users.

    • Pay-to-play servers are prohibited, and mentioned several times.
    • > The thing I am unclear on is this: am I allowed
      > to create a Mod, keep it on my own server, never
      > distribute it, and charge people access to it?
      > I'm not selling the Mod. I'm not sure -- I'll
      > need someone who says "IAAL" for a living
      > confirm that one.

      The EULA specifically bans pay-for-play servers. However, I'm betting somebody fiddles this. (One such way would be: you buy a password to play on a server. When the game starts, the GM asks for everyone's passwords. If you don't have such a password, all the other PCs kill your character. You aren't charging pay for play because they do get to play, and it's not the GMs responsibility because the other players do the killing.)

  • Sloppy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crizh ( 257304 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:57AM (#3721286) Homepage
    "If the Software is configured for loading onto a hard drive, you may load the Software only onto the hard drive of a single machine and run the Software from only that hard drive"

    Could I not mount the directory, with the Linux server in it, on as many Linux boxes as I wanted?

    Would I not then be able to run the server on ALL of those boxes without breaking the licence?
    • only if the network clients don't use any local swap space or temp files.

      Whatever happend to solid state mass storage anyways
      • So what if I have two hard drives in one machine? NWN is on drive 2, but some of the temporary files or swap is on drive 1. Oops, license infringment.
    • smartass.
      now you see why we have such hard times getting newer games one linux- cause it's so damn flexible!
    • I think what we need is to convince some rich guy with way too much money to spare (i.e. someone who wouldn't blink an eye at setting fire to $10 million) to fund the development of a PC game, who will agree to make the game in the public domain, and see what happens. Will the game make as much/more money as an average, restrictively-licensed PC game? Less money? Be a complete failure due to "piracy"?
  • Look, these folks pretty much have a guaranteed winner on their hands - we're all going to pony up our $55 and play their game for years. I have to believe they'll not lure us in and screw us. We all want this game to realize its potential.
  • diff -u old-eula.txt new-eula.txt, somebody, please ....

  • At least they are trying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <petedaly@ix[ ]tcom.com ['.ne' in gap]> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:02AM (#3721308)
    Neverwinter Nights [amazon.com] may not have a license we are all happy with yet, but at least they are working on it. How many companies have you seen respond to criticism at all when it comes to their licenses? If I remember correctly, Borland has been raked through the coals on something in their license. They said they would fix it, the screaming died down, and the license has not changed.

    An appropriate response to the company may be "wow, it is great you are working through this with us, but what about this part."

    I don't know. It's time for my first cup of coffee.

    -Pete
    • Borland has been raked through the coals on something in their license. They said they would fix it, the screaming died down, and the license has not changed.

      The new EULAs are available here [borland.com].

      The two most onerous clauses in the old EULA granted Borland the right to audit your licenses and required that you waive the right to a jury trial or class-action suit.

  • I think that this EULA addresses some concerns that I and most likely other gamers might have. I like that if you want sole rights to your modules you can't spread them around. It makes sense really; once its in the public domain than your module is free for all... Well done to Bioware for taking a step forward and listening to their die hard fans. On another note, what else struck me was that in the licence there is a provision for illegal and illicit modules, ie modules with pr0n and what else. I think that it is very appropiate for bioware to lay down the law is this respect and keep the community as clean as possible for all age groups. From the article... Section #3 ... (3) your Variations must not contain any libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene, or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties, or contain any viruses, worms, or other malicious code; I personally can't wait until I can afford to go out and buy, perhaps rent can wait another month ;P
  • Based on sections 4 and 5 of the EULA, the changes seem minimal. Basically, they are saying that, provided you _never_ distribute your modules (i.e. only host them), they have no rights to use the modules for their own gain.

    However, if you distribute a module, you hand over control to them (for which they need provide no credit), and they can still revoke your rights to distribute or host the modules.

    Looks to me like they're trying to give the impression of making a concession whilst giving away as little as they can get away with in terms of their rights (and their control of your rights).
    • so is this sorta like a typewriter maker saying, if you type up personal notes, we're not the owners, but if you type up a book, it becomes our property?

      I agree; the new liscense is better than before, but keep in mind being spit on is technically better than being shit on.
      • Let's say I create a module and distribute it. Inside the module it has an item called The UberStick.

        Now you create a module with that stick and distribute it. If I own the rights to the UberStick I can sue you. However since BioWare owns any distributed content, you can safely use any item found in a distributed module(new tilesets, models, storyline) for your own work without fear of being sued.

        You don't have to worry where that new tileset or model came from that you want to use. If it was distributed, it's fair game for your own use.

        If you're an author and still want to protect your IP using NWN modules, you can either:

        A> Trademark your characters or
        B> Simply not distribute it.

        If you don't distribute your work(only host it on the servers you yourself run), then BioWare can't claim it.

        It's not an unreasonable EULA. It's trying to protect BioWare and the community.

  • play, but not mod (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _|()|\| ( 159991 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:15AM (#3721363)
    I'll buy the Linux version if the reviewers say it doesn't suck, but I wouldn't mod this thing with a ten-foot pole. The EULA still forbids use of "any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties" and says "all your mod are belong to us."

    Derek posted on the previous story that it's okay because Quake does it. It doesn't. The Quake 3 EULA gives id no special rights to your mod. If you wish to sell your mod, you can negotiate a separate commercial exploitation license. The Quake 3 EULA says nothing about third party intellectual property. It simply says that id (and Loki) want no part of a lawsuit arising from your mod.

    Put simply, Quake 3 is mod friendly, both technically and legally. Neverwinter Nights is mod hostile.

    • mod v map (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MattW ( 97290 ) <matt@ender.com> on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:48AM (#3721507) Homepage
      There's a difference between a mod and a map. Quake and those like it like to be modded. They publish APIs and such to make developing easier. They ALSO allow map-making, which, like NWN, is an integral part of extending the game, but Bioware does not want or intend for users to mod the game -- just create maps (ie, content). Their previous games have been modded -- new races, spells, monsters, etc, have been added by those clever enough to reverse engineer the formats or those using their tools. But unlike those previous games, Bioware wants people creating a lot of content, but they don't want them changing the core game.

      Aside from that, there's another issue: Bioware, unlike Id, has legal obligations to Wizards of the Coast and Infogrames, to obtain the license for D&D gameplay and the Forgotten Realms setting. Id owns Quake, inside and out.

      I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there is a clear difference. Quake says: do whatever you want, just don't pretend its us and you're on your own. In other words, we don't forbid, but we don't encourage or support. Bioware says: use only as intended, and if we want to, we can stop you from distributing. However, if Bioware gets a copy and says, "We want to stop distribution of this module" -- it will likely be too late. If it is noteworthy, everyone and their mother will have a copy already. Interestingly, the license is actually a little vague on 'redistribution'. So it doesn't say you can redistribute a module you are distributed, but then it basically assumes it with the language from a clause further down. Then when it talks about termination of rights, it specifically says, "...may revoke your right to make YOUR [emp. mine] modifications..." -- in other words, they can tell you to not distribute your content. But guess what -- if you got banned content from someone else before they were told to not distribute it -- you can't be stopped from redistributing it. In fact, I could realistically upload a NWN module anywhere, and the person receiving it can then redistribute as they see fit, since I had permission to give it to them to begin with, and they have no license agreement with Bioware (unless they also own the game, but I'm sure not everyone in the world will have it). Anyhow, its all well and good to say, "We can stop you", but they really can't anyhow.
      • Bioware does not want or intend for users to mod the game -- just create maps (ie, content). Their previous games have been modded -- new races, spells, monsters, etc, have been added by those clever enough to reverse engineer the formats or those using their tools. But unlike those previous games, Bioware wants people creating a lot of content, but they don't want them changing the core game.

        This is demonstrably false. Bioware have provided a convenient method to deliver custom content beyond mapmaking; it's a system they call "hak-paks". Any user-created media (creature models, textures, tilesets, sounds, etc.) can be placed in a hak-pak and downloaded by players prior to playing a module, and the custom media will be seamlessly integrated into the game.

        On the NWN forums there are already people working on adding creatures that were excluded by Bioware, with the explicit consent and even active cooperation from Bioware. NWN is mod-friendly. The EULA is just to cover their a$$.
        • Adding graphics and sounds really doesn't sound that different from adding maps. Wanna add an Irish theme to you campaign, make a map of Ireland, add some pipes and whistles, make a model of a Guiness and some of the Irish myths.

          That's completely different than say making a mod where all the rules change. all that is doing is making it look different. Look at what Strikeforce did to Unreal...you now have endurance, localized damage and all sorts of weapons that act different.

          It sounds like what you are talking about (in quake terms) is coming up with a new model with some funky sounds and connecting to a standard quake server and playin on the standard map - just a little nicer.

          When the game can be changed to allow runes to be caught by players that give them different abilities and so on, then you're talking a mod

  • Credit where it's due (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:39AM (#3721466)

    So much for the "we'll never change it!" approach, stated by Bioware staff in black and white (or blue and white, depending on your colour scheme) when this first came up. :-)

    I think this thread is a little harsh. They obviously have listened to the criticism, and then have made some significant changes to allay people's fears. We should give them due credit for that.

    OTOH, they still seem to be leaving themselves the option of pinching your stuff (e.g., they revoke your right to distribute immediately before releasing their own version of your mod, which they sell without giving you credit). I don't understand this; as they pointed out themselves last time around, screwing the fans that way would be commercial suicide. This game needs people to write mods, and pissing them all off so no-one does is going to kill sales deader than a dodo. That being the case, why bother leaving in a provision you know damn well you'll never use, when it irritates the on-line community you're trying to work with?

    As several here have pointed out, we're all going to go spend our pennies (or cents, or whatever) to buy the game. The thing that can't be taken for granted is that the enthusiasts will then spend their hours writing extensions to it, and that's what this is all about.

    • OTOH, they still seem to be leaving themselves the option of pinching your stuff (e.g., they revoke your right to distribute immediately before releasing their own version of your mod, which they sell without giving you credit).

      No, this seems to have been fixed by this portion here:

      provided that Infogrames and/or BioWare shall not revoke your right to Distribute a Variation if Infogrames and/or BioWare is, at the time of such revocation, using or distributing such Variation.

      In other words, if Bioware is distributing your work, they can't tell you to stop distributing your work. Which is basically the modification I've been campaigning for on the Bioware boards since this thing started.
    • Unhhh...
      ... pointed out, we're all going to go spend our pennies ...

      No, that isn't true. I'm not a dedicated gamer, though I buy one now and then. And I am definitely affected in whether I do so or not by the commentary. If I see a license that makes the distributors look like scheming bastards (the section under discussion), then I'm much less likely to buy. Particularly when it's disguised by weasel-words so that it looks like they're trying to say that they won't claim-jump, when they are retaining the right to first kick you off, and then steal you claim.

      I don't know whether the company intended this, or whether it was some *** lawyer, but the result is that I'm unlikely to buy it.

      N.B.: I probably wouldn't write a mod anyway. I'm not that interested. But I don't like sneaky EULAs. I got enough of that from MS, and now I'm sentitized.

  • As a custom content creator for NWN (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tony_ratboy ( 228844 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:44AM (#3721493) Homepage
    I've been following the EULA issues with extreme interest, being the creator of a detailed original campaign setting planned for use in NWN. (http://www.gloomveil.com) As someone who has generated hundreds of original illustrations, animation, web-games, and writing for his campaign, I knew the Neverwinter version of my campaign hinged on the terms of the EULA (early inquiries into EULA years ago went unanswered).

    The first EULA was a real turn-off. The thought "automatically" licensing my original material to Bioware/Infogrames was chilling, and I resolved myself to the possibility of not producing material for NWN.

    The new EULA is not perfect, but it's better, and I think that's the best we (custom content creators) can demand at this point. Server-side modules seem to be protected at least, and if the downloadable modules are still subject to exploitation, there are many ways a module-maker can give him/herself credit within the module itself. Sometimes it actually benefits an independant creator to have their work distributed on a massive scale by a game company.

    As an original content creator, I have no problems with the portion of the EULA precluding the use of "illegal" or copyrighted material in a module. While it is unfortunate that non-creative people will be put into a difficult spot if they can't "borrow" the LoTR soundtrack, or yoink images from popular fantasy artists, the EULA might actually force the NWN community to work together on completely original content.

    Considering few people in the NWN community understand copyright laws, however, I think we'll still get plenty of modules full of other people's work.

    Go originality! Go! Go!

    • to yoink, or not to yoink (Score:4, Interesting)

      by _|()|\| ( 159991 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @09:14AM (#3721673)
      While it is unfortunate that non-creative people will be put into a difficult spot if they can't "borrow" the LoTR soundtrack, or yoink images from popular fantasy artists, the EULA might actually force the NWN community to work together on completely original content.

      It's already illegal to use content without permission. The EULA should have nothing to say about that (except, perhaps, an indemnity clause). The problem is that it implies that you can't use content with permission. That is, you must only use content for which you own the copyright.

      I'm not sure that's what they mean, but that's what they say.

      • > I'm not sure that's what they mean, but that's
        > what they say.

        It is what they mean.

        Suppose you get permission to make a module based on your friend's story.
        Then you distribute the module. The EULA now requires you to grant rights to Bioware. Unless your friend gave you permission to grant rights to others (tantamount to ownership in the copyright) you couldn't do that.
    • The one question I personally wonder about is
      whether I can publish a module that contains
      PD resources (esp. sounds).

      How could I hand over the copyright to things
      I haven't created and do not own (exclusively)?

  • Free Programmers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by macdaddy357 ( 582412 )
    The way I read this licence agreement, anything you make with this software belongs to Bioware. It's theirs to use as they see fit, and they don't have to compensate you. Employers always claim things that their employees create, but are at least paying them wages. From Bioware, you get nothing. They are going to have a bunch of unpaid "employees" under this EULA, a sweet deal for them to say the least.

  • well (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @09:52AM (#3721921) Homepage
    If you don't agree with the license, you can always go and grab Warcraft III.

  • Link Moved (Score:4, Informative)

    by Battle_Ratt ( 524562 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @10:04AM (#3722021)
    The Link on the article should point to Here [bioware.com]
    They just archived the old forums and moved it.
  • The EULA is a littler better now. It still isn't so great, but then again, no EULA is.

    At least Bioware is encouraging players to set up their own servers and host games...
    UNLIKE other companies [blizzard.com] that will probably sick hordes of lawyers on you if you even try to do that.
  • I would like to make content for NWN, and I would like the ability to distribute it how I like, and retain my own copyright (preventing Bioware from taking away my rights - they may if they wish agree licensing terms with me for my copyrighted work).

    So, I buy NWN, take it home, fire up the installer and then I get my flatmate to click the 'accept the license agreement' button. Next, I play NeverWinterNights, and use their tools to create my own content. I distribute my new content *without any of their original content whatsoever* included.

    Problem solved? I'm not sure.
    1] Is it possible to distribute NWN content without any original content?
    2] Is there an EULA clause saying 'If you install this software, you may not allow anyone else to play the game, or use the tools?'
  • First of all I am glad that the EULA has been changed and seems to meet better approval. We really should thank them for doing this. Unlike Blizzard Bioware have listened to their customers and have not sued them.

    But, people are wondering about the Linux port, so here is what we know:

    "The PC version of Neverwinter Nights will ship to retailers before the end of June. Linux gamers can anticipate the online release of the Neverwinter Nights server at launch and the client program shortly afterward. Linux gamers will still need the Windows version of the game to register at the Neverwinter Nights community site (http://neverwinternights.com) and to import essential game resources into their Linux server and game."

    Thats from the press release, this was followed in the forums that Bioware are going to release those, but no mention is made about maintainability, we do not know if they are going to keep the Linux version up to date.

    NeverWinter Nights is right now appearing in stores, and from what I heard the server version for Linux should be available this week.

    To set minds at ease we figured that you need the Windows version to register the game as it contains the CD key, as well as the game data. We just await the installers.

    StarTux

  • Diff? (Score:2)

    by Alsee ( 515537 )
    Ok, they made changes, but exactly what changes?

    Perhaps some industrious soul could post a diff between the old and new EULAs?

    -
  • "The PC version of Neverwinter Nights will ship to retailers before the end of June. Linux gamers can anticipate the online release of the Neverwinter Nights server at launch and the client program shortly afterward. Linux gamers will still need the Windows version of the game to register at the Neverwinter Nights community site (http://neverwinternights.com) and to import essential game resources into their Linux server and game."

    If the Linux version comes out later, and we need the windows version to register and import "essential game resources", does that mean we have to buy it twice?

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close