Bioware Revises NWN EULA 216
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.
Whatever...... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Whatever...... (Score:2)
Re:Whatever...... (Score:2)
How hard is this to understand? I walk into a book store and buy the book. I go home and find that the book has a slip of paper on the inside cover that states something ridiculous like "By opening this book, you agree not to lend, sell, or talk about this book". I would laugh just as much about that as I do EULAs. They are a joke, and there have already been court cases where they have been found invalid.
Re:Whatever...... (Score:3, Informative)
No, you are buying exactly one copy of not just the physical book, but the story contained within. The only thing that copyright gives anyone is the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work. That's it! It does not magically confer ownership of ideas to anyone.
You may sell your book under the doctrine of First Sale without having to pay royalties (or 'liscense fees' if you will) to the content owners, for that has already been paid once.
As can I sell or give away a copy of any piece of software I have legally purchased.
EULA's by themselves have been found legal, its parts in the EULA's that have not been legally tested.
Really? [linuxjournal.com]
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
You do not purchase something, you liscense the use of it.
The above court decision would clearly disagree.
Don'y buy the propaganda. It doesn't matter how many 'education' campaigns are waged by software publishers, it doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, purchasing an item and not a license.
Re:Whatever...... (Score:3, Informative)
What if they included in the EULA that by using the software you give up the right to your first born. Now, clearly, even if you signed that before you got the product, such a contract could not be enforced. There are certain rights that can not be signed away by anyone at all. I'm not saying the rights which the EULA restricts can not be signed away, but stop making these blanket statements and pretending everything is black and white.
It's kind of like people's reaction to a monopoly of a non-essential good. "Well if you don't like their prices, don't buy it!" In an efficient market there are other factors besides what you're willing to pay that will decide the price.
Re:Whatever...... (Score:2)
Anyway, you can't give up your right to vote by contract, and they can't force you to vote Republican or Democrat by contract. You can't give up your right to free speech by contract (although they can prevent you from saying *specific* things.
Bioware did a Good Thing (tm) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bioware did a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Prebought into submission..... (Score:2)
We just can't catch a break
Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:1)
Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:2)
Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:1)
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)
Re:Prebought into submission..... (Score:2)
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.
Awwww (Score:1)
I like this part -- (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
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.
What rights indeed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Modifing an existing product and selling the modification is a true american princepal.
Examples:
You buy a new car and figure out a way to increase its horsepower with $20 dollars worth of parts, and procede to sell the modification kits on ebay for $30 dollars. Not only is this very very legal, it is also quite widespread (car fanatics are everywhere
You buy a portable gaming system that for reasons totally unknown has no backlight, and design one and sell it on your own website. Huh, never heard of this one, huh?
Wake up, no matter what some silly EULA says, aftermarket modifications that you spend your time on are yours. If you spend 80 hours on a modification, and its completly your own work, no judge would let a company steal those rights from you because of some contract you did not sign before the sale. If you sign a contract before the sale, now, thats entirely different.
copyright is the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
While the enforceability of EULAs is still being tested in the courts and tweaked by the likes of UCITA, it is copyright law that dominates, here. Copyright law grants to the author the exclusive right to create derivative works. You cannot mod, so to speak, "Gone With the Wind."
There was (and may still be) a group working on a Matrix FPS mod. It's a waste of time, because Warner Bros. has granted an exclusive Matrix license to a commercial game company. If the mod is any good, it will be suppressed, just like the Alien TC for Doom.
The NWN EULA adds to, rather than detracts from, fair use. I just don't find the additional grants compelling.
Re:copyright is the problem (Score:2)
1) Including original copyrighted material along with your mod.
2) Using the original characters.
With respect to the first one, a Neverwinter module doesn't contain what can reasonably be considered Bioware's copyrighted material. Any textures that are included in the module will be the ones that aren't included in the game. Environment, monster, item, and character models are also part of the game rather than the mod. Any text in the mod was entered by the author - it may be copyrighted by someone else, nut it doesn't have to be.
With the second one, that's even more uncertain [amazon.com]. But even if it is true, there's no reason a module has to contain characters from the game.
In other words, while it is possible for a mod to "Gone With the Wind" or a Neverwinter module to fall afoul of copyright law, it is not necessary. Therefore, any restrictions on all mods are indeed infringing your rights.
parody and derivative works (Score:2)
The first question is whether a work is derivative. Much of the debate over the "viral" nature of the GNU GPL is actually a debate over what constitutes a derivative work. Does inclusion of a header constitute derivation? What about a plugin, which may essentially use a naming convention?
I don't know the ins and outs of NWN modules, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that one could be held to be derivative.
Re:copyright is the problem (Score:2)
If it is within fair use, why not.
"2) Using the original characters."
Why the hell not? Monopolies on copying something I understand. Monopolies on an invention I understand. Monopolies on a mere fictional character? Completely bogus. Copyright only covers COPYING.
Re:copyright is the problem (Score:2)
Er, what are you smoking, and where can I get some? A neverwinter module is distinct from a mod in the traditional sense, in that it is created with tools supplied with the game using the game's supplied artwork, etc. Any module, as such, will be using Bioware's copyrighted material; even under the most restrictive interpretation of the legal scope of EULA's, their restrictions are okay, if not necessarialaly nice -- if you don't agree, you can't use their copyrighted textures, sounds, etc, and thus have no legal standing to distribute your module.
You aren't distributing their material (Score:2)
It's kind like saying that because you used MS office to write your term paper, that MS owns the copyright to it. Which of course makes no sense.
Re:You aren't distributing their material (Score:2)
It's kind like saying that because you used MS office to write your term paper, that MS owns the copyright to it. Which of course makes no sense.
That's pretty much the issue here. MS doesn't declare in their EULA that they own the copyright to anything you create in Word. Bioware actually does have something similar to that in their EULA. The question is whether the terms of the EULA are really enforceable.
Re:copyright is the problem (Score:2)
Re:copyright is the problem (Score:2)
This whole thing seems much more like 'skinning' or 'themeing' the app than doing any sort of 'mod' anyways, even though the term 'module' applies.
Anyone can 'theme' or 'skin' their prorietary software without a fuss as long as they have API's to work with... M$ only complains when you attempt to copy their particular 'theme' and use it on Gnome or KDE for instance.
Re:What rights indeed... (Score:2)
Because books don't have a sticker that you have to break before opening warning that you must agree to the liscense or return the product. Nor do they have a liscense saying "You do not own this software. You are granted a limited liscense to use this software..." Almost all software is liscensed. It is copyrighted only to prevent someone who "found it on the street" from freely distributing it (since they cannot be bound by a liscense agreement which you cannot prove they had to agree to).
Re:What rights indeed... (Score:2)
Re:What rights indeed... (Score:2)
Also, and I don't have a source for this, I thought the courts had held the that first sale doctrine only protected your right to sell unopened copies of softare without restriction.
Re:What rights indeed... (Score:2)
It was first established by [harvard.edu]
judicial decision, then later codified into law.
Re:What rights indeed... (Score:2)
If, however, it is a packaged campaign that he used all his own textures, ideas, and insights on, then I would say who are you to take away his right to sell his work for a profit? He isn't selling your game, simple an addition to your game. And if it is a quality piece of work, it can only help the sales of your game, as it requires your game to run! As long as he isn't stealing your textures or ideas to sell his game, how can you say that you had a hand in his work?
Publishers print "unauthorised game guides" all the time I don't see how this would be any different.
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
With most software, you don't get to *read* the EULA until you've already bought it, opened the box, broken the shrink-wrap on the CD case, and started to install it.
Then you get to read the EULA in a little tiny scrolling textbox.
If you agree to their conditions, fine, you click on "Accept" and you continue the installation.
If you disagree, you stop the install, and immediately run into a problem. Most stores won't take opened software back - unless the media is defective (IE: the cds are scratched and won't run). Depending on the store, you *might* be able to convince the manager to allow the return - but most of the time they'll point at their "store policy" which says you can't return it.
So...what to do? You can't generally go to the manufacturer, as they don't take returns of software purchased elsewhere. You can't return it to the store you purchased it from, for the reasons above. You're basically stuck with software that you won't install, and can't get a refund for.
In most other industries, if you have to agree to a contract before using a product, that contract is offered up front, before purchase, and your point is valid -- "Don't like it, don't buy it". But with software, in most cases, it's quite tough to do that.
Kudos to Bioware for actually publishing the EULA for review *before* purchase, at least for those who can find it. People who don't know it's published, or who pick NWN up as an "impulse buy" are still in the same sticky situation.
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
What "Rights" exactly. You buy the game if you agree with their conditions. If you disagree, you don't buy it. Simple.
/. Everyone was pissed at the fact that Bioware claimed that they could distribute mods that you create and also prohibit you from distributing them, essentially stealing your mods. They tried to claim that the EULAs for most popular games do this, but every single example they gave got shot down because they were just plain wrong. This new EULA is only a slight improvement in that area. It still seems to allow them to revoke your right to distribute your mods, and then they can proceed to distribute the mod themselves. That's really not an improvement as far as I'm concerned, and I intend to write another email to the guy from Bioware to let him know this. Hopefully they will revise it again to correct the problem.
Or, in this case, if you don't agree with the terms, you let Bioware know that you don't, and why. That's what happened when the original story ran here on
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
OK, and what if I don't agree to the EULA?
I install the software anyway (perfectly legal under First Sale and Fair Use doctrines), use it to make my own mod (which is 100% my own work).
What then?
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
If you believe this, you don't know ANYTHING about how the real world works.
Suppose if a car company put put the phrase "By driving your car, you agree to give Ford Inc. your first born child, to use in it's new Asian Sweatshop." in it's "End User Driving Agreement", then everybody would have to give Ford their kids?
In a word - NO.
Re:I [don't] like this part -- (Score:2)
Re:I'm not giving up my copyright (Score:2)
Re:I'm not giving up my copyright (Score:2)
Re:I'm not giving up my copyright (Score:2)
the most important part of any game (Score:1)
Lending illegal? (Score:3, Funny)
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...
Re:Lending illegal? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Lending illegal? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Lending illegal? (Score:2)
Re:Lending illegal? (Score:2)
Sorry, just had to chime in with agreement. There aren't nearly enough Satch fans.
soul (Score:4, Funny)
95% perfect, good but not great. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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"
simple solution to that (Score:2)
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.
Re:95% perfect, good but not great. (Score:2)
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.
Re:95% perfect, good but not great. (Score:2)
Sign your mod inside of your creation (Score:2)
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.
A change for the better. (Score:1, Redundant)
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.
Re:A change for the better. (Score:2)
Re:A change for the better. (Score:2)
> 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.)
Re:A change for the better. (Score:2)
If you're going to say that they have a right to demand some level of involvement in the adventure from the other players, then the worry about somebody legally strongarming an innocent DM who was running a server for friends only arises.
I don't think it'd work too well but I don't think anyone will do it. My real point was that I can see huge problems arising when they attempt to legally bar pay-to-play but allow private servers.
Sloppy (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Sloppy (Score:2)
Whatever happend to solid state mass storage anyways
Re:Sloppy (Score:2)
Re:Sloppy (Score:2)
now you see why we have such hard times getting newer games one linux- cause it's so damn flexible!
Re:Sloppy (Score:2)
no worries (Score:1)
Can someone post the diffs (Score:1)
At least they are trying (Score:3, Insightful)
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
there is no try, only do (Score:2)
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.
Well it could be worse... (Score:1)
Doesn't look that different (Score:1)
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).
Re:Doesn't look that different (Score:2)
I agree; the new liscense is better than before, but keep in mind being spit on is technically better than being shit on.
One reason why it's good (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:mod v map (Score:2)
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$$.
Re:mod v map (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Credit where it's due (Score:2)
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.
Re:Credit where it's due (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:to yoink, or not to yoink (Score:2)
> 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.
Re:to yoink, or not to yoink (Score:3, Insightful)
in many cases, that's fair use. which happens to be legal.
//rdj
What about using PD resources? (Score:2)
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)
well (Score:3, Funny)
Link Moved (Score:4, Informative)
They just archived the old forums and moved it.
At least they encourage you serving your own game. (Score:2)
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.
Scenario : Street Lawyer Comments Welcome (Score:2, Interesting)
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?'
Re:Scenario : Street Lawyer Comments Welcome (Score:2)
But as he purchased the game, he'd have those rights anyway - so he hasn't lost anything.
attempt to distribute something based on work someone else has done
But he's not distributing anything except his own work. If the module is 100% his own creation, he's not distributing anything owned by anyone else. The graphics, models, etc are all part of the game - he's just distributing a script that tells the game what to do with them.
Just because it requires the game to run, doesn't make it a derivative work - or do you consider that all Windows apps are derivative works because they require Windows to work? (And if that were the case, that would make NWN property of Microsoft.)
Re:Scenario : Street Lawyer Comments Welcome (Score:2)
"NWN property of Microsoft" as if it won't be released for any other OS... (Linux, Mac OS X)
Just for those interested in the Linux version (Score:2)
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)
Perhaps some industrious soul could post a diff between the old and new EULAs?
-
will we have to buy it twice? (Score:2)
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?
Unfair! Mod this parent to Funny! (nt) (Score:1)
Re:SNES or Genesis = Win or (insert OS here) (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason people are upset with no linux binary is because THEY SAID THERE WOULD BE ONE. In fact even stores thought there would be one, so people ACTUALLY PUT MONEY DOWN ON A LINUX VERSION!!
This is like Nintendo promising Mario for the Genesis - going so far as to say it hundreds of times - and have it on their webpage - announce in stores that mario for the genesis was coming so you had better preorder now - thousands of peole "buying" it - and then nintendo saying "Nah, we don't feel like it any more"
DONT COMMENT ON THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!
I am a linux gamer - but I am NOT that upset over this whole thing. I am buying the game tomorrow (already preordered at Gamestop) - and will be dual booting - then when the binary comes out I will use that in linux.
Derek
Re:SNES or Genesis = Win or (insert OS here) (Score:2)
This is slashdot, what do you expect? Insightful, informative, and interesting posts? LOL
-
Re:Technical Requirements (Score:2)
yep, it's the difference between X86 and PPC, unfortunately that is the hardware tax my fellow PPC'ers pay, though unreasonably so since as well.. maybe they will include Linux d/ls for free with the Mac purchase, making you Linux freaks the common bond. [yellowdoglinux.com]
Re:I feel sorry for Bioware (Score:4, Insightful)
My issue with Bioware/Infogrames is the same as I have with the game industry in general: they are no longer satisfied with the concept of make a product, sell the product, spend the money. Rather, every game I've purchased in maybe the last four years has attempted to place a set of unnecessary restrictions on me after I bought it; restrictions that go beyond any other category of product in 'protecting the company's interests'. I find it to be a degrading process, as much so as the 'copy protection' they drape every wafer of plastic with to prevent me from running the game from my hard drive. Meanwhile, pirates are happily breaking both with ease, so the only people getting screwed are you and me. But the companies don't give a shit, the protections and EULAs get worse, and consequently I haven't purchased more than one or two games a year (which has made the migration to Linux easier, but that's another story).
Bioware just got singled out on this, is all. Derek French was right when he said that other companies regularly put these sorts of provisions in their own EULAs. The reason I've taken any interest in criticizing their agreement is precisely because I think that Bioware is one of those rare companies that has broken into the mainstream PC gaming world while maintaining a connection with its fans. So please don't misintepret our (well, at least my) push for EULA changes as a personal attack on Bioware; as I said in a post in the first story on this I just want to make sure that our interests are protected in addition to their own. That said, I appreciate that they did listen to us and made an attempt to address our concerns, and while I'm still not entirely pleased with the result I do recognize that there are likely forces at work against their control from Wizards of the Coast, Infogrames, etc. and fully intend to buy a copy.
The fanboys who were screaming about or at the people who brought their legitimate concerns to Bioware can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. They're among the ones who guarantee the continued encroachment of EULAs on our ability to enjoy our purchases.
Re:This game is deader than dead... (Score:2)
"send out fax to unexpecting player... there's a bomb in the building!... " see how many people remember they have signed up for 'The Game'.