So yesterday's discussion in the "Not sure about Steam anymore..." thread brought up some interesting points of view, and caused me to think about some things I hadn't thought about before.

As scripters, as of patch update 1.6, we now have the capacity to reach out and affect other mods, using GetFormFromFile(). Using this function (along with other scripting), someone could:

• Find ObjectReferences, global variables, or any other sort of form used / created by someone else's mod.

• Modify those forms in various ways as allowed by the scripting engine. I could do something as benign as move the references to another location, disable a reference entirely, resolve an alias against that reference to cause it to have new events, modify a global variable, and so on.

There are perfectly valid reasons I may want to do this. The simplest example is compatibility: I may want to turn off one of the settings of a mod or prepare a global variable in a particular way to ensure compatibility. Or, perhaps there are objects in one mod that clip in the same places as a select few objects in some other mod. One could use this method to disable those objects which conflict at runtime. Or the reason may be that, someone wants to manipulate that object in some way, either by scaling it, rotating it, moving it, or removing it, for whatever reason.

Or, say I want to make wooden objects added by your mod flammable. I discover your ObjectReference's FormIDs, resolve them to an alias, and assign an OnHit() event to them. I have now modified the behavior of your content.

As modders, we have (to my knowledge, without external utilities) never had this level of control over another person's work at runtime. It also completely removes copyright from the argument; the script, and all the methods that drive it, would be 100% original content.

So, we have this capability. Now comes the sticky part: permissions, acceptability, and terms of service.

I think we can all agree that the right thing to do whenever affecting anyone's work, either directly or tangentially, is to ask permission to do so. It just makes sense and is the most ethical, human, good natured thing to do. The questions that are considerably more grey are:

• Is permission to alter someone else's work at runtime required? By whom?
  
• Does the nature, circumstances, or quantity of the changes have an effect on its acceptability? Why? (Excluding obvious malicious or hidden intent, which is clearly in the wrong; assume all changes are disclosed to the user)
  
• Is altering someone else's work at runtime against the terms of service of Skyrim Nexus, Steam Workshop, Bethesda, and so on? Source? Are these rules that have yet to be defined? This is especially important to clearly define and be made aware of, as this is what ultimately gets a file taken down.

Example A: Modder A releases mod A, which contains a flaw that can be fixed by simply changing a global from 2 to 3. Modder A refuses to fix the problem, or leaves the community, and never gives anyone permission to redistribute his work. The choice becomes either let the mod die on the vine, or use a script at runtime to fix the problem. Is releasing a script-based solution to the problem ethical, acceptable, and / or against a set of terms of service?

Example B: Modder A releases mod A, which contains an artistic decision that many in the community do not agree with, and the author declines to change it (which is fully within their rights). Modder B releases mod B that modifies a set of forms at runtime in mod A which alter Modder A's artistic decision. How the form is altered is relatively unimportant for the sake of this discussion, as long as we assume that Modder B discloses all changes made and the user is aware of the changes (there are no "hidden" modifications). Does Modder B need permission from Modder A? Is releasing a script-based solution to the problem ethical, acceptable, and / or against a set of terms of service?

An important distinction that I'm trying to draw here is one between "What someone wants" and "What is acceptable / correct / adherent to policy". I believe that they are separate concepts. (Do you?) I'm also trying to draw a line somewhere as to where a modder's rights begin and end. I believe that there should be an absoluteness about the nature of these things, and one person (or set of person's) personal feelings on the matter should not change the fundamental substance of whether or not something is right / wrong, or within / outside policy. (Again, do you?)

Please do me the honor of keeping this discussion civil. I'm not trying to "stir up" anything, nor is this discussion related to any one person or mod; it's about recognizing the power we now have, and coming to a consensus about how we feel about its appropriate use, as well as drawing the lines between what is acceptable to the community, and what is considered against terms of service.

This is an academic discussion and I'd like to keep it that way.

I can see reasons why making such patches could be fine, and not contradict any policies thus far. However, I think that in the second case, at least, permission should be sought, and if the mod author responds in the negative or has made a statement that they do not want such patches made, I think those wishes should be respected, not just by the users, but by the mod hosts; the author of the original mod should be given the final say. Then those that want it changed, could still do it themselves, but not distribute (at least on that hosting site, which leads to intersite conflicts...)


edit: "should" means, as a matter of courtesy and respect.

I think it's a bit rich for people to disallow others making a mod of their mod on the grounds that it spoils their "artistic vision", or whatnot, considering they're themselves spoiling the artistic vision of Bethesda.

If mod A alters mod B and requires B to be installed, then I can't think of any reason why A should not be allowed. Similarly, I don't think that permission should be required to create and distribute such "patch mods" - I don't see how anyone benefits from it, whereas being able to freely create and share fixes for your favourite mods, or even stylistic alterations or anything else, is definitely a good thing. It is, after all, what modding is about in the first place. I do like it when people give me notification when they release a mod that is based on one of my own though, that's good manners.

If mod C alters mod B, but can be used instead of B, ie. is a complete replacement, then I think permission is required, because then you're effectively taking someone else's work and releasing it as your own (credit given aside). The original author should have the final say in that.

EDIT: Whether or not the changes are script/runtime based or not makes no difference to the answers I'd give of the questions asked. It's just a different implementation method, where the questions are more focussed on the ethics, etc. behind making those changes.

Hmm, i did not know this was possible... They have really thrown us (the community) a monkey wrench.

As far as etiquette and respect of one's work goes, I think it will be even more important now more than ever, but the conundrum to which you asked is certainly to what extent does the etiquette need to reach?

I think if you are making a mod that alters another's work then some form of permissions will be needed to insure compatibility and a mutual respect within the community. I think most people will have no problem with "small" changes that will make compatibility possible so long as their mod is not broken and works as intended.

I think Major changes to another's work will certainly require communication on both parts, and if an agreement can not be reached then the respectful thing to do is to not change their work and possibly find a alternate way of completing your work.

Evilgiraffe - I'll combine two of my examples to make a 3rd: Assume that I create a set of wooden dummies that are placed in civil war camps across Skyrim for soldiers to practice on. Then, you create a mod that makes my wooden dummies flammable. I don't like this; I think that my wooden dummies are perfect, and making them flammable is not my artistic direction, and I tell you, "I don't want you to make my dummies flammable".

How much weight should my personal feelings carry? Should I be allowed to unilaterally make that decision? Where does my artistic control end?

Edit:
Good point. However, in terms of what actually gets distributed, this is a vitally important detail. An edited ESP that only contains "modified records" of a required parent mod still contains many of the subrecords of the original author's work. This can be construed as a redistribution of original content. But you're right, in the end, something does get changed.

I know it wasn't directed at me, but you're getting my opinion anyway.

I'd say you wouldn't have a say in the matter. Your personal feelings would not matter one jot to me. So long as my mod required yours, I'd just say what is always said about mods not being to peoples' tastes: "don't like it, don't use it". It's not like I'd be advertising it as an official update/extension to your mod, made with your full support: if I were, then you'd have a say in that matter, but that's about advertising, not mod content (like libel vs. copyright infringement for a RL scale-up).

In my opinion, the example you gave is an example of close-mindedness hampering the artistic growth of the community. The person who built first on your work may be the person to create the next OOO, but because you didn't like what they liked, you decided to stop them being able to share what they liked with others who might also like the same thing. They might get disheartened and not bother. That, I think, would be a shame.

Hmm, well I'd suggest that disputes are resolved through discussion, and if no mutual agreement can be reached, the judgement should be made by the hosting site (yes, this would make a bit more work for them, but I didn't introduce this modification feature!). Also, unofficial patches, made without the original author's consent, should be clearly marked in some way; some uniform way designated by the mod hosting site, just a little bar under the title saying "Made without permissions" so as to clearly notify the user (there may be compatibility issues with patching mods, so it's best to notify the user)
Honestly, I think this should rarely be an issue, as usually modders are happy to let other people make patches for them. In the recent example that I needn't go into, there was no clear need for the patch, as an official one was already made. In which case the hosting site would reject the claim that a patch was requested. In your example, the hosting site would probably deem your argument less reasonable (if communication had broken down, and the patcher could show a demand for it, of course).
Or they could just compare speechcraft and personality levels, and the highest wins...


I formally declare this whole thing to be Confusing.

Trouble with that is that then we end up with a community which has its behaviour split depending on which site people use. Not to mention you seem to be talking about vetting content before it is being displayed, which is not feasible on Nexus, let along the Workshop where there are only 2 moderators. You'd have to hire a small army of people to go through everything that gets uploaded.

It's worked in the past for PES. The issue I see is the moderator of the site not possibly realizing that the patch in question contains zero original content from the required mod, and that everything is done at runtime, and dismissing it on a permissions / copyright basis.

(Assuming that we're saying that there is even a distinction between modifying someone's work at runtime vs. compile time; that's a large part of what this thread was intended to investigate)

Does the existence of an "official" patch cause any subsequent ones to be worthy of site removal, assuming that the patch contains no original work by the required mod? If the official patch did not exist, would it have made the unofficial one more valid, given that there is now a "clear need" for it?

This would allow another modder to basically say, "I don't like that; brand it as unofficial." Again, a unilateral decision (perhaps in conjunction with the site admins) based on the author's feelings at the time.

FYI, we already had this ability in FONV with NVSE's buildRef. It was used to make mods like MCM possible, we also used it create compatiblity patches that can support several combinations of core modules and DLCs in a single file. For planned SkyUI features like the control panel or the HUD framework, it will be used to allow masterless dependencies, and I was glad that Bethesda added this new command because it makes things so much easier. I'm amazed that there are people who consider the "risks" of these commands worth discussing to be honest.

Which is why I noted, "without an external utility". We now have this capacity baked-in to Papyrus. And absolutely, the utility behind it is huge; it is what is going to power much of the compatibility between Frostfall and a whole host of other mods. It's a great boon to have.

But if I use my script to reach out and touch your widget added by your mod, and you don't like that... is it wrong? So wrong that the file deserves removal, and / or loss of respect for me by the rest of the community? Based on what criteria? That's what I'm trying to put a fence around.

There's the obvious overhead that an author would have to deal with; problems that he has to debug that stem from the use of a patch that they don't authorize, which is a waste of their time, energy, and patience. Of course, he can blast on his readme / front page, "I will not support you if you use this patch!" But does he have the right to eliminate the patch from being hosted at one of the major sites if the patch contains zero copyrighted content and whose intentions are clearly disclosed? Should they have that right?

Isn't this somewhat similar to what was already possible with SkyProc patchers?

http://wryemusings.com/Cathedral%20vs.%20Parlor.html seems fairly relevant, as it seems what we have at the moment is a clashing of ideologies (It's a good read for those who haven't seen it).

I'm inclined to agree with Wrye's views, but then I'm not going to disparage anyone who doesn't. If someone expresses a desire to maintain a certain amount of control over their creations, then I think those wishes should be respected. It would be a mistake however to assume that will always going to be the case. A good deal of the modding 'community' is essentially trust based, and I can understand how people could be upset by what they see as a violation of that trust.

One single and all encompassing solution seems to be far fetched, but the real tragedy would be to see the talent and creativity floating around at the moment and in the past, completely disappear.

It very well may be, I'm out of the loop on that one. I guess the major point I'm making is that this method requires no external utilities.

Either way; it doesn't change the core questions posited in my OP regardless of when the functionality was actually introduced or how widely.

Hi Chesko, I'm not sure if you're in the mod author group on the Nexus or not (I think I saw a file article of yours on the Nexus a little while back so it's possible) but we're currently discussing this in length on the private mod forums http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/708954-steam-workshop/page__view__findpost__p__5779230, away from obvious trolls and what not. Feel free to take a peak.

I'm not going to air my thoughts here because it will become bait, but trust me when I say I'd love to promote a Cathedral over Parlor view to modding, especially when it comes to patching. It's about doing it right so that mod authors don't become disgruntled by the obvious trolling that can then occur by the idiots we all know exist out there, something that the current moderation issues on Steam Workshop aren't helping with.

My responses are in bold, Chesko's original points in normal. Should probably be the other way round

I'd also like it if the site had some kind of feedback for individuals. I was thinking that Nexus has (somewhat rarely used) tags, to which we could add "unofficial", "fix patch", "ported" and similar, but then I also realised how useful that would be for people, too. So you may not want a mod from someone with a high "discourteous" or "grumpy" rating, but someone marked "efficient" or "respected" would be a more trustworthy source. However, this is going somewhere totally different. At the moment, we have to judge a persons character by their actions, but for those newcomers, they might not know who's who. It's not disimilar to the star ratings on this forum, except those are only determined by number of posts (right?) rather than by quality.



Anyway, I agree these are highly complicated ideas to enact, but some at least might be worth trying on a small scale. The patching debate one, I'd go for first.

Feedback please!

edit: wow, i was slow writing that...

to me the difference is that beth have given us permission to alter their artistic vision when they gave us the mod tools, which they dont have to do.

I think its important that permissions and etiquette stay within the community. Weither at runtime/compile time or whatever. The elderscroll/fallout modding community is a very good community on the whole and the stats about mods downloaded for skyrim show how big that community has grown. I believe that one of the main reasons for that growth is the respect throughout it and the advice and help that experienced modders give to others. To suddenly ignore the etiquette that has existed for years would be kill off one of the best things about the community.

I think that you should atleast try to inform the original author of any changes etc

I'll take a look, thanks. I'll be honest, I don't visit the actual forums of the Nexus much, so I would have missed this otherwise.

I agree completely. However, I think it's important to better define things like this; people only get frustrated when they don't know the rules of the game. If certain practices are acceptable and some aren't, then there are no surprises. I also want to make sure that we're being fundamental about what's acceptable, and not letting a small minority of top "talent and creativity" be catered towards in order to incentivize retaining them by allowing them to define what is "right", instead of pursuing a set of universal, fundamental guidelines that don't change depending on someone's feelings.

Similarly, I agree with most of that; but then wouldn't creating a rule-book and expecting everyone to follow not be just simply na?ve? Or is this for the sake of moderation?

I was going to say this also. As one example, ASIS, for instance, will add potions to NPCs added by other mods. This might violate the vision the mod creator had in mind for that NPC.

No.



No.



No.


There is a line between what is permissible and what is polite. It's legal to release a mod that uses GetFormFromFile to do all kinds of ridiculous things to someone else's work. I could write some code for a weapon mod that decimates the stats of rival mods' weapons, for example, and I'd be well within my rights. But it would be a [censored] thing to do. Just as I get to mod my vanilla Skyrim game once it's on my hard drive, I also get to mod any mods I download. The only legal quandaries arise when I actually distribute another author's work. If I release 100% original content, it can do whatever it likes to anyone else's mods.

To use a modding anology: the mod I upload to the Nexus is a base object, while the mod users install to their game is a reference. I can write a script that affects all the actors around the player, which includes actors added by other mods. This is entirely okay. If, however, my plugin actually edits the base object (and subsequently explicitly includes the edited form), I'm now redistributing a derivative of someone else's work, which isn't kosher unless I have that someone else's permission. Likewise, I can have my script which edits at runtime the reference of that someone else's mod with no nebulous grey areas to speak of. If, however, I redistribute some explicit derivative of the mod itself, the base object, that's when I'm starting trouble.

Good points. Your description of "modifying another weapon mod's stats" sounds to me like an undesirable alteration as most people would see it (as determined by the user base, not by either author), and would probably peeve the original weapon mod author, as well as any users that weapon mod author has. Currently, the way we deal with undesirable alterations in this community is to 1) notify the author of the problem, 2) failing that, simply not use the mod, or downvote it, or what have you. We don't generally deal with that kind of problem as it exists today by petitioning for its removal; we let it die in obscurity. Unless of course the alteration is of a malignant or overtly destructive nature, or as you mention, contains copyrighted original content.

Regardless of how you feel one way or the other on Modder's Rights, is it really such a chore to attempt an open dialogue with the original author? There are a number of reasons a mod author should be contacted for any derivative works, big and small.

1. The author may already have patch plans underway with another author
2. The author may be able to circumvent a patch by incorporating the changes in the original .esp; wherever possible this is a better solution to a patch, but it requires bringing it to the author's attention.
3. The author likely gets multiple inquiries about "Is this compatible with mods X, Y, and Z" and may not know your patch exists to point users that way for their compatibility needs.
4. Many authors like to keep a list of derivative works on their downloads page for their downloaders reference, can't include patches they don't know about.
5. Mod authors will likely be a first stop for many derivative users seeking patch support.

For my part, I have no problems with patch makers making whatever patches, but I ask on my downloads page and my readme for contact. I'm not asking for you to grovel and beg at my feet for me to deign you with my permission, I just want to be in the loop on derivatives so we can work together. I may have something useful to add to a solution regarding my original work don't you think?

There is never going to be a black or white resolution here. Those who think modding should be free and open will never bow under a permission only umbrella, and likewise, those who think modding should be about respect and ownership will never throw up their hands and say "fine whatever free for all". I'll repeat it, this will NEVER happen, in either extreme. So our only recourse as a community is to learn how to work together and that starts with a dialogue, cooperation, and compromise on both sides.

Couldn't have said it better myself.