Is reviving older mods ok?

#1

From what I see, ironically because of the frequent game updates
(which is a good thing for the gamers, keep up the good work!), some good mods have been abandoned.

I wonder if reviving the older mods ok. I mean without the permission.

Unlike WIP mods, I think most of the abandoned mods are at that state
because the mod makers are so busy not even to give times to maintain the mods.

I’ll try asking the modders for reviving permission, but is it ok to revive if the answer for permission is not coming…?

#2

I think it would be okay if you explicitly say, that you contacted the author of the original mod, maybe link the mod and that you are just reviving the mod with content you imagine for this mod and also that you will stop pushing this mod further if the original author wants it.

I think that should cover every case, but I’m no expert here and don’t know if Radiant had some special rules for such cases.
Most mods have that [Mod] “tag” in the title. Maybe you could type [Revived Mod] there or so…

Just my 2 cents… :3

1 Like
#3

Hmm… I see then… although I will be busy with my mod, I should ask the modder who made the mechanic mod. It seems too awesome to be left abandoned

#4

without permission? no. you need explicit written permission from the mod author saying you can update/“revive” their mod before you are allowed to, so if they don’t answer, you can’t update it.

for more info read through the modding rules thread,

http://discourse.stonehearth.net/t/one-rule-to-ring-them-all/16926?u=8bitcrab

1 Like
#5

As I expected… Of course it’s not allowed to just change something other person has worked on. Anyway, thanks for the info. I should try to get the permission sometime later on.

#6

IMO, the problem is that in the game modding community at large the implicit or default “license” for mods is one of “no permission”. People should be allowed to release their work as such if they so desire, but it ought to require explicit statement rather than be implicit. Dedicated modders are likely to understand the consequences of licensing and also have the most compelling case to choose a restricted license. Conversely, flighty modders are less likely to understand the consequences of the implied default. Who really thinks the creators of abandoned mods would be bothered by their mods being forked? But due to the unfortunate state of affairs, their work is likely to remain dead. And this is somehow more respectful to them than forking their work and keeping it alive?

Disclaimer: this is a commentary on the game modding community at large, not a condemnation of the “One Rule”. IANAL and for all I know there may be compelling legal reasons behind it. But I can’t help but wonder if it’s primarily just the result of a feedback loop…

#7

Welcome to the beautiful world of copyright law, where cartoon figures are still protected after over a century and over seventy years after their author died. Because, you know, reasons.

1 Like
#8

[quote="RepeatPan, post:7, topic:24312]

Welcome to the beautiful world of copyright law, where cartoon figures are still protected after over a century and over seventy years after their author died. Because, you know, reasons.[/quote]

Hey now, the owner of holder of monopoly rights to those cartoon characters probably spent a boatload of money corrupting American copyright law. No reason to be coy about their, you know, reasons. :stuck_out_tongue:

#9

But at least “Happy Birthday to You” isn’t anymore. Finally.

3 Likes