Current work update - 11/5/14

I'm just giddy with anticipation.

Why do they not have to go through that process when they are using full blown out open source libraries like knockout js? PA is full of open source libs, that is pretty normal nowadays for any kind of software and I doubt anybody really goes around checking all those things for every open source library.
Or do you mean those steps are required to use an external contribution that has not been publish under an open source license?

Can an unrelated 3rd party actually try to jump at it and sue Uber over using something they may or may not have the right on or is the only risk that an author of a contribution starts suing Uber?

Any new commanders in the new upcoming build?

How would they know without consulting legal? That's the point.

I like this new way of sharing your informations with us on "what is being worked on" !!!

keep it up UBER - especially all infos about terrainmodifications are very welcome and needed!

cheers,
Moldez

Those are the steps cptconundrum need to take to re-license the map pack with a permissive license in order for Uber to be able to consider using it. These kind of after the fact license changes are hairy. If you don't have written premission from everyone who has a copyright claim to any part of it, the thing becomes a legal landmine.

I find it insane that anyone would go to the effort of making balanced maps for people to play and then spit feathers that people are using their balanced maps in ranked games. I'm sure Uber can give the courtesy of mentioning the maker of a map used. If it must be utterly necessary then I'm sure Uber can allow you to submit a map with the agreement that submitting gives Uber the right to use it however they like.

You really underestimate how utterly convoluted the law can be for instances like this, unfortunately. Particularly US law.

Will the next release fix that annoying bug of units shooting over the top of bot factories? It's the worst

PA#4220

Ah you mean those are the steps required because it is a map pack by multiple authors. So any open source "thing" obviously needs to make sure it is published under a license that all contributors agreed to.
I see. I guess people making maps, modes and whatever should try to generally put an "as open as possible/wanted" license on it from the start.

Yes, I suppose any modder or map-maker that want Uber to be able to make use of their mod/map should put it under some very permissive license from the beginning. Anything without a explicit license is All Rights Reserved, and Uber is not allowed to use it.

I wonder what that means for the balance mods. Could it be that Uber cannot copy balance changes from balance mods because that would be a copyright violation? I, honestly, have no idea.

That's .... isn't "copyright" about copying directly lines of code or some other data. So bit by bit "copying"?
Using ideas from balance mods in turn is more like something that would be part of the patent system. Like in theory it may be possible to patent a balance idea and then sue others that use it. Though personally I am disgusted by that idea, but I hear patent trolling in the US is a thing. :/

EDIT:
Another thought about this I have is:

Code:

{
"name" : "Cross Back RANKED",
"planets" : [ {
"name" : "Cross Back",
"mass" : 10000,
"position_x" : 19800,
"position_y" : 100,
"velocity_x" : -0.802569568157196,
"velocity_y" : 158.90740966796875,
"required_thrust_to_move" : 0,
"starting_planet" : true,
"planet" : {
"seed" : 13853,
"radius" : 500,
"heightRange" : 12,
"waterHeight" : 43,
"temperature" : 72.99999237060547,
"metalDensity" : 50,
"metalClusters" : 35,
"biomeScale" : 50,
"biome" : "lava",
"numArmies" : 2,
"landingZonesPerArmy" : 2,
"landingZoneSize" : 150
}
} ],
"creator" : "Team Genesis"
}

This is the complete definition of "Cross back". It was created by somebody from team genesis by basically rolling a magical dice with tens of thousands of sides, the data format was defined by Uber, as well as how to role the dice.
Is this even enough to put a copyright on? I mean it's basically the result of a dice role. There is no creative aspect of it, only a plain "role dice, check if map looks balanced if not role again". With a more powerful mapeditor I can see there is real creative value, but so far there actually is none at all.
Basically it is Uber's own algorithm that makes the maps, so the map is created by uber. The map maker is only helping uber in understanding the algorithm and finding input values to make maps that play decent.
I am not trying to devalue the work of team genesis, rolling that dice is utterly boring, my respect to them for dealing with that

I can see that these laws are all f*** up beyond hope and a company should not take a chance like this, but I am wondering about it.

Also: COME AT ME TEAM GENESIS I AM DISTRIBUTING YOUR MAPS IN SOME FORUMS WITHOUT HAVING ASKED YOU. MUHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I don't know. Copyright doesn't cover ideas, but it does cover the expression of a idea. Does that mean that if Uber wanted make the same changes to a unit that a balance mod has done, then they're copying the expression of the idea as well as the idea?

I think your fine. There is a fair use exception for quoting copyrighted work.

A few numbers are not the expression of an idea. If that were the i.e. the original dota creators could sue LOL for expressing a very similar game idea.

I actually don't think in germany we have a fair use clause. The US laws about patents and stuff might be worse than ours, but we are lacking in the fair use department. Not to mention I copied that example from a js file that is part of the pa stats repository. the maps were made for pa stats, but we never talked about legal stuff, we had better, more productive, things to do.

Yes. That is what I mean. It seems KnockoutJS has been published under MIT licence from the start and they're using implicit contributions licensing. It's good enough. Using CLAs is even better though.

Also, responsible companies check the licences of the libraries they intend to use. If there's even the slightest rumour that one is legally dubious, they'll probably stay away.

VLC relicensing case. And It's not even a commercial project. Jean-Baptiste Kempf is a hero. XD

Fortunately, no.

Yes and it's still very dangerous. I guess, in this particular case, they can always remove an infringing map, claim they trusted the community on the licensing and hope it won't go any further. However, this should be well thought out and the risk accepted.

What do you mean by check the licenses? Read the official page of the open source project and make sure the license they have is a standard license that allows commercial usage. That's reasonable and something I surely do myself when I use open source stuff, especially when I am doing it for a work project.
But checking that every single line of code of the open source project is not actually pirated from somewhere else? Errr no. That's an unreasonable amount of work obviously.

I'd guess in this particular case there is little risk, I mean we are basically talking about members of team genesis suing uber over using their maps after publicly asking uber to use their maps.

I agree there is room for debate, although I wouldn't want to have to say to a judge, what you just explained.
Also, those maps were still chosen and compilation copyright is a thing.
The judge will probably be more interested to hear how Uber stumbled by accident on the exact same maps.

Point is : this is complicated.

You can also check that the licence was clear from the start (mistakes are usually made at the beginning of a project), that there is a good number of companies already using it, that there is no concern anywhere about legality (including patents), that contributors are required to sign CLAs, etc. Depends how thorough you think you need to be. Obviously, if you're a billion dollar company with ruthless competitors and you're going to base everything on the software you're making, you should be very thorough. Maybe you should even rewrite most of the libraries, just to be sure and so you can relicense at will. Additional bonuses include : in-house knowledge, tailored features, independence, etc.

Licenses aside, what about rescaling the units, buildings, and terrain features/trees smaller so that planets appear larger, and there is effectively more empty space? It was discussed some months ago much earlier in the development process, but was shelved in favor of other game play features. More effective space to play in is always a plus, and I don't think that Uber has scratched the surface of what could be done in this regard yet.

Also, Ranked 1v1 matchmaking and better world editor: YES! YES!

I so look forward to the crater/hill brush.