Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Soadreqm]

Just ignore it. You don't need to do every mission. Even the ones that give you large infamy penalties are skippable, if you otherwise do well that month.

[Aoi]

Does anybody happen to have a mirror for X-Piratez K2 or The X-Com Files 1.0+? Official downloads appear to have been pulled temporarily over usage of some specific assets developed by another modder.

[Soadreqm]

Does this work? https://www.sendspace.com/file/ze5ha0

[Aoi]

Does this work? https://www.sendspace.com/file/ze5ha0

Beautifully, thank you for the K2. Though, for some reason, the (perfectly legit) download link tries to open as a popup according to Chrome, so if anybody's having problems, you have to override the block.

[Robsoie]

For people curious about the asset removal (not only about xpiratez) and reasons :
https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,7614.0.html

[Iduno]

That sounds like a good reason to pull the pack, actually. Depending on how the released it (usually "free to use. if you make changes, let me know." type-of-thing).

[Robsoie]

I was unaware of his work prior this, as i never having played his Area51 mod before, but from a look into that terrain pack it's easy to understand why it's included in nearly every mods for openxcom , so much terrain and maps content there :
https://openxcom.mod.io/terrain-pack

The lack of license with that pack didn't helped between his own motivations conflicting with the donation/patreon system of the various modders that used his pack that apparently played a major role in his change of mind

[sluissa]

Hobbes has been with the community a long time, has a lot of good will to his name and he can do what he wants with his stuff, but it really feels like he's shooting himself in the foot.

He's got a stance, and he's sticking to it, and on some level I respect him for that. But it also feels like a fairly minor battle to rile up a whole community over and force rejiggering of just about ever major modpack available. (And a massive reworking of the base engine if people want to continue using his work under his terms. Which likely won't happen.)

Again, it's fine, no real hard feelings again him or anyone else involved. Stuff like this happens. It's just frustrating when it does.

[E. Albright]

One thing that I see engendering some ill will is the inconsistency of Hobbes complaining that others think they own assets just because they modified them, while simultaneously claiming authorship and sole control over assets derived from others' work due to their modifications thereof. I don't think their overall stance is unreasonable, but some of the details at a minimum look a bit off, if not outright problematic. They don't want to get into licensing their works, but they also want to exercise full control, and they don't want to apply the same logic WRT their own derivative works that they are exacting upon works derived from their works. The origin of this doesn't appear to be Hobbes, but rather the unnamed modder [I'm suspicious I know who that is, and that guess does make me marginally more sympathetic to Hobbes] who they quote, but this highlights the underlying problem with reliance on norm-based rules: they only work until they don't, and they don't offer any clear redress once that moment arrives.

BLUF, if you want to exercise control over derivative works, you should be licensing your works rather than relying on good will and undefined, ephemeral community norms. It's not reasonable not to do so. If the community norms allow for you to post hoc impose a de facto implicit license, that worked out in this one instance, but I have a great deal of trouble sympathizing with Hobbes here since their whole rationale for not creating an explicit license for their works was that they felt it would be a hassle to deal with shared and derivative assets.

[Iduno]

One thing that I see engendering some ill will is the inconsistency of Hobbes complaining that others think they own assets just because they modified them, while simultaneously claiming authorship and sole control over assets derived from others' work due to their modifications thereof. I don't think their overall stance is unreasonable, but some of the details at a minimum look a bit off, if not outright problematic. They don't want to get into licensing their works, but they also want to exercise full control, and they don't want to apply the same logic WRT their own derivative works that they are exacting upon works derived from their works. The origin of this doesn't appear to be Hobbes, but rather the unnamed modder [I'm suspicious I know who that is, and that guess does make me marginally more sympathetic to Hobbes] who they quote, but this highlights the underlying problem with reliance on norm-based rules: they only work until they don't, and they don't offer any clear redress once that moment arrives.

BLUF, if you want to exercise control over derivative works, you should be licensing your works rather than relying on good will and undefined, ephemeral community norms. It's not reasonable not to do so. If the community norms allow for you to post hoc impose a de facto implicit license, that worked out in this one instance, but I have a great deal of trouble sympathizing with Hobbes here since their whole rationale for not creating an explicit license for their works was that they felt it would be a hassle to deal with shared and derivative assets.

Going with an announcement that they are now only available to people who give credit/whatever (changing the license) would have been better than "you violated reasonable fair use that I only implied, never stated, now it's gone", but...

[Robsoie]

After checking the current terrain pack (4.2) archive , there's no part in the included readme it stating the author's wish about how or how not to use the pack  , etc... there's only a list of modders credited and thanked for their work that is included in Hobbes pack.
So unless one know Hobbes personnally i guess they would need some mind reading ability to know exactly what he wanted a modder to do with his shared work.

I have no idea if there's some modder agreement special rule on the openxcom boards (in which said pack was posted) about how free modders are to use each other shared assets and in which exact conditions, but i can guess that's exactly why people are pointed to licenses a lot nowadays because they solve things better than non-expressed or vaguely hinted author wishes and people getting mad when things don't go the way they wished for.

[amjh]

That looks hypocritical and childish to me.

His own work is derivative, but he's upset that others derive on it.

By going after modpacks, he hurts the users more than other modders by making things unreasonably difficult.

[Iduno]

That looks hypocritical and childish to me.

His own work is derivative, but he's upset that others derive on it.

He gave credit, but did not receive credit?

[Robsoie]

I have no idea for the other mods, but in xpiratez he's credited in the credits.txt :

Hobbes: Pretty much all non-standard maps, unless otherwise stated, were made by this great writer/modder. Also Knockout Grenade gfx

[amjh]

The whole thing hurts the players most, because a modpack generally works better and has much better balance than a bunch of mods that weren't designed to work together. And if he doesn't care about the players, why did he publish the mod in the first place? Looks like it would have been better if he didn't, at least everything didn't break when he threw a fit.