DayZTavi 4.0 (Pwnoz0r Build)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still doing research, but:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/End_User_License_Agreement_for_BI's_Tools
1. Ownership: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. The Program is protected by the Czech copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions and any other applicable laws. All rights are reserved.
That's just the license for BI_Tools, which they would have had to use to compile the map. In essence, they can't "own" any "Taviana Digital Assets" because the tools used to create those assets had a license before them claiming the ownership for said creations.
 
NOW I see where you guys were going with the VBS2 thing xD

Final research bit:

The EULA on BI Tools and ARMA 2 OA are the same. Essentially, this bit is all that matters:
"and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. "

If they want, they can strip the content from their website, but the current versions out there are free and available to be edited by anyone with no legal repercussions. Unless BI claims the content and states officially that "Martin" or "Kinghut" are the copyright owners, those two users cannot make themselves the copyright owners.

Even in the case of owning VBS2, I don't think it really matters, as in making the content FOR ARMA 2, they lose copyright ownership to that addon, as it IS still an addon. All VBS2 will give them is the ability to make their own game with that map, but the content they have created for ARMA 2 is essentially public domain.
 
Signed up just to let you know, practicing law without a license, and claiming to be legal council [sic] when not certified by their states bar is a felony on the same level as practicing medicine without a license in 48 states. Might want to let them know that.
 
The licences quoted all refer to the actual tools not the content you create with them...

The licences for releases are different depending on how they are done... it's NOT all the same... BI forums for example have one release license and Armaholic has another... I think armaholic is the one that once it's out it's out... BI I believe you can pull your assets so long as you are not using anyone else or you've pulled them from the site.... I'm not s100pct sure though.

Just out of curiosity... what is the item in dispute? The different Taviana Map? with the special area?

If that is the case then I'm pretty sure Martin/GP are totally correct. It's not a public asset since they haven't released it on either BI or Armaholic. THAT is where the content license is spelled out.. and he hasn't released the map there since 1.0... so Sounds like he can copyright what he wants on the newer versions. Especially assets like 3d models.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?105530-Taviana-Island-for-ArmA-2!&highlight=taviana+island

Also I REALLY don't get why after announcing a public release date you guys subverted that.

http://www.gamersplatoon.com/forums/showthread.php?6964-Origins-Mod-Official-Partners-Announced

15 Apr 2013

Lastly I've got to say as much as I don't want to, the only people being childish on that pastebin log are the OpenDayZ.net folks.. martin and kinghunt were both being civil and professional the WHOLE time.

I'm really shocked after having gone through this and gotten as much info as I could on both sides...

I"m either missing something or this was totally in appropriate behavior by opendayz IMO
 
The licences quoted all refer to the actual tools not the content you create with them...

Ehrm no, not as part of the EULA on ARMA 2 OA:

"and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. "

Taviana, DayZ, whatever mod you want to call out: BI owns them as soon as your pretty much think of them (not really, but you catch my drift). Essentially, if BI wanted to, they could take Taviana, whether it's the "current" version or the "1.0" version, and then sell it. Martin and whoever else cannot, and they cannot claim any copyright infringement on it.

Now, if Martin or whoever were to create their own game and used that map, and somehow Open DayZ were able to take THAT newer version of the map and convert to ARMA 2/DayZ, then there could be a POSSIBLE copyright infringement issue.

But in regards to content created with BI Tools or not: If it's an addon for ARMA 2, BI essentially owns it if you plan to play it on the ARMA 2 engine through the mod/addon system. ie; You can't claim copyright
 
No. You are just not correct on that... the line you quote is from the tools EULA... in full it reads:
This computer software program, any printed materials, any on-line or electronic documentation, and any and all copies and derivative works of such software program and materials (the “Program”) are the copyrighted work. All use of the Program is governed by the copyright law and by the terms of the End-User License Agreement, which is provided below (“License”). By using the Program you agree to be legally bound by the terms of this license agreement. Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Program not in accordance with the terms of the License is expressly prohibited. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, do not install or use the Program.
1. Ownership: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. The Program is protected by the Czech copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions and any other applicable laws. All rights are reserved.

Incorporated into, not created by.

They are talking about the addons for their tools that they own... it's just legally required specification of exactly what parts of the subject program they own...

I used to read legal contracts all day long... that eula has NOTHING to do with content created with that program...
 
No. You are just not correct on that... the line you quote is from the tools EULA... in full it reads:
This computer software program, any printed materials, any on-line or electronic documentation, and any and all copies and derivative works of such software program and materials (the “Program”) are the copyrighted work. All use of the Program is governed by the copyright law and by the terms of the End-User License Agreement, which is provided below (“License”). By using the Program you agree to be legally bound by the terms of this license agreement. Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Program not in accordance with the terms of the License is expressly prohibited. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, do not install or use the Program.
1. Ownership: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. The Program is protected by the Czech copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions and any other applicable laws. All rights are reserved.

Incorporated into, not created by.

They are talking about the addons for their tools that they own... it's just legally required specification of exactly what parts of the subject program they own...

I used to read legal contracts all day long... that eula has NOTHING to do with content created with that program...

Actually, here is your definitive answer.

"1. Ownership: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. The Program is protected by the Czech copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions and any other applicable laws. All rights are reserved."

You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: ; (iv) Commercially exploit or allow a 3rd party commercially exploit game content you created using the Software, including but not limited to use by military organizations for computer aided training or commercially released game content;
 
again any custom 3d models and textures he made are HIS. He does NOT need to share them. Same may go for the map he made depending on the program he used to make it. Can he use them in an arma mod and not share them for profit? NO but can he drop out of the arma modding thing and say those are my models give them back? YUP.

The other thing to keep in mind is that he is talking about having a 2nd external hive, in which case they NEED time to figure out how that will work before releasing it... THAT also could be proprietary... the code certainly is. And if he copy protected that before you put it up, there will DEFINATELY be legal problems...

He has been handing free things to the community since 2010 I find it shocking that he would promise there would be a public release in another month and request patience and the response was to subvert that and release what really is HIS to determine when it should be released.


All I've ever heard about GP and Origins has been VERY negative and bad... but I don't have any 1st hand info,

ALL my first had info and experience with OpenDayZ has been AWESOME, I REALLY love this place and all the folks I've interacted with here...

But I can not see how this was the right thing to do, or the mature way of handling it.... and I really think you guys may have opened yourselves up to legal woes you don't want over something silly and maybe even a mis-understanding...

I hope this situation diffuses itself and I"m def. not looking to stir up shit... but I REALLY HOPE I'm missing something here....
 
again any custom 3d models and textures he made are HIS. He does NOT need to share them. Same may go for the map he made depending on the program he used to make it. Can he use them in an arma mod and not share them for profit? NO but can he drop out of the arma modding thing and say those are my models give them back? YUP.

The other thing to keep in mind is that he is talking about having a 2nd external hive, in which case they NEED time to figure out how that will work before releasing it... THAT also could be proprietary... the code certainly is. And if he copy protected that before you put it up, there will DEFINATELY be legal problems...

He has been handing free things to the community since 2010 I find it shocking that he would promise there would be a public release in another month and request patience and the response was to subvert that and release what really is HIS to determine when it should be released.

All I've ever heard about GP and Origins has been VERY negative and bad... but I don't have any 1st hand info,

ALL my first had info and experience with OpenDayZ has been AWESOME, I REALLY love this place and all the folks I've interacted with here...

But I can not see how this was the right thing to do, or the mature way of handling it.... and I really think you guys may have opened yourselves up to legal woes you don't want over something silly and maybe even a mis-understanding...

I hope this situation diffuses itself and I"m def. not looking to stir up shit... but I REALLY HOPE I'm missing something here....

Nonov, respectfully, this is just speculation on your part. Content created using BI tools can at most utlize a creative commons license, not a legal copyright, unless the said private entity holds a pre-written license agreement with BI. A CC license is what we have as a reference link on the bottom of this forum since it was first built.

My own license for works I author is 'Attribution Share Alike' - anyone can use it, but its courteous to ask first and give credit where credit is due. However when it comes to telling people 'No' I can only do that in the context of 'I don't approve', but I don't legally have a leg to stand on. If someone takes all of 2017 and call's it 2018, there is nothing I can do. I also cannot use it for commerical gain.

This is even more of a case for maps, as maps are exclusively created within visitor 3 and use largely other components to create the map which includes BI copyrighted content such as tons of objects from /ca/* (lamp posts, walls, gates, trees, churches and many textures etc etc).

If we take this case, tavianna, it contains lots of BI copyrighted content from "CAData" ,"CABuildings" "CAMisc","CARoads" etc. Can you see now how its not possible to claim legal copyright over a map produced in visitor 3?......Unless of course, you have a special license worked out with BI in place.

Here is a thread by Marek (BI's CEO) where he recommneds what type of license can be applied.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?105256-Why-Licenses-Do-Matter&highlight=User licence

If you do further searches you will find a ton of other threads on similiar events that have happened in the Arma 2 community where mission makers have tried to play a copyright card.

To summarise BI could cease GP in their tracks if they wanted to, but the guys at BI only tend to get involved when its a clear commercial exploit at hand.

We recently got a cease and desist from gamerplatoon, its laughable and can be ignored as its no more then scare tactics, poorly thought out. They actually quote they have copyright rights to not only 'tavianna' but also "name" and "map" as quoted single entities (I shit y0u not). I don't believe they meant to do this, but this is what happens when people copy and paste legal texts off the internet without consulting a lawyer first. The only way they could put a stop to us releasing any of 'their' content would be if we were generating revenue from said act.

Coincidently this very forum was started to directly combat 'companies' commercialising free content (dayz code). So thats why we get hot under the collar when this sort of shit goes down.
 
This whole thing got completely out of hand.

I don't know why GP immediately put those "legal notices" (notice my quotes) up instead of just asking Pwn nicely to get rid of it, because they want to be the first having it.
 
No. You are just not correct on that... the line you quote is from the tools EULA... in full it reads:

Sorry to say, the EULA for BI Tools AND ARMA 2 OA are the same. Load up the ARMA 2 manual, scroll to EULA, and you will see it.

And besides, someone already brought up a good point, and that was in the case of the usage of texture, buildings, other models, etc that are used in Taviana that are from the CA packages. In the end, all they pretty much own is yes, their own models and textures, and pretty much only the heightmap after that.
 
Nonov You do realize that what you're attributing copyright laws to are in essence someone rebadging a Ford Car with their own printed badges and then trying to resell it as their own right? Neither Martin nor King, Nor GP has ANY legal ground to stand on. They have not purchased licensing laws to use the engine, they have not purchased or contacted BI to use the tools, they are using EULA tools to create something and then resell it. If they brought this to court the owners here of OpenDayz.net could easily just bring BI EULA into it and these guys would fall flat on their face.You cannot use modification tools to resell something, and this is what they are currently doing, even if they aren't outright selling the map, they aren't allowing anyone to use it but their own servers, which means they are making money off of copyrighted material that they do not have license to own.

And TBH if BI wanted to go after them, the GP guys would be fucked for making a profit on code they don't own and cannot legally own.

ON top of that, the letter they have...seems to be pulled out of thin air. If this Matthew Reed is a legit lawyer he would have read the EULA for the tools they used and would have never wrote the letter in the first place. I do hope for his sake that he re-reads the EULAs on everything related to BI....legal threats like this are not taken lightly with the bar association...what it sounds like is they know this guy or hired someone to write up a little letter to try and show force where they know they have none.

To Shin, Visad, Pwnoz0r....I would contact BI....inform them they(GP) are making profit off of BI game/engine and code....see how quick these tools release files....
 
Sorry to say, the EULA for BI Tools AND ARMA 2 OA are the same. Load up the ARMA 2 manual, scroll to EULA, and you will see it.

And besides, someone already brought up a good point, and that was in the case of the usage of texture, buildings, other models, etc that are used in Taviana that are from the CA packages. In the end, all they pretty much own is yes, their own models and textures, and pretty much only the heightmap after that.

I really don't want to derail like this so I"m going to leave this as my last reply on the matter...

IF GP is trying to profit and package this as a game of it's own or something, obviously you are all right in your arguments... however they've stated that is NOT the case, and until the 15th of Apr it seems disrespectful to me to just release it w.o their consent.

Further if that's what they're trying to do, that's for BI to react to, not you guys. I mean I guess if that's the case you're free to react this way... I just don't see it as constructive. (PLEASE also keep in mind I'm on a dev team that wants to develop up to a certain standard before releasing the server files for LOTS of reasons NONE of which are money)

In regards to the EULA and forum posts everyone is linking...

The BI CEO post is in regards to ArmaI and specifically states that there will be dif. rules for A2.. where's that link? The links posted get older and older... I frankly have no clue and don't pretend to be an expert on Arma stuff...

I spent 7 years in the corporate world reading contract law and interpreting it... no matter what any of the EULA's I've seen say, if martin or any of the devs at GP have created custom assets in 3rd party content generators they have rights to those assets...

I don't know whether by virtue of serving them as .pbo's to the public breaks those rights/ability to claim or not...

But I for one just don't understand why they weren't taken on their word and THEN reacted against when they did or didn't release the files publicly themselves on the 15th of Apr...

I love opendayz... I love dayz... I have no clue who GP are but I did get approached and talked to by Kinghunt personally today and he seemed like a reasonable guy who wanted to work with everyone...

Not sure if he wanted me to say this or not, but he told me that we could use ANY of his assets in Sahrani after the public release and as long as we do not in turn don't approve the sharing of them to anyone else... Which I'll take him on his word for... and wouldn't presume to think otherwise until shown differently.

He is the first Dev Team to offer that so openly to me at least... ( I know other devs in the Sahrani group have talked to some of the other devs and were told they could)

I posted this: http://opendayz.net/index.php?threads/public-shared-assets.8157/ HERE on opendayz.net and haven't herard so much as a peep out of anyone)...

Maybe it wasn't replied to because that's what it already IS and I just don't understand that?

So you guys just want to confirm Sahrani Dev Team can use/rework/intigrate anything in any of the mods posted here? Without asking or getting prior approval?

Example our next release can include ALL the i44 guns? Or the vehicle models from 2017?? I'm not even saying we'd want to do that but according to this thread that's totally allowed?
 
I really don't want to derail like this so I"m going to leave this as my last reply on the matter...

This thread is about the matter, dunno how replying is derailing.

IF GP is trying to profit and package this as a game of it's own or something, obviously you are all right in your arguments... however they've stated that is NOT the case, and until the 15th of Apr it seems disrespectful to me to just release it w.o their consent. .

It is the case, not releasing server files to the public, and making money off of said files because you can only rent from them is making a profit. PERIOD. A large chunk of their "work/Code" is from places like OpenDayz.Net and other Devs. What's direspectful is a dev who is trying to make a profit from others knowledge. This entire community is built upon sharing code with each other and making no money off of it. I doubt many people here would have an issue with them if they had build their mod and weren't selling it persay....

Further if that's what they're trying to do, that's for BI to react to, not you guys. I mean I guess if that's the case you're free to react this way... I just don't see it as constructive. (PLEASE also keep in mind I'm on a dev team that wants to develop up to a certain standard before releasing the server files for LOTS of reasons NONE of which are money)

Origins isn't big enough to get notice from BI, but it's big enough to know that the community as a whole frowns upon "borrowing" code to make a profit on it. I see this the same way as those server emulator people having a "donate" button up so that you can buy better gear than everyone else. They are making money off the work of others period.

On top of this, origins has been out and they have been talking about releasing the files for a while now...the servers are not in beta or alpha...there is no closed testing. When you make money...from something you didn't do much to develop, your pissing up the wrong tree..

In regards to the EULA and forum posts everyone is linking...

The BI CEO post is in regards to ArmaI and specifically states that there will be dif. rules for A2.. where's that link? The links posted get older and older... I frankly have no clue and don't pretend to be an expert on Arma stuff...

Code laws are code laws...time doesn't magically change an EULA....

I spent 7 years in the corporate world reading contract law and interpreting it... no matter what any of the EULA's I've seen say, if martin or any of the devs at GP have created custom assets in 3rd party content generators they have rights to those assets...

Like? A .png file? That's about all they can technically "own" and I don't see how far you can carry laws upon images...a lot of photographers have figured this one out, once it's on the net good luck enforcing the copy write on it.

I don't know whether by virtue of serving them as .pbo's to the public breaks those rights/ability to claim or not...

Even if they don't, they cannot "own" the code or anything else in Arma II or Anything associated with it. This goes back to trying to lay claim to something you didn't create by sticker your own badge or water mark on it. I cannot take a Ford remove the badges and label it "the super bad ass better than your car" and resell it under my copyright claims...

But I for one just don't understand why they weren't taken on their word and THEN reacted against when they did or didn't release the files publicly themselves on the 15th of Apr...

Because they have had months of making money off renting out only their servers....you don't release a mod and keep the files to yourself on your own servers and call it "testing" when you continually add more and more servers.


So you guys just want to confirm Sahrani Dev Team can use/rework/intigrate anything in any of the mods posted here? Without asking or getting prior approval?

In short...Yes, but it's nice to give credit where credit is due...that's the whole idea of open source. You give away your code, hope for credit and props, but not to make money off of it.

Example our next release can include ALL the i44 guns? Or the vehicle models from 2017?? I'm not even saying we'd want to do that but according to this thread that's totally allowed?

Again, in Short yes...is it a nice thing to do without asking or giving credit...not really? Are you going to lock it down and sell it like GP has been doing with code they "borrowed" and are now essentially selling? If yes then you're going to get pissed on by the community and there will be a thread just like this one with your name/mod stamped on it. If no, by all means...go for it.
 
Sweet! Much clearer now on the subject....

We have NO plans to do anything weird like that... if we expand the tests we're doing it will either be on donated servers that require the hosted by name be kept, or ones that I pay for out of pocket and allow qualified admins/communities to manage for free.... The goal though is to just get the server files out to the public though w/o any kind of silly games.

I will say though GP says that the servers they're currently renting are "at cost" I have no way of knowing whether or not that's true, and I do disagree with the number of servers I see up if they're still "closed" testing...

I agree on the donor packages but does BI? and if so why haven't they C&D'd the HUNDREDS of servers doing that?

I frankly don't care either way... I would NEVER offer that on a server I ran (personal objections), however I don't mind it on servers I play... it's just another loot spot lol... bad players with good equpiment... yes please! It's like having moving target helicopter wrecks or care packages.

I have mixed feelings on donor's getting reserved slots.... if I was running more popular servers and people who had donated to me were not able to get in on busy nights... I really would have a hard time justifying NOT doing it... I would obv. first try to see if I could run 2 servers with the same map to ease the pressure, but that might kill the first server...

Sahrani Dev team will of course approach and request on a team to team basis and give ALL credit where credit is due... as well as offer our modified versions and custom stuff up for use by whoever as well.
 
I agree on the donor packages but does BI? and if so why haven't they C&D'd the HUNDREDS of servers doing that?

I was referring to MMO servers, sorry about that. Should have specified. MMO emu servers get C&Ded all the time, and a lot of them get shutdown. I played Lineage 2 for almost 6 years, in that time NCsoft sued the shit out of a ton of private servers....one server was so well know the guy was making close to 20k a month, and all he was doing was hosting a server off EMU code and NCsofts hard work. Small servers with 50 people with paid for starting gear seems silly and not worth the time of BI to go after...


I have mixed feelings on donor's getting reserved slots.... if I was running more popular servers and people who had donated to me were not able to get in on busy nights... I really would have a hard time justifying NOT doing it... I would obv. first try to see if I could run 2 servers with the same map to ease the pressure, but that might kill the first server...

This I have no issue with, as most do this to keep server cost down, and you can only sell so many slots. CS/Unreal/BF Etc all have done this for a long time.
 
I really don't want to derail like this so I"m going to leave this as my last reply on the matter...

IF GP is trying to profit and package this as a game of it's own or something, obviously you are all right in your arguments... however they've stated that is NOT the case, and until the 15th of Apr it seems disrespectful to me to just release it w.o their consent.

Further if that's what they're trying to do, that's for BI to react to, not you guys. I mean I guess if that's the case you're free to react this way... I just don't see it as constructive. (PLEASE also keep in mind I'm on a dev team that wants to develop up to a certain standard before releasing the server files for LOTS of reasons NONE of which are money)

In regards to the EULA and forum posts everyone is linking...

The BI CEO post is in regards to ArmaI and specifically states that there will be dif. rules for A2.. where's that link? The links posted get older and older... I frankly have no clue and don't pretend to be an expert on Arma stuff...

I spent 7 years in the corporate world reading contract law and interpreting it... no matter what any of the EULA's I've seen say, if martin or any of the devs at GP have created custom assets in 3rd party content generators they have rights to those assets...

I don't know whether by virtue of serving them as .pbo's to the public breaks those rights/ability to claim or not...

But I for one just don't understand why they weren't taken on their word and THEN reacted against when they did or didn't release the files publicly themselves on the 15th of Apr...

I love opendayz... I love dayz... I have no clue who GP are but I did get approached and talked to by Kinghunt personally today and he seemed like a reasonable guy who wanted to work with everyone...

Not sure if he wanted me to say this or not, but he told me that we could use ANY of his assets in Sahrani after the public release and as long as we do not in turn don't approve the sharing of them to anyone else... Which I'll take him on his word for... and wouldn't presume to think otherwise until shown differently.

He is the first Dev Team to offer that so openly to me at least... ( I know other devs in the Sahrani group have talked to some of the other devs and were told they could)

I posted this: http://opendayz.net/index.php?threads/public-shared-assets.8157/ HERE on opendayz.net and haven't herard so much as a peep out of anyone)...

Maybe it wasn't replied to because that's what it already IS and I just don't understand that?

So you guys just want to confirm Sahrani Dev Team can use/rework/intigrate anything in any of the mods posted here? Without asking or getting prior approval?

Example our next release can include ALL the i44 guns? Or the vehicle models from 2017?? I'm not even saying we'd want to do that but according to this thread that's totally allowed?

Not sure why your intent on fighting their corner or what the agenda is, nor do I care.

opendayz.net is a forum to share knowledge and host projects. Each project is its own entity and as long as its not for commecial use, it can have a home here if it needs one. It does not mean open source, although anyone can use a GNU license should they wish.

You could technically just take what you want and not give credit, but you likely won't make to many friends in the process. But it would be nothing new.

I wonder how many have actually asked R4Z0R49 or rocket even if its ok to use the community code to port maps or make new mods? Now you could just use it anyway, which most do, but its just nice to ask.

Anyhow I point you to what I stated earlier. Tavianna is most composed of textures and objects that are part of CA which is copyrighted to BI. Do you really think BI would let anyone copyright something created from there componant parts on an End User License Agreement?

You keep saying you have spent 7 years reading legal documents, but you seem to be confused about what the word copyright entails.
 
I never fight, for myself or others, Fighting whether physically or in conversation is about ego and believing you already know the answers.... I NEVER approach any dispute thinking I know what's going on or who is right or wrong... I just try to understand what's going on and provide my opinion and attempt to help solve problems if there are any.

I'm not an expert on any of this (literally not ONE area lol I'm a "jack of all trades master of none"), nor am I a seasoned developer by ANY means... I really fell into the role I'm playing on the Dev team... and never really followed much of the goings on behind the scenes until a couple months ago (nov? dec? so I literally missed the vilayer stuff NO clue what any of that was)

I/We would not ever think of doing any of the things that GP/Origins are alleged to have done, nor would we go down the same path GP/Origins assert they are in terms of development. We want to get our files and assets out ASAP... and wouldn't ever charge someone our own costs or over that to host our map.

I/We would also NEVER try to assert that any of the game assets we've made whether it's one off or not, produced in BI software or not "belongs" to us... we're doing this out of love for the game and passion for a being part of the evolution of the mod.... and out of personal desire to see things we've dreamed up in game...

I just started asking questions as I was confused by what exactly was going on.... I think I understand your guys position now, and on some level I understand GP/Origins perspective...

At this point I have no clue who's right... I get the impression (and hope) Opendayz.net is though... GP/Origins "served" the files to the public, as I understand it; as long as you guys just used the client side and mission file to reconstruct the build; then you should be fine IMO but again... I'm no lawyer nor am I an expert on the BI EULA...
IMO GP/Origins should/could fix this by dropping the fee for running a server right now, and force the server renters to keep the "hosted by xxxxhosting.com" for all their partners... IE the hosting companies absorb the costs until its publicly released. That's only 1.5 months from now so that should be more than acceptable for the free publicity to the server hosting co's.... plus they're ready to go to rent more at their normal profit model once it's released.

As stated that's how I would do it. Either pay for the servers myself so no drama like this popped up OR get a hosting co to sponsor the servers and let trusted communities manage those servers for free... It's silly to charge anything I mean it's not like they can be making any profit unless they're charging a LOT to have access to their managed servers... even if they're making 20/month profit on 50 servers that's not even rent money much less "huge profits" $1,000/Mnth

I was told it was "at cost" which can't be a lot....

Anyone have an actual figure on the monthly rental for a official Origins server?
 
so let me get this straight.... GP/Origins got the rights to the Taviana map cause that maps creator is on board with their mod now and they don't want anyone else to now use Taviana map in dayZ???? Is that right?

If that's the case then they should be ashamed of themselves.

DayZ is a mod and it's FREE! Origins really needs to get off their high horses and get back into the spirit of modding and keep that map open to use in other modifications not to mention the original fork their mod sprung from. Why the fuck would they try to keep it exclusive anyway? So they can rent out Origin servers through their own channels and profit? WUT??? Seriously? that is the biggest crock of shit and I really hope I am misunderstanding the situation.

If thats the case then I'm holding GP/Origins up in the same light that I hold Sergey Titov up to. A crook / con man that is trying to profit on the coattails of Rocket's and the current Devs that make DayZ so great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diz
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top