If phanx is worried about providing support for UI comp authors that change his code, he should be using the GPL instead, which is a real license. the GPL would cover any of his issues and if i take his code and make a pay-for closed source addon out of it, he can actually have legal precedence over me to remove his code or open source mine.
My license is just as "real" as the GPL, and any court of law must give my license terms just as much respect as they give a popular license like the GPL. However, the situation you describe would never arise, because my code is not open source, and because, as discussed above, my license absolutely grants you the right to take my code and make a pay-for addon out of it.
Something he has no right to do with his existing code license.
Again, you're absolutely right. If you take my code, and make a pay-for addon out of it, I have no legal ground to stand on to ask you to change it. This is completely intentional, and is completely covered by my license.
My license basically boils down to this: "do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to deal with it".
I wasn't comparing the concept of human rights equality itself. I was using civil rights law as an example of a law that some people strongly dislike, as an illustration of the fact that just because you don't like the law, and the rights granted to people by the law apply whether or not you like it.
but u still didnt answer all of my questions; i mean your saying if you like the look of one ui they can use it, but if they dont like it then you cant. even though surely what you like or dislike isnt something that is universal
I did answer that question, but since you want to press the issue, I'll elaborate. My license states only that you must obtain my express consent before you redistribute my addon in any form. It does not specify any particular criteria I must use in choosing whether or not to grant that consent if it is requested, and no copyright or other applicable law places any strictures on what I may or may not consider when deciding whether or not to give consent.
Basically, you are allowed to ask "may I distribute your addon in my compilation?" and I am allowed to say "yes" or "no", of my own free will. It is entirely my choice how to make that decision. By the simple fact that people download compilations I personally think are not aesthetically pleasing, it's self-evident that my dislike is not universal, and I never said that my aesthetic sense was universal. But I still have the right to base my decision on my like or dislike. There are no laws in any civilized country in the world which seek to govern how I must think, or how I must choose whether to consent to something.
In most cases, I will not personally know the compilation creator. I will not know anything about how well he (or she) keeps the compilation up to date, and I will not know anything about the quality of support he provides to users of the compilation. The only things I will know are what the compilation looks like, what addons are included in it, and how its creator presents himself. So yes, the primary factor in my exercise of free will to grant or deny consent will be my aesthetic opinion of what the compilation looks like. To a lesser extent, I will consider the other addons included -- if the compilation includes addons I know are very poorly written, or addons I know are unmaintained and on the verge of breaking, I will probably say no -- and how the compilation creator presents the request -- if the request is polite and doesn't look like a 5-year-old's attempt at sending a SMS message, I'll be more likely to say yes than if it's rude and/or poorly written.
And, I am human. If I'm having a bad day, I'll be more likely to say no than if I'm having a good day.
You don't have to approve of how I think, or how I choose to exercise my free will in choosing whether or not to consent to granting you extra rights to use my copyrighted work. I still have the right even if you don't like it. I'm sure there are still people who disapprove of black people having equal rights under law in the United States, or in South Africa. Their dislike doesn't nullify the law, and it doesn't nullify anyone's rights.
My license specifics that you cannot distribute my addon as a part of an addon pack unless you ask first and I say it's okay. It's absolutely within my rights to use any criteria I wish in deciding which requests to say okay to. If you have a problem with that, or with my license (which is actually extremely permissive), then you are quite free to NOT use my addons.
also you do have to register if you want to use this copyright to enforce anything the site says
Yes, but I can very easily provide proof of the original date of creation (when copyright first applied to the code), especially since I not only have copies of every released version on my computer, but there are also two major addon sites who are not related to each other who can provide proof of when the addon was first uploaded.
However, it's pretty sad that you're even bringing this up. My license, in effect, is asking you very nicely to adhere to one very simple rule (don't distribute my addon without my permission) with a very easy workaround (rename the addon), and you're saying, in effect, "screw you, I refuse to comply with that, you'll have to take me to court to stop me." Is that really how you feel about this?
why should your laws affect me (not that i even know the UK ones), can you even take me to court when im in another country?
Yes, I can, and "my" laws affect you because the country you live in has agreed at multiple international conventions to respect and enforce the copyright laws of the country I live in. In return, the country I live in has agreed to respect and enforce the copyright laws of the country you live in.
[B]Is my copyright good in other countries?[/B]
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a, [I]International Copyright Relations of the United States[/I].
The linked PDF file indicates that the United Kingdom adheres to several laws and treaties relating to international copyrights, including those established at the Berne Convention. In short, yes, my addon being protected by US copyright law means it is also protected in the UK.
I don't have to. The copyright laws in the US, where I live, ensure that the code in my addons is automatically copyrighted at the moment it is written. I can explicitly take action to give up any or all of my copyright rights after the fact, by licensing my code under a specific license or placing it in the public domain, but if I take no action, the code remains automatically and legally copyrighted to me with all rights reserved. This applies to [i]any[/i] addon code written by anyone living in the US, even if the author doesn't know about it.
I'm confused. If addons in a compilation are linked to the same downloads that people are using to download the addons individually then supporting addons in compilations is no different than supporting addons downloaded outside of them. They are the same files, just downloaded slightly differently. The same support issues apply, no? I trying to see the difference in supporting one or the other, other than volume.
Because in order to allow inclusion in "virtual" compilations (everything is just linked, and is pulled from my latest file), but not in "physical" compilations (everything is zipped and uploaded the compiler), I would have to alter my license to make that distincion, and because it would open the door for people to include my addon in any compilation and then claiming "oh, I didn't know what the difference was". It's infinitely simpler and more robust from a legal standpoint to make no distinction, and prohibit inclusion in [i]any[/i] compilations.
Also, I do allow for inclusion [b]if[/i] I have been asked beforehand and granted my consent, but the chances of me consenting to any compilation are about one in a billion. Nearly every compilation I've seen makes me think "eww", and I don't want my work associated with something that makes me think "eww" when I see it. :p
Not to be a butt but should I ask permission before downloading and using your mod too?
As StormFX already responded, the answer to this is an obvious "no" as evidenced by the fact that I post it on public addon download sites. If you read the license I include with my addons, it clearly states that you may not redistribute the addon in any form, including in a compilation, unless you first rename it, and that if you do, the new name must not contain the name of my addon or my name.
Basically, you are free to download and use my addon yourself, but you are not allowed to upload it anywhere for others. If you really want to include, say, PhanxChat, in a compilation you're building, you can actually do that -- right after you rename it to, say, ZophielChat, and remove any reference to "PhanxChat" or "Phanx" anywhere in the code.
My goal with this is that you can do whatever you want with my code -- as long as whatever you do does not lead to me spending time trying to provide support for code that I didn't write (i.e. you changed something and distributed your modified version) or for code that is outdated (i.e. you included it in an addon pack six months ago but never updated, even though I've released four updates in that time(.
sounds an awful lot like copy right, the internet is for sharing
It sounds like copyright because it is copyright. Before you continue to exercise your divine right to post misinformation on Internet forums, I suggest you check out the US government's web page with basic information about US copyright law, which is respected and enforced not only in the US, but in most countries around the world.
but surely that is not bound by law without a proper license to do so? [edit: not too sure but some may even be able to claim it as their own but so long as they dont use it for commercail purposes its legal]
i mean you make an addon for yourself and hopefully others to use, so why does it matter where they get it, its still you as the toc file author. Me, i would be happier knowing that more people can now enjoy my addon
but coding forums are bound to be elitist, i mean just look at the WAU response
1. If an addon does not explicitly state any license terms, under US (and many other countries') copyright law it is automatically "all rights reserved" by the addon author, and you have no rights to modify, distribute, or do anything else with the addon besides download it and run it for your own individual personal use. See copyright FAQ link above.
2. It's not about elitism. If you've ever released an addon, you'll know how much time and frustration can stem from trying to provide support to users. Even if the ONLY place users can download your addon is the ONE place you uploaded it, you'll still get support requests for bugs which were fixed months before. You'll still get support requrest from people who didn't read the addon description and can't figure out how to make it do X. Now go to any UI site that allows compilations, and spend even 30 seconds looking at their compilation listing -- look how many compilations are massively outdated, but are still downloaded by dozens of users every day. If your addon is included in even one of those compilations, that's dozens of new users every day who are downloading your addon and are probably stumbling over bugs you fixed long ago.
When they get pissed and delete your addon and tell their friends not to use it, is that a desirable outcome of "more people can enjoy my addon"? I don't think it is.
When they come to your download page and say they just downloaded your addon yesterday and are having Y problem, and you spend hours scratching your head trying to figure out how that problem could still be happening in the latest version as of yesterday, is that a desirable outcome?
When some well-meaning third party adds a feature to your addon and posts the modified version on your guild forums, and you get people asking YOU for support about features you certainly never included in your addon, is that a desirable outcome?
When it comes down to it, my license is very reasonable. It allows you to do absolutely anything you want with the code I wrote, as long as you completely remove my name and my addon's name from the code so that I don't get support requests for code I didn't distribute.
Or no license, which I have no idea, IANAL but w/o stating you can/can't do something, and w/o including a notice/copy right/license while releasing it in "human readable form" on the internet... I'd say you'd have one hell of tough time with the legal system retroactively assigning a license to it.
See the copyright FAQ I linked above. If an addon does not explicitly state its license terms, it is automatically copyrighted to its author with all rights reserved. You do not need to stamp a copyright notice on it, or include a copy of US copyright law with it. In essence, "no license" is the most restrictive license of all, giving you no rights to do anything with the code. Specific licenses, even if they're not open-source-compatible, can really only give you more rights.
Not to be a turd, but are you going to give add-on authors the the option of opting their files out of compilations? :p
I'd also like to know the answer to this. I don't want my addons included in any kind of compilations, premade UIs, guild packs, or whatever else you want to call them, whether it's manually packaged by the uploader, or dynamically packaged by the site. If you like my addon, and want to share it with other people, give them a link to the download page.