Source scripts and mods licensing?

[secXsQuared]

Hello all!

 

I noticed the game comes with "data bundle" which contains the LUA part of the source code. So what's the deal with reusing part of the source file? Is it permitted or considered copyright infringement? If modders reuse the source code does it mean they have to open source the mods too (GPL)? 

 

I also noticed that mods' source script files are directly downloaded to local directory and accessible to anyone. Is this enforced by any license? Can modders make mods proprietary ( i.e. plain source files not accessible to end users, maybe through encryption)?

 

It might be a good idea to include a "LICENSE" file with the source scripts that addresses the issues above so both ends would be happy with not having to worry about legal stuff.

 

Thanks for your time and have a nice day!

[Ultroman]

Not that I KNOW, per se, it has never come up in any discussions of mine. People can and do override the original files at runtime with their mods. It's not a good idea, though, since it may mess up other mods that make use of that file, since it now doesn't work like they expect it to. It's always better to extend the current behavior of the game code, instead of replacing it with copy/paste + changes.

If someone knows the actual legal pieces here, it would be great, but I think it's like most other games that Klei owns your code if it is used for the game.

[zarklord_klei]

While I can't speak to the nature of the exact "license" used for DS(T)'s scripts, I do know that they really don't mind what the heck you do with them as long as they are only used for DS(T) modding, if you were to use that stuff outside the DS(T) environment, I'm sure problems would be had.

I have looked into being able to encrypt or protect certain source files and the short answer is that you can't.
The long answer is that you could write the best encryption ever, but at some point the raw source file would have to pass through a "vulnerable" lua variable, and therefore encryption is meaningless, the best you can do is obfuscate it, to make it harder to view and read, but that's it.

[secXsQuared]

On 3/31/2019 at 5:36 PM, Zarklord said:

While I can't speak to the nature of the exact "license" used for DS(T)'s scripts, I do know that they really don't mind what the heck you do with them as long as they are only used for DS(T) modding, if you were to use that stuff outside the DS(T) environment, I'm sure problems would be had.

I have looked into being able to encrypt or protect certain source files and the short answer is that you can't.
The long answer is that you could write the best encryption ever, but at some point the raw source file would have to pass through a "vulnerable" lua variable, and therefore encryption is meaningless, the best you can do is obfuscate it, to make it harder to view and read, but that's it.

True. But without debugging the process one cannot extract the source scripts. 

I think this would be enough protection. Reverse engineering without consent itself is law-breaking. However, under the assumption that all behaviors are lawful, the source scripts are well protected by encryption.

On 3/31/2019 at 1:37 PM, Ultroman said:

Not that I KNOW, per se, it has never come up in any discussions of mine. People can and do override the original files at runtime with their mods. It's not a good idea, though, since it may mess up other mods that make use of that file, since it now doesn't work like they expect it to. It's always better to extend the current behavior of the game code, instead of replacing it with copy/paste + changes.

If someone knows the actual legal pieces here, it would be great, but I think it's like most other games that Klei owns your code if it is used for the game.

Yeah I totally agree. Overriding original files is both a bad design decision and a bad implementation. I wish Klei only exposed LUA APIs like War3 JASS instead of directly overwriting the source file. It's much better for both compatibility and maintenance. 

 

I have mixed feelings about Klei automatically owning the mods, if it's really the case. I think they should specify in their terms of agreements.

Edited April 16, 2019 by secXsQuared

[zarklord_klei]

21 hours ago, secXsQuared said:

True. But without debugging the process one cannot extract the source scripts. 

I think this would be enough protection. Reverse engineering without consent itself is law-breaking. However, under the assumption that all behaviors are lawful, the source scripts are well protected by encryption.

It wouldn't even really be debugging, It would just be tracing the loading calls. RE is only lawbreaking if you enter into a ToS saying that is such.