Slashdot Mirror
Bioware Revises NWN EULA
malaire writes "Assistant Producer Derek French of Neverwinter Nights has posted the new EULA for all to see. This addresses most concerns raised by the community about user-created content for the game." Our story noting the EULA concerns makes interesting, if somewhat confusing, reading.
Okay, if anyone actually bothered to READ the EULA, they will see that Bioware has actually done a Good Thing (tm). Now you actually have to distribute your module, as opposed to simply "serving" it. Which I suppose means that if 5,000 people play under me as a DM, they cant touch it, but if I send it to Billy Bob jr to play on his Lindows machine, its fair game. :)
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
6. Revocation of Rights. Infogrames and/or BioWare may at any time and in their sole discretion revoke your right to make your Variations publicly available (whether you are Distributing or Serving), provided that Infogrames and/or BioWare shall not revoke your right to Distribute a Variation if Infogrames and/or BioWare is, at the time of such revocation, using or distributing such Variation.
:)
So they actually put in their EULA that if they sell a expansion pack with your mod in it, they won't take away your distribution rights of said mod just to bump their profits.
From section 2:
;-)
You may not copy, rent, lend, lease, sublicense, distribute, publicly display, create derivative works based upon the Software (except as provided in Section 3 below) or otherwise commercially exploit the Software (including, without limitation, hosting pay-per-play servers).
Copy, rent, lease, sublicense and all those junk I understand, but forbidding me to lend it to my friend is going overboard. Ah, well, I'll just have to exchange it for another game then
Also, since the end-user can't publicly display NWN, it seems like they'll be releasing them in nondescript black boxes then...
Im still looking for the part where I agree to give my soul to bioware when I buy the game. That always hapens when I buy one of these games.
The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
Well, this is good news; the rewording is a large step in the right direction although they still haven't crossed the finish line yet.
;)
Essentially they have revised the clause everyone was upset over to read "we can force you to stop giving away your mod, but only if we're not selling it too". This addresses the concerns people had with Bioware stealing their customers' mods, while still giving them a legal right to stop the distribution of mods they/someone finds offensive. While cencorship is still implied, it at least removes the possibility that they can unfairly profit off your hard work.
However, they still added the weasel words that would allow them to include your mod in a CD they're selling and not give you credit for it. While it does they they will make every effort to give you credit, it does not say they *have* to; in fact they give themselves permission to forget; so it basically still boilds down to "we'll give you credit if we feel like making the effort".
Oh well, if your mod is that popular, people will most likely have already heard of you and know you made it. I know that I for one now feel no hesitation in designing and distributing my own mods; whether people will want to play them is another matter.
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Only in the software business does this perverse atitude exist.
;) )
Modifing an existing product and selling the modification is a true american princepal.
Examples:
You buy a new car and figure out a way to increase its horsepower with $20 dollars worth of parts, and procede to sell the modification kits on ebay for $30 dollars. Not only is this very very legal, it is also quite widespread (car fanatics are everywhere
You buy a portable gaming system that for reasons totally unknown has no backlight, and design one and sell it on your own website. Huh, never heard of this one, huh?
Wake up, no matter what some silly EULA says, aftermarket modifications that you spend your time on are yours. If you spend 80 hours on a modification, and its completly your own work, no judge would let a company steal those rights from you because of some contract you did not sign before the sale. If you sign a contract before the sale, now, thats entirely different.
I hate reading posts like this from people who have no clue and didn't follow the community for the last three or so years like some of us did.
The reason people are upset with no linux binary is because THEY SAID THERE WOULD BE ONE. In fact even stores thought there would be one, so people ACTUALLY PUT MONEY DOWN ON A LINUX VERSION!!
This is like Nintendo promising Mario for the Genesis - going so far as to say it hundreds of times - and have it on their webpage - announce in stores that mario for the genesis was coming so you had better preorder now - thousands of peole "buying" it - and then nintendo saying "Nah, we don't feel like it any more"
DONT COMMENT ON THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!
I am a linux gamer - but I am NOT that upset over this whole thing. I am buying the game tomorrow (already preordered at Gamestop) - and will be dual booting - then when the binary comes out I will use that in linux.
Derek
While the enforceability of EULAs is still being tested in the courts and tweaked by the likes of UCITA, it is copyright law that dominates, here. Copyright law grants to the author the exclusive right to create derivative works. You cannot mod, so to speak, "Gone With the Wind."
There was (and may still be) a group working on a Matrix FPS mod. It's a waste of time, because Warner Bros. has granted an exclusive Matrix license to a commercial game company. If the mod is any good, it will be suppressed, just like the Alien TC for Doom.
The NWN EULA adds to, rather than detracts from, fair use. I just don't find the additional grants compelling.
When you buy a book, you're not necessarily spending your hard earned dollars on the physical representation of what you buy. It doesn't cost $8 to produce a paperback. You own the cover, the spine, the pages but you do not own the story contained there within.
No, you are buying exactly one copy of not just the physical book, but the story contained within. The only thing that copyright gives anyone is the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work. That's it! It does not magically confer ownership of ideas to anyone.
You may sell your book under the doctrine of First Sale without having to pay royalties (or 'liscense fees' if you will) to the content owners, for that has already been paid once.
As can I sell or give away a copy of any piece of software I have legally purchased.
EULA's by themselves have been found legal, its parts in the EULA's that have not been legally tested.
Really?
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
You do not purchase something, you liscense the use of it.
The above court decision would clearly disagree.
Don'y buy the propaganda. It doesn't matter how many 'education' campaigns are waged by software publishers, it doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, purchasing an item and not a license.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You should know, in the early 20th century book publishers included ex post facto contracts, very similar to the EULA, restricting your right to resell your book among other things. Congress declared that no such contracts will be enforced.
What if they included in the EULA that by using the software you give up the right to your first born. Now, clearly, even if you signed that before you got the product, such a contract could not be enforced. There are certain rights that can not be signed away by anyone at all. I'm not saying the rights which the EULA restricts can not be signed away, but stop making these blanket statements and pretending everything is black and white.
It's kind of like people's reaction to a monopoly of a non-essential good. "Well if you don't like their prices, don't buy it!" In an efficient market there are other factors besides what you're willing to pay that will decide the price.