Would you use a membership-based MazzleUI site?

[Layrajha]

Originally Posted by Kaomie That is exactly what I am saying. So if you confirm you went through every single files and there is nothing that resemble a mention to a distribution license then no issue, no one can claim anything like tardmrr was questioning. If there is one then the addon should be removed. It is as easy as that and works both ways, protecting both Mazzle and the authors.

Ok, I misunderstood what you said then Sorry about that, it seems that we agree here. And in the case there is a restrictive license distributed with the addon, well it's already been suggested: just throw a link to the official download site or make a program that goes there and downloads it if necessary, it's still nothing impossible. Unless someone finds a way in his/her license to forbid the use of his UI in as a part of a compilation, but I'm kinda curious to see how he/she would write this ^^

[Gemini_II]

Originally Posted by Mazzlefizz While I am probing for feedback about whether there would be interest, I did not want this to turn into another copyright discussion. I was simply asking if people would be interested in joining and people have turned the discussion into whether I'd be allowed to legally sell software of others, which is not what I was proposing at all.

I hear you Mazzle... it's the double-edged sword of the internet. Freedom of speech is great but can be a pain too. Same with fame. People are interested (and sometimes concerned, both pro and con) with MazzleUI since it's so popular. I know you don't want to sell anyones code.

Sorry if you think I've contributed to this in a negative way. I've tried playing devil's advocate without giving my opinion (as my feelings are mixed anyways); while staying objective. If that's the case I'll probably keep quiet.

[stormsnake]

Honestly i would not mind the member-site. I am a big fan of your ui... and any steps to ensure its continued growth would be something i would consider Money well spent

[Kaomie]

Originally Posted by Mazzlefizz While I am probing for feedback about whether there would be interest, I did not want this to turn into another copyright discussion. I was simply asking if people would be interested in joining and people have turned the discussion into whether I'd be allowed to legally sell software of others, which is not what I was proposing at all.

This is part of the reasons why people would be willing to use it or not I think, which is the OP title. Also why would you ask for people interest into something if the something cannot exist first

Originally Posted by Mazzlefizz Anyway, if I make the site, I have decided I will now almost certainly not make the add-ons of others available through it, to stem any such concerns. I'll leave it up to the users to make a package of add-ons on the normal add-on sites that will be compatible. It'll be harder for the newer, less technical users, as they'd have to make two downloads, but so be it, if that's what others authors would feel more comfortable with.

What you could do is part of the package you provide include a small script (I am not saying application as people are crazy-scared about anything executable) that retrieve addons from the web (should be easy with a limited number of sites that cover most addons, maybe even only WoWInt and WoWAce). This way you keep some control over what is ultimately available in the installation without including anything in the paying pack. And it remains easy to use

[FelixTeCat]

Originally Posted by Kaomie What you could do is part of the package you provide include a small script (I am not saying application as people are crazy-scared about anything executable) that retrieve addons from the web (should be easy with a limited number of sites that cover most addons, maybe even only WoWInt and WoWAce). This way you keep some control over what is ultimately available in the installation without including anything in the paying pack. And it remains easy to use

Or maybe just empty folders and let WAU take care of the rest

[Kaomie]

Originally Posted by FelixTeCat Or maybe just empty folders and let WAU take care of the rest

That is the basic idea really but not all addons come from the WoWAce repository. I am pretty sure some are even only available on Curse-Gaming (just like other may only be here ), at least in their most recent version.

[FelixTeCat]

Originally Posted by Kaomie That is the basic idea really but not all addons come from the WoWAce repository. I am pretty sure some are even only available on Curse-Gaming (just like other may only be here ), at least in their most recent version.

This is true but if Mazzle is going to continue the UI he could move to almost all WoWAce for the external Add-Ons to not only make it easy on himself but on the end user also..



PS: Hi Kaomie, this is keeping me from dieing of boardom at work

[Mazzlefizz]

Originally Posted by Kaomie This is part of the reasons why people would be willing to use it or not I think, which is the OP title. Also why would you ask for people interest into something if the something cannot exist first

lol, I think our definitions of what that 'something' is differs. I don't think there was a problem with my original definition. I think people were mis-characterizing it, but I take your point.

Originally Posted by Kaomie What you could do is part of the package you provide include a small script (I am not saying application as people are crazy-scared about anything executable) that retrieve addons from the web (should be easy with a limited number of sites that cover most addons, maybe even only WoWInt and WoWAce). This way you keep some control over what is ultimately available in the installation without including anything in the paying pack. And it remains easy to use

I'd rather not deal with the hairiness that using an auto-downloader as the main mechanism would entail. And WAU does not cover all the add-ons. And who knows? I could imagine a couple packs being distributed by users that might be interesting in ways I don't envision, especially if I expand the skin definitions. In all honesty, this seems like a lot of unnecessary convolution, but no matter. One thing at a time.

[Kaomie]

Originally Posted by Mazzlefizz In all honesty, this seems like a lot of unnecessary convolution, but no matter.

And it actually is. I use scripts to update my addons and so many mods have specificities that is almost impossible to have something truly generic. For some addons I have to parse some LUA files themselves to retrieve a meaningfully version before it is compared to the online availability. On the plus side it is easy to maintain the versioning after that and remember what to upgrade next

[Gemini_II]

Originally Posted by Kaomie What you could do is part of the package you provide include a small script (I am not saying application as people are crazy-scared about anything executable) that retrieve addons from the web

I've had a similar idea for my compilation for awhile but I can't find a tool to do it as of yet. I would store the files on my website and something like WAU would pull everything from my server for the user. Easy and effective... it just doesn't exist (yet) afaik...

[Tissa]

I can see why mazzle may want to have a pay site for support. Especially with some of the things that I see here. That said though I couldn't afford 5-10 a month, due the fact of a fixed income due to disability. I think that this is a wonderful compilation and would love to help if I could.

Oh and as to the copyright guy who thinks that there should be notices other wise it is free game. According to the Copyright act of 1979 a notice of Copyright is optional after 1989, and copyright is automatic and immediate at the creation of an original work of authorship in a fixed and tangible means of expression. So yes anyone who has coded has their work automatically Copyrighted with or with out notice. And no it does not need to be registered or carry a notice of copy right all though it is recommended that they do.

But Mazzle is not selling others works. He * I think he is a he* is selling support to his compilation although he would have to comply if an author requested that the said authors code not be used in such a fashion. He is offering a service, in which he chases down all the updates, makes mods play nice with each other and his nifty art work and own work.

[minyaen]

Yes, I would pay $5-$10 per month for regular and continued feature additions and updates.

You got my vote.

[Kaomie]

Originally Posted by Tissa According to the Copyright act of 1979 a notice of Copyright is optional after 1989, and copyright is automatic and immediate at the creation of an original work of authorship in a fixed and tangible means of expression. So yes anyone who has coded has their work automatically Copyrighted with or with out notice. And no it does not need to be registered or carry a notice of copy right all though it is recommended that they do.

We are only talking distribution of the original work under new packaging, not contesting the Intellectual Property itself. Considering addons are made publicly available on downloads site like here it would be ruled fair use to include it in a package unless there is an express mention that forbids it or enforce extra conditions.

[Layrajha]

Actually, I was wrong about the "default copyright" thing (or I think I was, but well...).

Originally Posted by Wikipedia The requirement to add a notice became obsolete and essentially deprecated on August 23, 2000, as every country that was a member of the Buenos Aires Convention (which is the only copyright treaty requiring this notice to be used) is also a member of the Berne Convention which requires protection be granted without any formality of notice of copyright.

Sorry about remaining "out of topic" a bit, but I think it still raised something interesting (I, and maybe others, learned something today ^^).

Edit: I still don't know however how you can specify what you allow or not with your addons if you don't write it somewhere. As emails have, from what I heard (which was about my country's rules, and Internet rules aren't international ^^), no legal status, and as I would assume that blogs or forum posts are just the same, does it mean you have to figure out Mazzle's IRL address and send him a mail requesting the removal of your addon in his compilation? The fact that you have a "default" copyright doesn't mean it's easy to get it work

[airdragon]

First off, I'm all for it. I would gladly pay a few dollars a month to keep using MazzleIU core package alone.

Second, just so everyone here can stop arguing over it etc, Mazzle you will be offering a program that enhances the usability of other existing addons. This is completely legal, my office uses a program called Power Desktop that does just the same thing but for Microsoft/Adobe/etc products. Also you will be selling support of your addon that allows others to use it. And linking to the main pages for the redistribution sites like wowinterface curse etc is perfectly legit as well.

As to all the intellectual property comments etc....... how many lawyers posted? Because a freely distributed publicly accessible asset is yours, but you cannot legally stop people from redistributing it without a proper license. You might think otherwise but the cost in money/resources to prove this to the contrary takes YEARS, during which time the only way you could get them to stop redistribution would be to make the current version licensed (under any public restrictive license you want) and get a cease and desist order. And if they were hosted out of the US and Europe, good luck enforcing that. Ask the RIAA and MPAA how that is going.

So in short conclusion I say go for it Mazzle, at least this way when people needlessly flame you because they are just rotten, you can Ban them. Make sure to add a no refund policy like WoWs for banned users. But anyways, my two cents..... whether everyone likes it or not. Peace!

[Cairenn]

I am staying out of this conversation, other than to point out one little thing:

To everyone saying that "unless there is a notice written into the code, it is open source," you have it completely backwards. Unless there is a notice specifically written into the code stating that it is open source, it is automatically covered by copyright protections as soon as the author writes it.

No, IANAL, but I have been dealing with UI author copyright, both technical [code] and artistic [graphics], for over 5 years now.

Just because a picture is posted on the web, it doesn't mean you can take it and claim it as your own, redistribute it, make money from it or anything else. Just because someone writes a story on the web, it doesn't mean you can take it and claim it as your own, redistribute it, make money from it or anything else. If you want to use either of the above examples, you have to have the artist's express permission. Code is the exact same thing. Unless the author says you may use it, or clearly states that it is open source within the file itself, you may NOT do anything with it without the express permission of the author as it has copyright protection. Period.

Neither Mazzle not anyone else has the right to distribute, let alone make money from, other people's code unless they have specifically asked for permission or the original author has licensed it as open source. If an author asks them to remove their code from their compilation, whether they are charging for it or not, that is the original author's right and the compilation author has to abide by that request. To do otherwise is, in all actuality, illegal.

Why do you think that we require that compilation authors give full credit to the original authors of the mods that they include in their compilation? And why do you think if an author asks us to remove a mod from the site if it is violating their copyright, we do so? Why do you think that my signature has proper credit given to the artist that created my avatar, including a link to the original posting of it, where you can also see that I asked for permission before using it? Because it is illegal to do otherwise.

No, many authors don't care, or can't be bothered dealing with the hassels and headaches. Most authors also have no problem with someone using their mod in a compilation, if proper credit is given. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't have the right to demand it's removal if they wish.

Mods are copyright protected, unless they specifically state that they have been released under an open source license. Any other belief is wrong.



/edit for clarity, in case there was any misunderstanding of what I said

I used this thread and Mazzle as an example. I did not state that Mazzle is planning on selling other peoples' code. I did not state that he has refused to remove mods if an author has requested him to do so. I said that it is, technically, illegal for any author to do otherwise. Education of the ignorant, nothing more, nothing less.

[Mazzlefizz]

Can we please move this to a "Hypothetical: What if the evil Mazzlefizz wanted to sell your add-ons? Is that legal?" thread, because I have already repeatedly said that it was not my intent to sell software of any kind. And when people said that they had issues with it anyway, I explicitly then said, no problem, I would not distribute any other people's software at all on such a site. I never mentioned copyright, made no claims to the right to use things, the refusal to remove things or anything else. Yet people continue to go on giving the impression that I claimed that I did not.

[Kaomie]

I must have missed the part when we mentioned Open Source. This has nothing to do with the pricing you apply on either the distribution or the support you provide. Open Source does not imply free (as in costless) either. Addons are plain text so I fail to see how you would not be able to provide the source, which does not mean you can alter it and re-use it the way you want either. You kind of lost me on the entire concept though, according to that you might as well shut down the entire section of Compilations here.

Again all I mentioned was about distribution licensing, not Intellectual Property / Copyright license.

[Gemini_II]

Cairenn... you are awesome (as well as correctly "in the know"). She covered every legal concern in that. Case closed?

And before anyone starts flaming, read her last paragraph/disclaimer. Most people who have posted on this thread have been constructive and objective and not making accusations against the "evil Mazzle" or anything ridiculous like that.

Remember, this is a "community". Input was asked for and some has been given. We (as in *I*) don't want to see Mazzle in trouble or get unnecessary flak for this idea. Mazzle is a Featured Artist for a good reason. This is not, nor should it degenerate into, some personal argument.

[joive]

Originally Posted by Mazzlefizz Can we please move this to a "Hypothetical: What if the evil Mazzlefizz wanted to sell your add-ons? Is that legal?" thread, because I have already repeatedly said that it was not my intent to sell software of any kind. And when people said that they had issues with it anyway, I explicitly then said, no problem, I would not distribute any other people's software at all on such a site. I never mentioned copyright, made no claims to the right to use things, the refusal to remove things or anything else. Yet people continue to go on giving the impression that I claimed that I did not.

This is so simple. When did he (or she?) wrote that he wanted to sell add-ons, code, the underwear of the Developers, etc. For me, He can give me a list of mods to download. Or the Edonkey, Bittorent, Gnutella, etc, link, let me download the Mazzifier, give me a faq, give a forum for support and updates and I will pay for the membership. I'm sure there are other ways to make this, I'm only giving a quick example.

*Legal Note. Thanks to the developers for letting me mention them in this threat.*