WoW UI AddOn Development Policy discussion thread

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by ChaosInc Once again, this makes more sense in my head. Just can't find the right words for it.

I'm glad.. because you just lost me!

(that's said with a twinkle in my eye)

[Slakah]

I'm very sceptical about Blizzard having any grounds to sue someone for selling an addon, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know the possible ramifications of this new policy.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 The problem in that argument, at least to me, is that it does establish a precedent. What if, tomorrow, Adobe decided they didn't want a third-party market because they decided they were going to market those ideas (the ones not patented anyway) themselves?

Gimp would get a lot of market share.

Once the marketplace accepts that Blizzard has the "right" to tell addon authors what they can and cannot do, then any and all producers of public APIs have by association the "right" to tell people what the can and can't do with the copyrights they own that use those APIs and suddenly, and API ceases to be what an API is.

First off, I don't think this is particularly new. Again, no Quake maps for money. That's a pretty old example. More generally, I think the understanding is clearly that the "right" comes, not from the API, but from the fact that there's no way to make any use of the API outside of WoW's servers, accounts, and so on.

If Bliz does not want people to use their API for commercial use, then I have no problem with them removing the API. Otherwise, they have no claim over what people do with the API. If they have a claim over what people do with their API, then every company that produces any product has a claim over what anyone does with their API and we're in a bad place suddenly.

I don't think so. This is not just an API; it's a specific implementation which is tied to servers you can't access except under fairly specific terms. I don't think this would generalize very far.

Look at the Glider case. Do we see a general worry that companies whose software you run on your computer will get the ability to tell you not to run other programs on the same computer? No. Why? Because it's not applicable.

For that matter: Why aren't there any horde/alliance translation mods? Because Blizzard banned them. The assertion that Blizzard has the authority to ban mods that use the API is NOT a new one!

So I don't think we're really seeing a significant change, and I'm not worried about the slippery slope in this case.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by Slakah I'm very sceptical about Blizzard having any grounds to sue someone for selling an addon, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know the possible ramifications of this new policy.

Me too... I don't think they would have a prayer of doing so in a court. However, they have made the threat very openly in the policy...

right out of the gate: #1 You may not charge anything related to an add-on
closing: if you violate these terms, we reserve the right to sue you

That's pretty cut and dry. Whether or not they can is a good question... they've certainly made the threat.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Yhor I only hope it doesn't get to the point of reaching into other areas of programming by setting a legal precedence. It has the potential to harm a lot more than just WoW addons and/or authors, I'm just surprised more of you who are programmers by occupation don't see the potential for harm in your industry as a whole.

I'm pretty sure it's not there.

Even if Blizzard won a case on this issue, I don't think it would affect any of the cases in which I program to APIs other than this one, and on this one, I'm fine with their rules.

I believe this is what may have set Cogwheel off, he has always (iirc) been an advocate of authors rights.

So far as I know, yes.

... But you know what? I'm bored, I got paid recently, and I know a lawyer who's always a pleasure to talk to. I'm gonna see if I can dredge up some Actual Legal Advice on the topic.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by seebs First off, I don't think this is particularly new. Again, no Quake maps for money. That's a pretty old example.

This one I would agree with myself... those maps are without a doubt a derivative work. Ergo, you cannot sell them.

I think the understanding is clearly that the "right" comes, not from the API, but from the fact that there's no way to make any use of the API outside of WoW's servers, accounts, and so on.

Here we disagree... no API is usable outside the platform on which it is built. And API is an API, the platform is something else.

I don't think so. This is not just an API; it's a specific implementation which is tied to servers you can't access except under fairly specific terms. I don't think this would generalize very far.

I differ here as well... an API to a video card has the exact same underlying structure at a conceptual level. Doesn't give the video card maker any rights with what the API client does.

Look at the Glider case. Do we see a general worry that companies whose software you run on your computer will get the ability to tell you not to run other programs on the same computer? No. Why? Because it's not applicable.

The Glider case keeps coming up. However, it is not analogous... what Glider did modified the in-game character behavior, database content, etc. and was without question detrimental to the product it was parasitic to. I agree Bliz had a case there and I am glad they won it. This precludes third parties from being able to damage the quality, integrity and value of another parties product for profit.

For that matter: Why aren't there any horde/alliance translation mods? Because Blizzard banned them. The assertion that Blizzard has the authority to ban mods that use the API is NOT a new one!

Again... this is something that actually has to pass *though* Blizzard's network and therefore, is within their purview. In addition, this is something well within Bliz's rights to block since they control the conduit through which it passes.

So I don't think we're really seeing a significant change, and I'm not worried about the slippery slope in this case.

I doubt we'll see a change either, to be honest... but I also don't think the precedent lacks danger and I do believe in pushing back for what is right. I'm a veteran, what can I say... I like a good fight when it's for the better good. Yes... I'm one of those sappy old school patriotic rah rah people.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by seebs I'm gonna see if I can dredge up some Actual Legal Advice on the topic.

If it matters any... I'm already there myself.

[Jeniwyn]

Anyone who feels that they have an exceptional grip on the legal situation of #1?

Author of addon X can obviously charge for his copyrighted material, Blizzard have no valid claim to it.

Blizzard can obviously alter their program to stop unwanted addons from working.

If author X then modifies his addon in an effort to work around Blizzards "ban", perhaps by making some kind of autoupdater that tries to stay ahead of Blizzard. What is the legal situation?

Once the addon tries to circumvent a ban it is clear that intent for procurement of breach of contract exists (this is assuming that Blizzard modifies the EULA), but would that claim hold water in this case?

Do Blizzard have a right to stop users from useing addons solely on the basis of them having payed for it? A measure implemented solely to prevent addon writers from profiting from their copyrighted material.

Glider would have been open for suit even if its creator handed it out for free, it was arguably destructive in what it actually did. Its hard to claim that applies to nUI raidframes.

My point here is that the addon in and of itself would be perfectly ok if it was free. Blizzard wants to stop the author from profiting. Thus they update the EULA with specific intent to use it to claim procurement of breach of contract. That this is a valid technique to stop distribution of something harmful is one thing, but to use it in order to stop the commercial distribution itself, is this really fair game legally?

If they instead put into the EULA that customers may not run banned addons, something that would in and of itself probably fly since the argument can be made that they have a right to stop addons that might do things to the client and hurt their servers (basically #3 on thir policy list) and then get the addon this way? It is still banned for its commercial distribution only.

In other words, would it be considered a "lawful contract" for a private person to agree not to install commercial otherwise perfectly ok products? Do anyone know of any case similar to this? It would be most interesting.

[Petrah]

Originally Posted by ChaosInc to require someone to pay for access to said addon is what I'm against. I think you're assuming I mean payment specifically, when I'm in fact against the entire concept as a whole. Once again, this makes more sense in my head. Just can't find the right words for it.

Do you feel that way about every piece of pay for software, or just WoW addons in general? If it's the latter, what makes an addon (or the person who took the time to create it) any different than any other pay software (or the person who took the time to create it)?

[Jeniwyn]

Originally Posted by Silenia Do you feel that way about every piece of pay for software, or just WoW addons in general? If it's the latter, what makes an addon (or the person who took the time to create it) any different than any other pay software (or the person who took the time to create it)?

OH! OH! I know this one! *jumps up and down*

Nothing.

What do I win?

[Petrah]

Originally Posted by Jeniwyn OH! OH! I know this one! *jumps up and down* Nothing. What do I win?

Milk and cookies of course! ([_] 0000000

[spiel2001]

A free copy of the free version of the free program that someone wrote for free.

~grin~

EDIT: Are you disappointed?

[Jeniwyn]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 A free copy of the free version of the free program that someone wrote for free. ~grin~ EDIT: Are you disappointed?

Nope, I'm very grateful every time someone lets me use their program for free.

[spiel2001]

Originally Posted by Jeniwyn Nope, I'm very grateful every time someone lets me use their program for free.

Pfft... you're not fun at all... won't even allow a guy to enjoy a little light hearted sarcasm /pout

~kidding~

[Xruptor]

What happened the analogies spiel2001? Comic relief is needed in this thread Otherwise people will be a bit too over the top.

That and I don't want Cairenn to go insane God knows I'm already crazy.

[Jeniwyn]

Yeah, I'm evil incarnate.


I hope the legal advice brings some good news btw, if appropriet please keep us updated.

Edit: Seriously, what are the odds of someone sneaking in and putting a banana in the post above me?

[seebs]

Originally Posted by spiel2001 This one I would agree with myself... those maps are without a doubt a derivative work. Ergo, you cannot sell them.

How are they derivative?

They're just chunks of 3D data. They're not necessarily made from any existing components of Quake. All you're doing is writing data of your own creation in a particular format.

Here we disagree... no API is usable outside the platform on which it is built. And API is an API, the platform is something else.

Consider the existence of paint programs which support "photoshop plugins". Obviously, that API can be used to target multiple platforms. Similarly, there are multiple somewhat-compatible JavaScript implementations out there.

By contrast, the WoW API really doesn't exist anywhere but WoW.

I differ here as well... an API to a video card has the exact same underlying structure at a conceptual level. Doesn't give the video card maker any rights with what the API client does.

Not intrinsically.

The Glider case keeps coming up. However, it is not analogous... what Glider did modified the in-game character behavior, database content, etc. and was without question detrimental to the product it was parasitic to. I agree Bliz had a case there and I am glad they won it. This precludes third parties from being able to damage the quality, integrity and value of another parties product for profit.

I don't think that's necessarily generally a good thing. Consider that much of the value of Microsoft Word is its subtle incompatibilities with other word processors. A third-party addon which modified saved files so they would work with other word processors would absolutely undermine Microsoft... But I'd like to see it available.

I doubt we'll see a change either, to be honest... but I also don't think the precedent lacks danger and I do believe in pushing back for what is right. I'm a veteran, what can I say... I like a good fight when it's for the better good. Yes... I'm one of those sappy old school patriotic rah rah people.

Heh.

Well, thinking about it.

Let's ignore the lawsuits for a moment. What happens if they decide that some addon (say, BadUI, a UI mod I just invented for the sake of this argument) violates their addon policy? They blacklist it, for one thing.

Now what? If the BadUI addon authors suddenly bypass that blacklist, we have pretty good evidence that they've used the game to figure out what they had to change to bypass it. That means they're more likely breaking the license terms...

I don't immediately see a grounds for lawsuits. I do see, in practice, adequate evidence that Blizzard has the capacity and resources to prevent access to the game by addons they dislike for whatever reason, and I don't see much point disputing that.

I think it'd be more productive to work on getting them to reach some kind of standard of what level of "soliciting" is actually banned or allowed.

[littlewierdo]

1) Add-ons must be free of charge.

Yet Bizz charges for the game, each expansion, and a monthly fee.

2) Add-on code must be completely visible.

While you can use an MPQ editor to grab various things from the game (sounds, music, pics), this doesn't exactly qualify as visible.

3) Add-ons must not negatively impact World of Warcraft realms or other players.

I wonder how many patches were done where the game was down for days or heck, 'extended maintanence' that lasted longer than it should. Tuesday morning, it takes 8 hours to do whatever it is they do...yet we dont get a discount of the total 1 day a month (8 hours * 4 days a month) for this.

4) Add-ons may not include advertisements.

Anyone looked at the blizz launcher lately?

5) Add-ons may not solicit donations.

Something Blizz will never do because they require almost $100 up front just to play WoW (not to mention, a monthly fee).

6) Add-ons must not contain offensive or objectionable material.

Interesting that WoW has in-game quests some might consider offensive - picking up, searching for/thru poop. That's just 1 example.

I understand some of what Blizzard is doing, but I think it's hypocritical nonetheless.

[Petrah]

Originally Posted by littlewierdo 1) Add-ons must be free of charge. Yet Bizz, charges not only for the game and each expansion and a monthly fee. 2) Add-on code must be completely visible. While you can use an MPQ editor to grab various things from the game (sounds, music, pics), this doesnt exactly qualify as visible. 3) Add-ons must not negatively impact World of Warcraft realms or other players. I wonder how many patches were done where the game was down for days or heck, 'extended maintanence' that lasted longer than it should. Tuesday morning, it takes 8 hours to do whatever it is they do...yet we dont get a discount of the total 1 day a month (8 hours * 4 days a month) for this. 4) Add-ons may not include advertisements. Anyone looked at the blizz launcher lately? 5) Add-ons may not solicit donations. Something Blizz will never do because they require almost $100 up front just to play WoW. 6) Add-ons must not contain offensive or objectionable material. Interesting that WoW has in-game quests some might consider offensive - picking up, searching for/thru poop. That's just 1 example. I understand some of what Blizzard is doing, but I think it's hypocritical nonetheless.

None of that really has anything to do with the new policy.

However, the searching through poop thing was added specifically so that my boyfriend could harass me with it when we create new characters. /nods

[Yhor]

As for WoW addons ONLY being viable in WoW API, there are a few WAR addons that came from wow addons. The API must not be all that different, at least to some degree.

This is heresay, mind you. I've never played WAR.