• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Modder (featured in yesterday's paid bundle) decides to exit Workshop and maybe Nexus

courtesy of cdyhybrid

So one of the flagship modders included in Valve's initial paid bundle is backing out from offering paid mods after one of his mods was taken down (by him) due to a potential copyright dispute.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrimmods/comments/33qcaj/the_experiment_has_failed_my_exit_from_the/

However, it might not be that simple:



Good old Valve, doing what's best for the modders and the community :')

going to copy the whole post here, read it:

Hello everyone,

I would like to address the current situation regarding Arissa, and Art of the Catch, an animated fishing mod scripted by myself and animated by Aqqh.

It now lives in modding history as the first paid mod to be removed due to a copyright dispute. Recent articles on Kotaku and Destructiod have positioned me as a content thief. Of course, the truth is more complex than that.

I will now reveal some information about some internal discussions that have occurred at Valve in the month leading up to this announcement, more than you've heard anywhere else.

I'll start with the human factor. Imagine you wake up one morning, and sitting in your inbox is an email directly from Valve, with a Bethesda staff member cc'd. And they want YOU, yes, you, to participate in a new and exciting program. Well, shit. What am I supposed to say? These kinds of opportunities happen once in a lifetime. It was a very persuasive and attractive situation.

We were given about a month and a half to prepare our content. As anyone here knows, large DLC-sized mods don't happen in a month and a half. During this time, we were required to not speak to anyone about this program. And when a company like Valve or Bethesda tells you not to do something, you tend to listen.

I knew this would cause backlash, trust me. But I also knew that, with the right support and infrastructure in place, there was an opportunity to take modding to "the next level", where there are more things like Falskaar in the world because the incentive was there to do it. The boundary between "what I'm willing to do as a hobby" and "what I'm willing to do if someone paid me to do it" shifts, and more quality content gets produced. That to me sounded great for everyone. Hobbyists will continue to be hobbyists, while those that excel can create some truly magnificent work. In the case of Arissa, there are material costs associated with producing that mod (studio time, sound editing, and so on). To be able to support Arissa professionally also sounded great.

Things internally stayed rather positive and exciting until some of us discovered that "25% Revenue Share" meant 25% to the modder, not to Valve / Bethesda. This sparked a long internal discussion. My key argument to Bethesda (putting my own head on the chopping block at the time) was that this model incentivizes small, cheap to produce items (time-wise) than it does the large, full-scale mods that this system has the opportunity of championing. It does not reward the best and the biggest. But at the heart of it, the argument came down to this: How much would you pay for front-page Steam coverage? How much would you pay to use someone else's successful IP (with nearly no restrictions) for a commercial purpose? I know indie developers that would sell their houses for such an opportunity. And 25%, when someone else is doing the marketing, PR, brand building, sales, and so on, and all I have to do is "make stuff", is actually pretty attractive. Is it fair? No. But it was an experiment I was willing to at least try.

Of course, the modding community is a complex, tangled web of interdependencies and contributions. There were a lot of questions surrounding the use of tools and contributed assets, like FNIS, SKSE, SkyUI, and so on. The answer we were given is:

[Valve] Officer Mar 25 @ 4:47pm
Usual caveat: I am not a lawyer, so this does not constitute legal advice. If you are unsure, you should contact a lawyer. That said, I spoke with our lawyer and having mod A depend on mod B is fine--it doesn't matter if mod A is for sale and mod B is free, or if mod A is free or mod B is for sale.

Art of the Catch required the download of a separate animation package, which was available for free, and contained an FNIS behavior file. Art of the Catch will function without this download, but any layman can of course see that a major component of it's enjoyment required FNIS. Was this a risky, perhaps bold, thing to go ahead with? Yes. Was it a bit crappy of me? Also yes. But it was a risk I took, and the outcome was largely dependent on the FNIS author's reaction to the situation. He was not happy, so I took steps to resolve it. I did not "steal animations" or "steal content".

After a discussion with Fore, I made the decision to pull Art of the Catch down myself. (It was not removed by a staff member) Fore and I have talked since and we are OK.

I have also requested that the pages for Art of the Catch and Arissa be completely taken down. Valve's stance is that they "cannot" completely remove an item from the Workshop if it is for sale, only allow it to be marked as unpurchaseable. I feel like I have been left to twist in the wind by Valve and Bethesda.

In light of all of the above, and with the complete lack of moderation control over the hundreds of spam and attack messages I have received on Steam and off, I am making the decision to leave the curated Workshop behind. I will be refunding all PayPal donations that have occurred today and yesterday.

I am also considering removing my content from the Nexus. Why? The problem is that Robin et al, for perfectly good political reasons, have positioned themselves as essentially the champions of free mods and that they would never implement a for-pay system. However, The Nexus is a listed Service Provider on the curated Workshop, and they are profiting from Workshop sales. They are saying one thing, while simultaneously taking their cut. I'm not sure I'm comfortable supporting that any longer. I may just host my mods on my own site for anyone who is interested.

What I need to happen, right now, is for modding to return to its place in my life where it's a fun side hobby, instead of taking over my life. That starts now. Or just give it up entirely; I have other things I could spend my energy on.

Real-time update
* - I was just contacted by Valve's lawyer. He stated that they will not remove the content unless "legally compelled to do so", and that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users. I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content. The copyright situation with Art of the Catch is shades of grey, but in Arissa 2.0's case, it's black and white; that's 100% mine and Griefmyst's work, and I should be able to dictate its distribution if I so choose. Unbelievable.

edit:


edit2: *

just to clear that last part up

And as it's been said in the Steam thread, this scenario is already contemplated in the Steam ToS and Workshop FAQ.

I believe this is the best solution: removing the mod from sale, but allowing access to people who already paid for it.

edit3:

obVRPFc.jpg


Bye Chesko.

Paid mods off to a great start.

edit4:

Head of Nexus making another post.
 

Data West

coaches in the WNBA

Valve said not to tell anyone about their mod while they were making it as it was going to be one of the first paid mods. Paid mod used a free mod in its mod without asking for permission from the creator of the free mod. Creator of the free mod was upset and was considering legal action. Valve told paid mod creator that it was ok if they used the free mod without the creator's permission for their paid mod.

Valve didn't tell them directly they were getting 25% of the profit. They assumed Valve was the one getting 25% of the profit.
 
Valve said not to tell anyone about their mod while they were making it as it was going to be one of the first paid mods. Paid mod used a free mod in its mod without asking for permission from the creator of the free mod. Creator of the free mod was upset and was considering legal action. Valve told paid mod creator that it was ok if they used the free mod without the creator's permission for their paid mod.

Valve didn't tell them directly they were getting 25% of the profit. They assumed Valve was the one getting 25% of the profit.

valve wont delist his mod, but only make it unpurchasable
 
Real-time update - I was just contacted by Valve's lawyer. He stated that they will not remove the content unless "legally compelled to do so", and that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users. I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content. The copyright situation with Art of the Catch is shades of grey, but in Arissa 2.0's case, it's black and white; that's 100% mine and Griefmyst's work, and I should be able to dictate its distribution if I so choose. Unbelievable.
So he'd be totally fine with Valve making a game unavailable for people that have purchased it because a music track license ran out or whatever?
 

Krejlooc

Banned
Valve said not to tell anyone about their mod while they were making it as it was going to be one of the first paid mods. Paid mod used a free mod in its mod without asking for permission from the creator of the free mod. Creator of the free mod was upset and was considering legal action. Valve told paid mod creator that it was ok if they used the free mod without the creator's permission for their paid mod.

Valve didn't tell them directly they were getting 25% of the profit. They assumed Valve was the one getting 25% of the profit.

They didn't use one mod in another mod, there is mod dependency. That is a different concept all together. Anybody with linux experience understands build dependencies.

What is happening is the creator of Mod B asked if he can sell his mod if it depends on Mod A being installed, even if he didn't create Mod A. Valve's response is that dependency solution is a virtue of the user.

Classic example of this happening outside of gaming: Audacity can't encode MP3s unless you have a license for LAME mp3.
 

Kinthalis

Banned
They didn't use one mod in another mod, there is mod dependency. That is a different concept all together. Anybody with linux experience understands build dependencies.

What is happening is the creator of Mod B asked if he can sell his mod if it depends on Mod A being installed, even if he didn't create Mod A. Valve's response is that dependency solution is a virtue of the user.

Classic example of this happening outside of gaming: Audacity can't encode MP3s unless you have a license for LAME mp3.

Wait, so what is the issue? If the other content wasn't included in this mod, but marked as required, why is the other guy up in arms? Oh noes, now people who paid for that other mod will want to instlal my free one? Woe is me?

I don't get it...
 

Oh man, this topic looks so interesting, I guess I'll click it. Wait, wtf, there's like 60 seconds of reading in front of me?!?!?!?! SOMEBODY PLEASE SUMMARIZE. C'mon man.

Anyway, I don't really get the Steam Workshop era of 'mods'. If you're working with the people that make the original game on any level, it doesn't really seem like a mod to me. It all seems little silly, he's mad that Valve is out to make money, and that they enforce some conditions that he presumably agreed to.
 
D

Deleted member 102362

Unconfirmed Member
So he'd be totally fine with Valve making a game unavailable for people that have purchased it because a music track license ran out or whatever?

He doesn't seem to realize this is how Steam's always worked. If content is removed from Steam, but someone purchased it, they will always have access to that content, even if it's no longer available through the storefront.

His anger at this policy, as it applies to his removed content, is understandable, yet, in light of how Steam works, misplaced.
 

Krejlooc

Banned
Wait, so what is the issue? If the other content wasn't included in this mod, but marked as required, why is the other guy up in arms? Oh noes, now people who paid for that other mod will want to instlal my free one? Woe is me?

I don't get it...

The guy who made Mod A got upset that a pay mod is depending on his mod for sale. In essence, it looks like anytime someone pays for Mod B, they will download Mod A for free.

The solution is obvious - have the person making Mod A sell his mod. But I guess he doesn't want to do that, nor does he want anybody to profit when his mod is installed.
 
Without knowing anything about the mods involved, it sounds like either:

a) Art of the Catch relies on a separate mod (FNIS) for animation support, and includes a file designed to work with this separate mod (but is not a part of the FNIS assets). FNIS is not included in Art of the Catch, but the maker of FNIS disagrees with this dependency and after a discussion the maker of Art of the Catch pulled the mod down.

b) Art of the Catch includes actual assets from FNIS, Fore didn't know about or license the use of said assets, and as a result Art of the Catch was taken down voluntarily.

The piece of the puzzle I'm missing is what "an FNIS behavior file" is. Is that code from the FNIS mod, or simply a file describing how Art of the Catch is supposed to interact with FNIS if it's installed? Legally, the former seems much more obviously wrong than the latter, which actually sounds totally fine to me if it's just a config file situation. Also, is that truly the extent of the FNIS integration or is the maker of Art of the Catch understating the nature of the supposed copyright infringement?
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Glad this is off to a great start. I do hope disasters like this continue until the program gets scrapped (unlikely, I know).

At least people now know that, once they offer something for sale on the Workshop, it pretty much belongs to Valve and they won't take it down unless you can legally force them to.
 

Krakn3Dfx

Member
Looks like anything listed with a price on the Skyrim Workshop right now says it's not available when you click on it. Wonder what's up. This rabbit hole has no bottom.
 

jgwhiteus

Member
Wait, so what is the issue? If the other content wasn't included in this mod, but marked as required, why is the other guy up in arms? Oh noes, now people who paid for that other mod will want to instlal my free one? Woe is me?

I don't get it...

There are a lot of examples of creators of free software / programs / content saying that it's only meant for non-commercial use, and that people shouldn't package that content in paid programs and try to profit off of it when the original creators aren't.

Some creators consider it exploitation and against the spirit in which the original content was offered. Also, even if it's free the creators are still the copyright holders and get to decide how it's distributed and what's done with it. Free doesn't equal "giving up all creative rights entirely".
 

Krejlooc

Banned
Glad this is off to a great start. I do hope disasters like this continue until the program gets scrapped (unlikely, I know).

At least people now know that, once they offer something for sale on the Workshop, it pretty much belongs to Valve and they won't take it down unless you can legally force them to.

Valve took it down. You can't buy the mod anymore. Their response is that they have an obligation to those who paid for the mod to keep it available to those customers. So, if you've purchased the mod, you still can download the mod.

You know, that whole "what if so-and-so removes my access to a game I bought" nightmare scenario people play up against digital distribution.

Mod A is upset that files from Mod A were included in Mod B per the installer. It's like when you install a game and they install the latest version of Direct X for you. An amicable solution would be to remove the Mod A installer from Mod B, but that burdens consumers.
 

Mesoian

Member
Looks like anything listed with a price on the Skyrim Workshop right now says it's not available when you click on it. Wonder what's up. This rabbit hole has no bottom.

It makes me wonder if the stipulation for this is going to be the requirement of using all original code.
 

Jackpot

Banned
And when a company like Valve or Bethesda tells you not to do something, you tend to listen.

da fuq?

Hobbyists will continue to be hobbyists, while those that excel can create some truly magnificent work.

Naive at best.

I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content.

That's what happens when a company sees your work as a source of profit.
 
Let's face facts, it's going to be a few months before we see if anything of value can be generated using this system.

I'd like to hear from some modding teams/game's industry people that they're now more invested in their work because they might be able to make some dosh from it. I haven't seen any content creators express anything more than wary enthusiasm.

And thanks for the link btw
 

DorkyMohr

Banned
Valve can just do what they do every time a copyright infringing piece of content appears in CS:GO; pull their artists off of their current project to manually replace the offending content. Couldn't be delaying any big projects they're working on by that much.

 

wrowa

Member
So he'd be totally fine with Valve making a game unavailable for people that have purchased it because a music track license ran out or whatever?

Yeah, he kind of lost me there. What he said all makes sense, but wanting to take the mod offline completely so that even the people who paid for it can't download it again, is even more scummy than what Valve and Bethesda have been doing here.
 

Krejlooc

Banned
I'd like to hear from some modding teams/game's industry people that they're now more invested in their work because they might be able to make some dosh from it. I haven't seen any content creators express anything more than wary enthusiasm.

so some personal insight into HL2VR dev process for all those "this kills passion! You don't need that money to make a living!" crowd

our mod will be depreciated in about 3 months. As in, it will no longer work. OVR is dropping direct X 9 support, meaning our only option is to switch to an OpenGL renderer. This is tantamount to essentially a complete rewrite of a very significant portion of our mod.

Now, all 3 members of our team got together explicitly to try and start a career in VR development. Our artist, Jaz, lives in the UK, and, without violating his trust here, he is in dire times financially. For the past year and a half, one of the only things keeping him sane is looking ahead to potentially getting a paycheck by landing a job thanks to his mod work. To really drive the point home about how dire some of our finances are, two of us had to pitch in to buy one of us a $25 invite to a tech demo we needed to work with. That individual couldn't afford $25.

I am in the process of setting up my own development studio through private funding. I have reached out to Jaz to try and get him to relocate to the US to try and get him making some money here. Setting up my own studio, managing a project, then actually going through with development is a massive undertaking. Nate, our project lead, has a career in Austin now. We all have social lives and day jobs. We estimate the work it'll take to get HL2VR going without Direct X 9 will be hundreds of hours of coding for Nate and I. Any time I put into HL2VR comes at the expense of my day job, which I truly work around the clock.

We have had serious discussions about whether or not we can afford to personally keep HL2VR going. The knowledge that we could eventually sell the mod has been an enormous factor in keeping us going. Speaking of which - this has been known for a good year and a half now. I find it funny that those bemoaning what this means to the "community" apparently aren't apart of said community because they had an entire seminar about this at Dev Days. Black Mesa is releasing under this model. This has been known for so long.

So, about that talk of the death of free mods and all that shit - we could have started monetizing our mod with Valve's blessing a long time ago. We have discussed selling our mod for ages now. We haven't, though. Why? Well, as professionals, we take pride in our work, and we do not want to sell something that is still a work in progress. Thus, for almost 2 years, this mod that we could have sold, has been given away for free. We have hundreds of thousands of downloads of our mod, and haven't seen a dime from it. We don't even operate an ad server on our project website. Nate pays the fee.

The notion some of you guys have that we, who have done work for free for years, are somehow going to struggle to become motivated to keep our monitzation going is ridiculous. If we are selling a mod and an update breaks it, we have more motivation to fix it now because, so long as it's broken, we can't keep selling it. Don't you guys get it?

.
 
There are a lot of examples of creators of free software / programs / content saying that it's only meant for non-commercial use, and that people shouldn't package that content in paid programs and try to profit off of it when the original creators aren't.

Some creators consider it exploitation and against the spirit in which the original content was offered. Also, even if it's free the creators are still the copyright holders and get to decide how it's distributed and what's done with it. Free doesn't equal "giving up all creative rights entirely".

But is it? That's what I'm unclear on. Is the actual FNIS code, any of it, actually contained in Art of the Catch? Or is FNIS just a dependency that you're supposed to download separately?

FNIS could change the license on the mod to prevent any interaction with commercial software; that is the author's right. But if that hasn't happened yet, then right now no one is legally in the wrong here. I'd argue morally as well, at least as I understand the situation from the Reddit post.

If Art of the Catch contains actual code from FNIS, though, that's a whole other ballgame. Even if Art of the Catch was free, legally that wouldn't be allowed unless the author of FNIS gave permission.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Valve took it down. You can't buy the mod anymore. Their response is that they have an obligation to those who paid for the mod to keep it available to those customers. So, if you've purchased the mod, you still can download the mod.

You know, that whole "what if so-and-so removes my access to a game I bought" nightmare scenario people play up against digital distribution.

Mod A is upset that files from Mod A were included in Mod B per the installer. It's like when you install a game and they install the latest version of Direct X for you. An amicable solution would be to remove the Mod A installer from Mod B, but that burdens consumers.

Oh, it totally makes sense from Valve's side. They can't just let people decide to up and cancel their projects (and refund) purchasers and wipe the slate clean. That would cause all sorts of issues.

I just imagine there are a lot of modders like the person in the OP who think they have more control over their creations than they actually do.
 

draetenth

Member
Has there been any positive news about this entire move by Valve? I certainly haven't heard any.

I don't think so. This has been really nasty all around.


I'm torn on this. On one hand I do understand where he is coming from, but on the other hand I agree with the comments - the Nexus isn't really neutral on the matter since they take money from Valve (I can't really blame them though - is it any different than ads for NeoGAF? He mentioned the upkeep for the Nexus is now at $500,000).
 
I like Frostball, but:
Art of the Catch required the download of a separate animation package, which was available for free, and contained an FNIS behavior file. Art of the Catch will function without this download, but any layman can of course see that a major component of it's enjoyment required FNIS. Was this a risky, perhaps bold, thing to go ahead with? Yes. Was it a bit crappy of me? Also yes. But it was a risk I took, and the outcome was largely dependent on the FNIS author's reaction to the situation. He was not happy, so I took steps to resolve it. I did not "steal animations" or "steal content".
the bolded strikes me as incredibly weak. Legally, perhaps he's correct. But ethically or morally, he could not be more dishonest. There's no situation where people are OK with others profiting off of their hard work.

And it goes without saying that the Nexus is in a really tough spot right now. I hope they survive this the right way.

Which brings me to this:
[Valve] Officer Mar 25 @ 4:47pm
Usual caveat: I am not a lawyer, so this does not constitute legal advice. If you are unsure, you should contact a lawyer. That said, I spoke with our lawyer and having mod A depend on mod B is fine--it doesn't matter if mod A is for sale and mod B is free, or if mod A is free or mod B is for sale.
Valve and Bethesda are sending shockwaves through modding communities right now by all but saying "it's ok to steal from mods, go ahead." A clear and dark portent for the future ahead.
 

Mesoian

Member
But is it? That's what I'm unclear on. Is the actual FNIS code, any of it, actually contained in Art of the Catch? Or is FNIS just a dependency that you're supposed to download separately?

FNIS could change the license on the mod to prevent any interaction with commercial software; that is the author's right. But if that hasn't happened yet, then right now no one is legally in the wrong here. I'd argue morally as well, at least as I understand the situation from the Reddit post.

If Art of the Catch contains actual code from FNIS, though, that's a whole other ballgame. Even if Art of the Catch was free, legally that wouldn't be allowed unless the author of FNIS gave permission.

It's a dependency. Without FNIS, there's no (easy or accessible) way to use custom animations. Apparently the fishing mod works without it, but without those animations, it'd look janky at best, or, more likely in my experience with using a mod that changes animations without FNIS, you'd end up with CTD's.
 

Almighty

Member
Yeah this has turned into a bigger shit show then I thought it would have yesterday. I will admit as someone against this whole thing that makes me a little happy to see. Not that I expect things to go back to the way they were as it will just take time for all this to get sorted out.
 
If any of the marketing materials uses footage or screenshots that are captured with FNIS, then you start getting into weird territory. Because it's beyond a dependency then. Being functional doesn't really cut it if it is being sold on the assumption the end user will have that mod. (not a lawyer)
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I like Frostball, but:

the bolded strikes me as incredibly weak. Legally, perhaps he's correct. But ethically or morally, he could not be more dishonest. There's no situation where people are OK with others profiting off of their hard work.

And it goes without saying that the Nexus is in a really tough spot right now. I hope they survive this the right way.

Which brings me to this:
Valve and Bethesda are sending shockwaves through modding communities right now by all but saying "it's ok to steal from mods, go ahead." A clear and dark portent for the future ahead.

Their advice is completely fine. They say NOTHING about lifting other people's assets and files and including them as part of your paid package. I have no idea why the modder in the OP article interpreted it in this way.
 
I forgot to mention before, Chesko makes a good point about the current pay structure heavily discouraging "high concept" mods. Really, selecting a price must be tough when you're getting pennies per purchase.
valve is taking the lions share of the cash but not accepting any liability it's abusive to the modders
From a transaction, this is the split:
Modder: 25%
Valve: 25%
Bethesda: 50%

Apparently the Publisher/Modder cut is decided by the pub. Bethesda is all like $.$

Their advice is completely fine. They say NOTHING about lifting other people's assets and files and including them as part of your paid package. I have no idea why the modder in the OP article interpreted it in this way.
Oh, good point. I overlooked that.

Thanks for the correction!

That said, I still think it leaves murky water for cross-dependancies within mods that will affect modding society at large.
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Valve took it down. You can't buy the mod anymore. Their response is that they have an obligation to those who paid for the mod to keep it available to those customers. So, if you've purchased the mod, you still can download the mod.

You know, that whole "what if so-and-so removes my access to a game I bought" nightmare scenario people play up against digital distribution.
And as it's been said in the Steam thread, this scenario is already contemplated in the Steam ToS and Workshop FAQ.

I believe this is the best solution: removing the mod from sale, but allowing access to people who already paid for it.
 

Thank you very much for that Krejlooc, it's nice to see there's a bit of silver lining here for some.

....
Which brings me to this:
Valve and Bethesda are sending shockwaves through modding communities right now by all but saying "it's ok to steal from mods, go ahead." A clear and dark portent for the future ahead.

I think this is the real issue. Should anyone really trust Valve with this kind of further power/money over the PC gaming market? How many customer service complaints take days/weeks to get a reply to? Jim Sterling basically makes a god damn living on Youtube by buying absolute trash (sometimes trash that straight up steals assets from other games/media) on Steam that they have no issue selling until a lawyer sends them a very pointed letter.

I'm deeply troubled by all the ways this could go wrong.
 
It's a dependency. Without FNIS, there's no (easy or accessible) way to use custom animations. Apparently the fishing mod works without it, but without those animations, it'd look janky at best, or, more likely in my experience with using a mod that changes animations without FNIS, you'd end up with CTD's.

Lots of paid software has dependencies on free and open-source software; that's nothing new. Depending on the license of the free/OS software, being a dependency to proprietary/paid software is not necessarily disallowed or illegal.

That said, it turns out we don't even need to go that far, because unless this has changed recently (and it's possible it has), the Nexus page for FNIS is very explicit:

The FNIS Behavior can only be downloaded and used in the described way. Without my express permission you are NOT ALLOWED

to upload FNIS Behavior TO ANY OTHER SITE
to distribute FNIS Behavior as part of another mod
to distribute modified versions of FNIS Behavior
to make money with files which are part of FNIS Behavior, or which are created with the help of FNIS Behavior

I can't load the changelog for that page so I don't know when that license was put in place. Assuming it was there a month ago, the license is quite clear that Art of the Catch is in the wrong.

EDIT: Got it. Last time the description was changed was ten days ago. I can't read the diff, but it does seem like the license clause was in place before this all blew up (and before paid mods were announced).
 
I bet you can't buy any mods because valve is going through all the mods to check if they depend on others, they didnt think this one through.
 
Last capture from Archive.org is 4th of December, doesn't have that last line
Licensing/Legal

The FNIS Behavior can only be downloaded and used in the described way. Without my express permission you are NOT ALLOWED

to upload FNIS Behavior TO ANY OTHER SITE
to distribute FNIS Behavior as part of another mod
to distribute modified versions of FNIS Behavior
EDIT: Got it. Last time the description was changed was ten days ago. I can't read the diff, but it does seem like the license clause was in place before this all blew up (and before paid mods were announced).
Timing is more than coincidental, someone must have broke NDA
 
I bet you can't buy any mods because valve is going through all the mods to check if they depend on others, they didnt think this one through.

I refuse to believe that Valve curates anything these days, unless explicitly prodded into doing so on a case-by-case basis.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Timing is more than coincidental, someone must have broke NDA

It's possible the FNIS mod person was contacted by Valve but just wasn't interested in the terms and decided to put that text in proactively because he or she knew what a shit show this was all about to become.
 
So Valve just put in the $5 rule to prevent scams, but then days later introduces a "paid mod" program that full of legal holes and allows grabbing other people's work and charge for it.

Makes sense.
 
Top Bottom