Does Tekkit Have Permission from Every Modder to Use Their Mod?

[Jay?]

Yes, they do. Meaning that people can't distribute altered versions without the permission of the one who created the original.

The changes they make, however, are owned solely by themselves, and the data required to modify the original into a new form is not itself an altered version of the original.

Copyrights are about Rights to Copy. Hence the name. What people do with their own legitimate copy is not restricted by copyright. Mojang can't use copyright against people who distribute mods unless the distributed mods actually contain something Mojang created.

Generally a license can be used to prohibit unauthorized modifications of a work or to prevent the modifications themselves from being distributed, but the Minecraft site explicitly prohibits distributing modified files.

I am fairly certain that the intent here is to prevent dissemination of Minecraft or derivatives thereof to people who don't own their own copy. Statements made by Notch and other Mojang staff lend strong support to this reading, and with contracts intent is considered when deciding how to rule on something the contract doesn't make clear.

Beyond that? The official Minecraft forums have an entire section devoted to the development and distribution of mods. ( http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum/56-mapping-and-modding/ )

This means that mods are officially regarded as acceptable. In fact, the rules of the modding forum, as posted by an administrator appointed by Mojang, state "Must modify the minecraft.jar file".

TL;DR: Mods are legal and copyright their authors.

The eula states not to distribute changes to the minecraft code, and it's likely that, at least under U.S. copyright law, that could be applied to derivative code.

In reality, Mojang has the entire modding community by the balls, because if they so desired, they could pull copyright, and force the retraction of Modloader, Forge, and all the other API's that directly handle mojang code.

[perpetualgamer]

Krid the truth of the matter is that a mod cannot be made without MODIFYING mojangs code, thus they are committing copyright infringement when they make a mod. Also the precedent in copyright law is that you can modify whatever you want for personal use, but you break the law when you distribute that modification.

Modding is widely accepted because mojang hasn't risen a stank about it, that doesn't make it legal. It means mojang doesn't care right now, but they would totally be within their right to shut down the distribution of all mods.

[Krid]

The eula states not to distribute changes to the minecraft code, and it's likely that, at least under U.S. copyright law, that could be applied to derivative code.

They can only act under copyright law if their copyrights are being violated, meaning that something they made is being distributed.

Anything else would be a violation of the license, which is a contract dispute.

In reality, Mojang has the entire modding community by the balls, because if they so desired, they could pull copyright, and force the retraction of Modloader, Forge, and all the other API's that directly handle mojang code.

No, not really.

The rules of the official minecraft modding forum require that mods make changes to minecraft.jar, and also that they not use an installer. If you grant somebody permission to do something then you implicitly give permission for them to do things which are required to do that as well.

Mods and the distribution thereof are officially permitted, but only if they change Mojang code without an installer. This essentially requires that they distribute modified Mojang files, and since they have been granted explicit permission to create and distribute mods that gives implicit permission to distribute the modified files. This is an exception to the posted license.

In fact, lets take a look at the context:

Do not distribute anything we've made. This includes, but not limited to, the client or the server software for the game. This also includes modified versions of anything we've made. Also, you may not resell any gift codes or licence keys - but of course you can give gift codes as gifts. This is necessary so that we can help stop piracy and fraud - and especially users buying keys that have been fraudulently obtained.

If I am reading this correctly then the license states that the reason for forbidding redistribution is to prevent piracy. This is consistent with Mojang acting to facilitate modding and implicitly permitting the distribution of altered files as needed to do so.

Also? If Mojang decided to start using copyright against mods then mods could switch to diff files. Mojang's copyright doesn't extend to diffs.

Krid the truth of the matter is that a mod cannot be made without MODIFYING mojangs code, thus they are committing copyright infringement when they make a mod.

Not make. Mojang can't do anything about people making mods. The only thing they could do anything about is distribution.

Even then, it's only a copyright issue if the file being distributed actually contains things directly made by Mojang.

Also the precedent in copyright law is that you can modify whatever you want for personal use' date=' but you break the law when you distribute that modification.[/quote']

If it contains parts of the original work, yes.

[jakj]

Mojang has enabled modding in no way at all. Modding is done purely by decompilation, straight-up reverse engineering.

[Krid]

Mojang has enabled modding in no way at all. Modding is done purely by decompilation, straight-up reverse engineering.

That's actually irrelevant, since it's not the meaning of 'enabling' I was using.

They have forums set up to help people make and distribute mods. That's enabling.

Maybe I should have said "Facilitating" instead...

[perpetualgamer]

I'm very curious about something... If a mod maker can decompile code from mojang and make changes and distribute that. Why can TechnicPeeps not Decompile that code and make changes and distribute that? Cause it sounds like every mod maker who is upset with the technicpack is a hypocrite. "You can't de-compile our stuff! Only we can do that"

[Brunswick]

I'm very curious about something... If a mod maker can decompile code from mojang and make changes and distribute that. Why can TechnicPeeps not Decompile that code and make changes and distribute that? Cause it sounds like every mod maker who is upset with the technicpack is a hypocrite. "You can't de-compile our stuff! Only we can do that"

The boy learns. The MC modding community is full of three things; idiots, Notch suck-ups, and hypocrites. Usually all three combined into one large shit twinkie.

EDIT: Which is not to say there isn't exceptions please don't Keller me

[perpetualgamer]

For the record, 'the boy' has always been pro mod-pack and has always thought the 'modmakers' have rights is a big load of bullshit and chips. So if 'the boy' learns means i just realized WHY I'm right then yes. If 'the boy' learns means I just switched sides and grew intelligence i didn't have before...

I resent that.

[Brunswick]

I resent that.

You'll now realize I wasn't being serious. There are things called jokes, y'know.

[Krid]

I'm very curious about something... If a mod maker can decompile code from mojang and make changes and distribute that. Why can TechnicPeeps not Decompile that code and make changes and distribute that? Cause it sounds like every mod maker who is upset with the technicpack is a hypocrite. "You can't de-compile our stuff! Only we can do that"

Because they'd only be allowed to distribute the changes they made, not the files those changes were made to. You can't use the changes without the files, so it'd be a total waste of effort.

Also, it's not hypocrisy if they get mad at Technic for redistributing their stuff. Mojang's cool with people sharing mods, but not Minecraft itself. Mod authors get the same standard. It's silly and bad for the Minecraft community if they get upset, but not hypocritical.

Now, if a mod author got pissed at somebody for making mods of their mods, like CompactSolars or LogisticPipes? That would be hypocritical.

Mod makers do have rights. That doesn't include the right to be a dick, but we have to respect the rights they do have.

[perpetualgamer]

You'll now realize I wasn't being serious. There are things called jokes, y'know.

I know, I knew, its ok.

Why can a Mod Maker distribute the files they made changes to from Mojang, but we can't do the same to them. Also as has been said millions of times by people much smarter than me, Mojang's words are hollow if they do NOT change their TOS. Until that time it's still against the "letter of the law" to distribute ANY modification of mojang code, which is exactly what a mod is.

Their rights are forfeit as soon as they break TOS (distribution).

[Wolvenmoon]

Why aren't there links to Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompiler#Legality

In the United States, the copyright fair use defense has been successfully invoked in decompilation cases. For example, in Sega v. Accolade, the court held that Accolade could lawfully engage in decompilation in order to circumvent the software locking mechanism used by Sega's game consoles.

In Europe, the 1991 Software Directive explicitly provides for a right to decompile in order to achieve interoperability. The result of a heated debate between, on the one side, software protectionists, and, on the other, academics as well as independent software developers, Article 6 permits decompilation only if a number of conditions are met: "...decompilation must be necessary to achieve interoperability with the target program or other programs..."

http://www.program-transformation.org/Transform/LegalityOfDecompilation

Copyright only applies to distribution. Hence the name "Copy" "Right", or "Right to copy" and not "Right to modify".

There's a reason people aren't in jail or sued over cheating in online games. The EULA can prohibit modifying the game, but when a cheater is caught they're only banned from the service (as long as they don't cause monetarily measurable damages). The only thing companies can do about mods is "You may lose access to services attached to this software if you modify it".

[miniboxer]

Not quite, but almost.

The mods are like fanart. They don't contain original Minecraft code.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html

The mods use public Minecraft methods, Tekkit uses what the mods don't hide, more or less. The times where there are exceptions aren't noteworthy. Mojang has no ability or right to sue a mod that does not contain Mojang code unless said mod is explicitly against the law, I.E. a crack, and then those laws vary from country to country.

(I miss programming so much.)

well, MOST mods don't contain original code, but how do you explain APIs? technically, all apis violate the ToS, even if normal mods somehow didn't.

[jakj]

Interoperability =/= reengineering.

The Sega case was circumventing a lockout preventing an independent program from working. That would be like defeating a lock in Minecraft to prevent it from refusing to load externally-edited saved worlds. Your argument is invalid.

I maintain that any judge would rule a mod as modification and not protected by fair use, even as modloader or binary patch.

[Krid]

Mojang's words are hollow if they do NOT change their TOS. Until that time it's still against the "letter of the law" to distribute ANY modification of mojang code, which is exactly what a mod is.

Their rights are forfeit as soon as they break TOS (distribution).

Nope. Legal action doesn't work against somebody for something you intentionally helped them do. You can't help somebody create and distribute a mod then turn around and sue them for it, and you can't help somebody violate your licenses or terms of service and then punish them for that violation.

If nothing else, every mod distributed through the official forums and abiding by its rules would have immunity at least up until the point where Mojang closed those forums. Even then they couldn't do anything to people who had distributed mods before they closed the forums, since you can't retroactively remove consent.

[Jay?]

Nope. Legal action doesn't work against somebody for something you intentionally helped them do. You can't help somebody create and distribute a mod then turn around and sue them for it, and you can't help somebody violate your licenses or terms of service and then punish them for that violation.

If nothing else, every mod distributed through the official forums and abiding by its rules would have immunity at least up until the point where Mojang closed those forums. Even then they couldn't do anything to people who had distributed mods before they closed the forums, since you can't retroactively remove consent.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Noone is saying mojang can sue for damages, or punish the people making mods.

We're saying mojang could, if they so desired, cite the eula and render distribution of any functionally usable mods illegal.

[Krid]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Noone is saying mojang can sue for damages, or punish the people making mods.

We're saying mojang could, if they so desired, cite the eula and render distribution of any functionally usable mods illegal.

Ah, ok. That is true.

I was focusing on what somebody said earlier about mods being technically illegal right now. My mistake!

[Beer]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Noone is saying mojang can sue for damages, or punish the people making mods.

We're saying mojang could, if they so desired, cite the eula and render distribution of any functionally usable mods illegal.

But the case would never go anywhere. Because they had knowledge that their game was being modded and did nothing. If it was such a big deal, they should've done it right out of the gate and they didn't. Words only go so far, but inaction with knowledge usually will trump it.

Keyword: Knowledge.

Also, toilet paper.

[Tax80]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Noone is saying mojang can sue for damages, or punish the people making mods.

We're saying mojang could, if they so desired, cite the eula and render distribution of any functionally usable mods illegal.

I think I agree, but believe Mojang would never do so unless they are trying to commit Seppuku.

-Modding continually creates content that is new and exciting for the community. Keeping people interested makes people more likely to want to keep track of what's going on with Mojang, and promotes their future projects. (I for one would have had no knowledge nor interest in their new space game if I had quickly become bored of MC and not been able to use distributed mods)

-Keeping people interested is free publicity. If I'm still interested and not bored by old content, I am more likely to recommend it to my friends.

I think the main reason they have that part of the EULA is so that when they get a great idea from a mod that they can use in the vanilla game, the modder with the original idea cann't go after them.

Sorry if I'm not completely coherent. A bit tired. Feel free to flame and tear me a new one!

[jakj]

I think the main reason they have that part of the EULA is so that when they get a great idea from a mod that they can use in the vanilla game, the modder with the original idea cann't go after them.

Well, yeah, like the shitty ripoff of Millenaire they're working on now.

[Wolvenmoon]

Interoperability =/= reengineering.

The Sega case was circumventing a lockout preventing an independent program from working. That would be like defeating a lock in Minecraft to prevent it from refusing to load externally-edited saved worlds. Your argument is invalid.

I maintain that any judge would rule a mod as modification and not protected by fair use, even as modloader or binary patch.

(I'm having fun, please don't take this as rude or mean spirited! )

Objection!

First, software modifications have precedent set in favor of them ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#Fair_use ), second they don't have precedent against them except for specific types of modifications.

Thirdly, by screwing around with Minecraft you are insuring interoperability with your code. Since Minecraft is implicitly programmed to be incompatible with your code (no public interfaces), punching a hole in it to make it work with your code is ensuring interoperability. Granted the code is dependent on Minecraft, but many programs running on Windows are dependent on Windows and they get treated as their own separate products.

Considering precedent, there's an inclination toward modding being legally protected. Yes, a lawsuit could be filed, 60% chance the company would lose unless the modders ran out of funding to fight the lawsuit (which is the real threat).

Regarding APIs, Mojang is free to license their software on a case by case basis. To my knowledge, Bukkit had their own license before Mojang officially partnered with them. I can't say anything about the other APIs

[jakj]

Calling bullshit on your third paragraph: Saying modifying Minecraft internals is interoperability with your code is nonsense, because it's not separate entity.

[Krid]

They are separate, though. Your code is not Mojang code, and Mojang code is not your code.

Perhaps a physical example would be clearer.

Minecraft is like a car not designed for a radio, and a mod is like a car radio.

The car functions on its own, but the car radio must be installed in a car to work. All the radio does is extend the functionality of the car; on its own it does nothing.

Because the car isn't designed to have a radio you have to modify it in order to install one. You have every right to do that.

Minecraft functions on its own, but the mod must be installed in Minecraft to work. All the mod does is extend the functionality of Minecraft; on its own it does nothing.

Because Minecraft isn't designed to have mods you have to modify it in order to install one. You have every right to do that.

The third paragraph was correct.

[Toraxa]

They are separate, though. Your code is not Mojang code, and Mojang code is not your code.

Perhaps a physical example would be clearer.

Minecraft is like a car not designed for a radio, and a mod is like a car radio.

The car functions on its own, but the car radio must be installed in a car to work. All the radio does is extend the functionality of the car; on its own it does nothing.

Because the car isn't designed to have a radio you have to modify it in order to install one. You have every right to do that.

Minecraft functions on its own, but the mod must be installed in Minecraft to work. All the mod does is extend the functionality of Minecraft; on its own it does nothing.

Because Minecraft isn't designed to have mods you have to modify it in order to install one. You have every right to do that.

The third paragraph was correct.

That's not the same thing. In that case, you purchased a car, and have the right to do whatever you want with that car. In this case, you're being given the right to use minecraft, but you do not own it. The example would be more reasonable if you were talking about a rented or leased car. In such a case, you'd better believe they're going to have a fit when they find out you modified it by jamming a stereo system into it.

One of the big reasons we have (or used to have, before modloader) a lot of conflicts, is because a lot of mods modify the same classes. This isn't you putting a stereo system into a stereo system-shaped hole. This is you cutting a hole out of the dashboard, splicing into the wiring, etc. The code being distributed by mod makers is usually largely original code. However, in order to actually make that code work, they have to modify things that are already part of minecraft.

Sure, they include new classes. However, while it's easy with java to add new code in it's own class files, if they need to change things in existing class files, they can't make this as "drag and drop" as they can with separate class files. They need to distribute a modified version of that file and have you overwrite it.

Any time you have to drop files into the .jar, and it asks you if you want to overwrite, they've just distributed modified versions of mojang's code. This is reverse engineering, decompilation modding. There is no API, there is no modding tools, there isn't anything. It's not nice and clean and sterile like it could be if there was an API. That's one of the big reasons so many mod makers want the API. It will cut down on bugs, increase interoperability between different mods and different versions, etc.

Finally, since it's been bugging me, minecraftforums.com is the "official" minecraft forums in the same way that Budweiser is the "official" beer of the NFL. Those forums are owned by curse gaming, supported by mojang, but are not owned or operated by mojang. Just because they do something doesn't mean it's sanctioned by mojang. Notch has shown in the past to not be a big fan of mods. He's allowed them, most likely because it'd be unreasonable and expensive not to, but he's said things in the past about not caring about modders or modding, or not wanting to slow their own development of the game for the sake of mods. Jeb said during his AMA last month that "a certain person" was completely against them putting so much effort into the mod API for this next patch, for instance.

[DragnHntr]

Finally, since it's been bugging me, minecraftforums.com is the "official" minecraft forums in the same way that Budweiser is the "official" beer of the NFL.

Bahahaha, this really cracked me up for some reason.

Let me modify dudes physical example using the car. It is not like a radio, it is like a modification to the engine that makes the car run differently/faster whatever. Some of the engine mods are completely made by the mfg and are installed on top of the existing components. Others are modified versions of parts that came with the car. Not only that, but they are not created from the ground up to replace the existing part. Instead, they are removing existing parts of the car and doing modifications on it. Drilling speed holes and painting flames on the side and such ;p They then distribute these modified parts to people for installation into their cars and claim the work as their own. Then if anyone tries to combine their part with a rockin' spoiler and some fuzzy dice and sell it as a kit, they get all pissed off claiming the part is theirs.

They did not invent the part (in those cases where they actually did not.) They put work into it yes, and some of that work is theirs, however the core component of it is not theirs, and the makers of the car explicitly forbid redistributing modified versions of their car parts, even if they allow it to happen anyway because it increases interest in their cars.

Claiming copywright infringement on a distributed modified version of someone elses work when you have agreed not to distribute modified versions of that work in order to gain access to it...

People keep saying technically they can still do that, technically its still their work, blah blah. It is a dick move and it is wrong IMO. Complaining about theft of something that it is wrong for you to have in the first place, It is like calling the cops and saying someone stole your bootleg movies. Okay yeah it is still theft, but you are a bad guy too buddy.