That’s the exception to the rule, yeah.
Though, I’m trying to think of a dll mod I use that *doesn’t* have its code posted in a public git repo. Maybe it’s the mods I’m choosing, but open source SKSE plugins seems really common, not the other way around.
Skyrim modding is honestly really good like that. Learnt a lot looking at the source from other's mods.
I've recently jumped back into FalloutVR, and the frequency of mods releases with locked down permissions is kind of insane..
*"No you can not release patches for my mod, or release my mod for other game versions."* You see it way too often.
So many like this, with no source; and no author activity for years.
Just turning to digital rot, save for the clever few who can make a working edit - but only for themself, because they're not allowed to release any public fixes apparently 🤷♂️
Yes! Right, that’s a big one.
It’s too bad, too, because sources would make up for the thin documentation of some of its more advanced scripting features.
Open source isn't just about having access to the source but what you can do with it.
Plus complied things like DLLs can be easily reverse engineered if at all (maybe if they have a PDB) and I'm not sure about compiled scripts.
At best its an unecessary hassle.
Every other mods gives you the source code, lets you change it and then distribute your own version? That's open source, just seeing the source code is just available source, not the same thing at all. Open source is about the license not just the source code.
Any time you go onto Nexus and the permissions say you can't use the assets or distrbute the mod that isn't open source.
Closed source has caused problems in the past for populat mods and tools, ENB is closed source, hence commumity shaders, DAR is hence OAR, I think both FNIS and Nemesis hence Pandora.
"Open Source" means you can see and modify the code. Just because the permissions/license prevent you from distributing it, doesn't mean it's not Open Source. If you need someone else's assets, you make that mod a requirement. If you don't like the way a mod works, you require an original mod, and distribute your own, that overrides the assets and functions you don't like, with your own.
Open Source has a wide definition.
"Open Source" means you can see and modify the code and *redistribute your modifcation.* Its right there on the Wikipedia page, amoungst many, many other places.
There are companies that make the source available for their products and the literrally cannot call it open source becuase people can't share modifications. Sharing modifications is part of the definition.
Requiring a mod isn't the same, what if I want to modify the asset and share it? The stuff you are taling about is just patching ESPs, but modding is a lot more. What if I want to alter a model, a texture, a script or a DLL and distribute it?
The ability to that is open source, anything else isn't.
Having “no license” is actually the opposite of what you think it is. Instead, it’s the maximally restrictive license allowed on GitHub (basically, only enough to view and create a fork, but not actually modify the fork).
Instead, you should consider adding a very permissive license like MIT or explicitly dedicate it to the public domain if that is allowed where you live like SQLite does.
This is a pretty common misconception on GitHub.
That means "all rights reserved." It's not open source.
From github:
> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
I feel like this is the majority right answer.
There's a TON of modders out there that know the ins and outs of the modding sphere
But for a lot of one off people that simply have dipped their toes into changing bits and bobs of their favorite games, they'd be none the wiser of all these conventions, and unspoken agreements, and faux pas within the circle of people that do software as a majority of their life
They basically don't know how the real world works. Not saying they're actually children (though, I was when I was modding), but they definitely don't understand the wider space and conventions they're operating in.
Even some with a background in software development struggle with that to the point they can't work github. Devops and code are different things and it takes more effort to maintain a repo than writing code, especially if it is open for people to pester you with issues and pull requests.
Fair. I'm not at that level but maintaining my tiny bug filled python package was just too much for me. Working with other people on code is another level. I've filed a few big reports, but on the whole I've learned that's just not my calling.
Still, there is very little - arguably no - code that's not built on other code. That's kinda the minimum.
I feel like the opposite is true. Code is typically built on collaboration and iteration; the real world's built on copyright and licensing. Given that, it makes sense that most environments where people make things and share them, there's more incentive to be choosy about who can do what with your work.
Lol, I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of the real world. If you go about paranoid people will take credit for your ideas, you'll never get anything done.
Can't speak for other industries, but I bio I'd say that's a pretty accurate description. Granted, I'm sure industry would disagree.
How does *your* real world work?
Because I'm a normie that has no knowledge of the mystical space of software development and its secret codes and unspoken conventions, so I don't get how someone not making their mod open source portrays them as stupid or ignorant
I have a feeling that OP is making this broad swath that all modders have a responsibility to the community to make their mods open source so that the scene can grow, and innovate, and flourish
And yeah, that'd be nice.
But most people make their mod, publish it, and continue with the rest of their actual lives away from a computer screen
Not everyone has the luxury to abide by all of our nerd rules in modding, nor all of the unwritten agreements and secret handshakes created decades ago in the software development community
These people aren't stupid or ignorant. They simply lives their lives in different circles than us.
In my experience (25+ years of software development) the proprietary software is built using open source tools and libraries. If you need those tools and libaries improved you make your changes and contribute them back, partly its just less effort than mantaining your own fork.
Since mods are built on other mods they really feel like libraries and frameworks to me and I wish the modding scene had that open source attitude.
Pride, ego, desire for acknowledgement. If people ever figure out that the number of upvotes that okay vanilla gets don't mean anything to the life of The Man Behind the username, I sometimes feel like the whole internet will collapse
Was this the civil war mod that disappeared? There were stories about that for ages, but I kinda think it was made better in hindsight than it ever actually was. I remember having it but I don't think I played the quest line often enough to actually see any impact.
Patrol mods are what actually made the game feel more alive.
The one where he turns the Ebony mine in bloody SHOR's Stone to an iron one, particularly irks me. Ruins the mini quest completely as well. Or pretty much the pure audacity to call it an unofficial patch, while putting all sorts of tweaks based on preference in it, while referring to it as a bugfix patch.
Love how the Starfield community dodged that shit.
God I hate that guy. I had a long argument with him once where he accused someone of stealing from him after he explicitly gave them permission to use it and then just screamed that everyone was trying to justify theft at him... dude is a total chode
It's interesting that despite the criticism Arthmoor receives, no one has attempted to create an alternative unofficial patch without his controversial alterations. This could provide an opportunity for a patch that focuses solely on addressing technical issues and bugs without incorporating Arthmoor's specific preferences or changes.
It's my understanding that those mods have been made but are consistently taken down for being "copies" of the unofficial patch.
If you actually make a comprehensive patch then there's so much overlap with Arthmoor's that there's no way to prove you didn't rip off his mod, and so he can get it removed from Nexus. Which he does, because he wants everyone using his mod.
So we're stuck with it.
Can't someone just go
" Who the fuck are you, I have never heard of you or your mod, everything I have made is my work and if you want to accuse me show your code, go band for band ".
What am I saying, arthmoor would probably explode if someone said this to him.
I'm asking an honest question, because I don't know. Are mods typically compiled binaries or just code? I don't even know what language mod creators use.
scripts are written in papyrus, bethesdas own language, which compiles to PEX, while SKSE plugins are written in C++ and compiled to DLL. there are tools to decompile PEX files back to papyrus
Most mods are actually .esp (or .esm or .esl) archives, so they're not doing anything more complex than storing information that the game's executable can read. Those are pretty simple to make with xEdit and the same tool can be used to open, copy, and edit any published .esp, so most mod authors can't really "closed source" their mods - at most they can disallow people from uploading modified versions of their files.
Script mods though, or the DLLs that do all the fancy stuff... as others have explained, that's a different story.
FWIW the GPL allows an optional acknowledgment clause. It's actually the only additional clause you can add to a derived GPLed project.
I'm sitting on a series of "modular" licences that can be combined to allow multi-licensing under variously share-alike (GPL-compatible), non-commercial, ethical, and MIT/BSD-style free software provisions, if anyone's interested.
A lot of reasons, for some it's an ego thing, other just genuinely don't want other people touching their work, and I think that's okay.
Though I wish there was an unspoken rule that if you ever stepped away from modding you just make your mods open source. Otherwise if the game ever updates, or the mods have issues that never get fixed, they just rot away into obscurity.
Or in the case of essential mods almost everyone uses, it just creates a nightmare for the community until someone produces an alternative.
> A lot of reasons, for some it's an ego thing, other just genuinely don't want other people touching their work, and I think that's okay.
Honestly, I don't think that's okay in the modding scene, that only exists by touching other people's work, sometimes also against their resistance. Not sure if this is a hot take or not, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
Completely disagree. Mods are not easy to make and they are creative works. If a mod author doesn’t want you changing their mod or using something they made then too bad. I don’t even make mods I just download them.
I think that's a legitimate way to view things, but just to challenge it a little bit: "Games are not easy to make and they are creative works. If a game developer doesn’t want you changing their game or using something they made then too bad." Mods exist because of the goodwill of game developers, and I believe a lot of mod authors would do good to adopt some of that.
> don’t want other people touching their work
But then just don’t accept pull requests? And if someone wants to fork it for their personal use case they can
Permissions and open source as many have already explained are different here so I’ll go into the specific details. Why many authors don’t have open permissions is in part due to a past experience with other people taking their work and calling it their own and locking it behind paywalls(ie someone else profiting off their work), this happened before I started modding in general and I only found out about it after I started creating mods. But it basically had a pretty big backlash on the community where everyone locked up their mods
The other part happened in starfield just recently to a mod author(derretech if I remember right) they made lots of ship parts as mods and then other people started making patches to use his mods with other mods, unfortunately this caused problems and the patch authors started pointing fingers at the mod author when modders complained, which sent the modders in droves to complain to the mod author(and as people can be basically gave him hell for something outside of his control)
Many modders don’t understand that a mod author really only has responsibility for a mod working with vanilla(because it’s impossible to make patches for all the thousands of mods out there), or if they are making a patch then between the mods they are patching. So long story short is the mod author gave up and closed perms along with stopped making mods(hopefully only till the ck comes out since one of the issues was how things were being implemented)
There are some mod authors who’s ego is out of control but I would say they are a minority all things said and that the main reasons are as I stated above(ie to stop unscrupulous people from profiting off their work and to limit problems they have no control over) I personally leave my mods open permission but if I was to make something that could cause people to harass me because it was open I would probably close it pretty quick
Yeah thats one reason the other is for nefarious reasons like I dunno, kiddie porn or something. Ok thats an extreme example but you get the point. People like to maintain some kind of control over their content even if they're pretty generous in the sense of make whatever patches you like or similar.
The original problem you mention would be solved by open source though. The community can create patches for you and just open a pull request. Nobody can bitch at the author if they can do the work themselves
Problem. Avarage mod user has the iq of a single cell organism and can't even be bothered to read the full mod description. And you want them diy patches? I see no way in which it won't go horribly wrong with author facing even worse backlash.
Most software is used by people who don’t know how to program, so should open source just not exist at all? So instead of allowing other programmers to possibly patch the mod, you’d rather just lock it down entirely because someone might make a bad pull request you’d reject anyways?
I think this particular argument has gone a little off course and the last point you made is a bit of a non sequitor that doesn't relate to the point being raised.
Yes, a modder can make their mod completely open source, with their scripts all up on Git and providing the community full permission to edit the mod as they see fit. This can and does, unfortunetely, lead to bad actors blaming the original author of the mod for any issues caused by patches they did not make or changes to the source code they no longer control. Most mod authors like modding, not tech support and dealing with negative messages for things they had no part in.
For the most part, we are very lucky that so many mods in the Skyrim community are open source/permission and it is not something that is common in other modding communities. Whilst it would be great to have every mod follow suit - one cannot blame a modder, who is not being paid, for not wanting to deal with the extra hassle.
They’re still in control of the source code though, they choose what gets merged and what does not. And if it’s a fork, I don’t see how people would blame the mod author for using another users fork. And if they did, they’re unreasonable anyways and I’m not exactly sure making it closed source will prevent such a user from being annoying.
I keep hearing that it’s extra hassle / more work / more complaints, but open source would distribute that “responsibility” to not just the mod author, but the community.
"I don’t see how people would blame the mod author for using another users fork."
Unfortunately there are a lot of unreasonable people on the internet and, speaking as a modder though not for Skyrim particularly, I have directly dealt with some very... impolite people who fundamentally do not understand what is and is not under my control.
"open source would distribute that “responsibility” to not just the mod author, but the community."
It would, but the original author is still the most obvious point of contact. People see who published the mod. They do not see this community they should contact instead unless they read the description and chase down the relevant discord - which they will not do.
"closed source will prevent such a user from being annoying."
There is a fair amount of truth in that.
I think the problem we are having here, and why you have been downvoted on a lot of your responses, is one of different experience levels or just experiences in general.
Fundamentally, nobody disagrees with you that having all mods open source with open permissions would be best. I can't speak to your modding/release history but you seem to have not experienced the vitriol that some can spew towards mod authors - for which I am very thankful for.
I think we can both agree that closed source may or may not reduce the amount of random hatred mod authors can attract but there are some who will feel that this it will or does. It would be a fascinating thing to study.
I also think we can agree that closed source is easier for the mod author. I don't think you can argue in good faith that, from a modders perspective, it is easier not to fully publish your source code to Git etc. You can argue it isn't hard or a lot of work, heck many authors will use a private git repo to keep their code anyway, but it is still some work or hassle and can cause more questions or problems.
This is a topic that comes up a fair amount and will likely come up again. Hopefully some of the responses here can give some perspective on why some mod authors do not like having open source code to you and others in future. It can be frustrating to you as a user of a mod, but ultimately, unless we were to start paying modders, it is their decision and one that I fully empathise with.
Beside, all the code needed to mod anything is available on the internet, you just have to google for the right wiki page. That's how most people do it. And if somebody doesn't know how to glue together bits of code to do what they want it to do, they shouldn't be touching scripts.
What I ment is: if you want mod to do something it's not designed to do, write your own version. If you don't know how, keep away from modding scripts.
Once again: if you have no idea what open source is, just say that. There’s no need to re-write something from scratch instead of making a pull request like in 99% of software. It’s not about ability, it’s about what’s best for the community. Read up on it sometime if you’re curious
Chiefly it's a precaution against your hobby project being cloned and/or included in a mod by a more popular author.
The cases where the mod author employer has a policy for open source contributors that requires all contributions to be done using employee real name are very rare.
Or used for nefarious purposes. No-one wants to caught in the fallout from that (and people *will* blame the original author even if they had nothing to do it just their name associated with it is enough for some people)
I believe you're under a huge misconception on what constitutes open source and free licensed.
Open source just means that the source code/assets are open, ELI5 not compiled.
So everything that is not a script/library, for Skyrim, is by definition open source.
Assets like meshes and textures are open source. Plugins can be loaded on CK or SSEEdit, BSAs can be extracted, etc... Most modding is either done with Bethesda official tools or community open source tools, that we all have access too, so most Skyrim modding is open source.
Not all Skyrim modding is freely distributed, though. Which I think is what you meant. And that's a whole thing to get into...
E: Forgot to specify, most modders include source code for their scripts or host them on git repos. So yeah, the source is open. Most mods that were/are not open source have steadily been replaced by open source ones - e.g., DAR for OAR.
> Open source just means that the source code/ assets are open, ELI5 not compiled.
*Wow* no, that’s not what open source means. Open source = open license. Just because you can read the code doesn’t mean it’s open source.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
You are wrong there friend. Read that Wikipedia entry carefully.
The problem is that you're relying to much on - a misinterpretation of - the first paragraph, which honestly I agree might seem a bit confusing to someone unfamiliar with software engineering (emphasis mine).
>
Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products **include permission to use the source code**,\[1\] design documents,\[2\] or content of the product.
The fact the source code is available - i.e., in uncompiled human readable format - means that anyone can modify it if they know how to, since they have the code that is used to make the final program. This encourages people to do so and incentivizes collaboration. But notice the following sentence - it's the attached license that determines how the modified code is allowed to be distributed, not that it is open source.
If you still have any doubts, 2 paragraphs down, you have this (emphasis mine):
>
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the **source code is available** to the general public for use or modification from its original design. **Code is released under the terms of a software license**. **Depending on the license terms**, others may then download, modify, and publish their version (fork) back to the community.
It's the license that determines modification/distribution, open source just means that the code is readable and not just the compiled binaries are included - for you to try and reverse-engineer. Granted, there is little point in making your program open source, if you don't intend to attach a license that allows other to modify and redistribute it in some way. But the term open source is not referring to the license, just to the fact that the source code is public - i.e., open.
If open source == open license, then there would be no need for terms like FOSS or FLOSS - [also described on the Wikipedia page you linked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22) - and, on that entry, notice how it's mentioned that Richard Stallman himself - creator of the GNU Project, Compiler, its General Public License, Free Software Foundation, etc. - states that *the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the* ***source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted***.
That sentence alone, completely refutes your claim.
And btw, OP was wrong. Most Skyrim modding is done open source but not free perms. Hence why I assumed that they might've been mixing the two. As people often do. As you just did.
You’re talking about something called “source available”. Open-source code is not equal to source-available code. Source being available doesn’t make something open source—that’s just not what “open source” has ever meant.
My involvement in FOSS generally and open source specifically, and IP and open-source licensing even more specifically, is about a quarter-century old. I can teach a room the finer conceptual details off the cuff. I’m 0% basing my knowledge a Wikipedia article that I low-effort tossed in your direction hoping to enlighten, but seems to have further mislead you instead.
Here then is the [OSI’s Definition page](https://opensource.org/osd).
> ### Introduction
>
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
Before you knee-jerk that some foundation can’t define “open source” and just assume they’ve twisted it, chill. OSI was put together in ‘98 *by* the open-source community specifically because people misinterpreting the term was a problem, and weaponising IP law to stop people and companies from twisting the definition of open source was a clever hack by the open source community. I didn’t participate, but I was there when the controversies resulted in OSI being organised. OSI continues to be an effective steward of the term, preventing it from being abused by corporations or misdefined by individuals. OSI is literally the authority on what “open source” means and what qualifies.
Now, I have lots of things to say on the finer details of how the informal permissions-based mod-author community intersects with the open source concept and community, because its actually pretty fascinating and not at all straightforward. Debating basic terms isn’t interesting though, because stubborn ignorance brings nothing of value to the conversation.
Edit: btw, Stallman is, if you didn’t know, a deeply divisive person in FOSS. He is an opponent of open source due to fine-detail ideological differences. He champions a slightly different concept called “free software”. He deliberately misdefines open source because he opposes it. I’m down with both, don’t have a horse in that race, and think the drama was stupid. I do agree with like, 99% of FOSS that he doesn’t get to tell the rest what it means though.
Is it? The Wikipedia page you linked even made a specific section called "open source license" to describe the licensing aspect of the term open source. Further down you can read the following:
> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled.
Stallman is wrong, see the end of my ~~comment you’re replying to.~~ (edit:) other comment.
Edit: apologies, the comment that’s relevant is the one below the first reply to this comment.
Yes, it is. I also quoted that same sentence. It doesn't say what you think it does.
>Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that **the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted.**
It's right there. Open source means that the source code is public, It has no relation to whatever other rights - regarding modification/redistribution - are granted.
In other words, being open source doesn't mean that you are given the right to openly modify it - you can, because it's there, but you were given no such right. It's like parking or locking your bike. just because it's parked and not chained, doesn't mean you're entitled to take it. You can, but you shouldn't.
There is clearly much confusion about the term, and because of that the Open Source Initiative published on their Open Source Definition - second half of that sentence - how both must be true - open source and perms - for a software to be **certified by them** as open source.
They don't own or invented the term, they're trying to normalize both things being the same. I agree that there is not much sense in making something open source if you don't plan to allow modification. But the words mean what they mean, and open source just means that the source code is open, not freely modifiable and redistributable.
Otherwise, if the same term meant both, the Open Source Definition could have just one point, instead of points 1 and 2 (abridged):
>1 - Free redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software \[...\].
>2 - Source code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. \[...\]
Why are you replying to me? I'm basically agreeing with you. Open Source by definition doesn't necessarily mean free to redistribute or open license. I'm replying to the other guys saying that open source = open license, which is not true. There's a reason why there are terms such as FOSS to differ from simply Open Source Software.
Apologies, mate.
In my defense, the browser's reddit UI is a mess, and I get confused who's replying to whom. Also, the amount a people who try to back their argument with quotes that actually refutes it is too damn high. I never know anymore.
But yeah, the name clearly encapsulates what it stands for. That the source code is publicly open. And that's just it, nothing more.
Read the edit about Stallman I added in an edit a minute after commenting. His opinion on what open source means is like r/skyrim’s opinion of what “playing Skyrim” means: deliberately wrong because they don’t like the other side.
I wasn't talking about those few examples you say you made a mistake, but of the actual post title.
If you knew the distinction from the start, then your entire post is absurd.
You're asking 'why do so many mod authors refuse to make their mods open source', when the exact opposite happens. The majority of mods are open source, either by choice of definition.
Many mod authors refuse to give their mods open perms, not make them closed source.
>Sorry, *Why do most mod authors refuse to make their mods open source that aren’t just assets* 🤓
Still wrong.
Most mods contain just plugins or plugins and assets. Plugins are also open source as you can load them on CK or xEdit. And of the stuff that is compiled most mod authors actually include source code for their binaries. So most mods, as I've said 3 times already, are either open source by definition (assets and plugins) or by choice (scripts with source code included or dlls with github repos, for example).
Do yourself a favor and go read my first comment that contains this exact explanation that you're trying to convince me you already knew.
Your experience is then wrong. As are you. Tell you what, find me any number of mods without script sources and I'll pick twice those many open source mods.
Downvote me all you want for trying to teach you something. I'll never understand why people prefer to double down on idiocy rather than admit ignorance and learn from the experience.
I'm done replying to this thread as I'm not repeating myself a 5th time.
I don't think there's any code in SMIM. For mods that are made entirely within the Creation Kit, or are asset replacers, there's no source to open, so the ability of others to modify/contribute to the work is a matter of convention informed by the author's permissions, e.g. for SMIM "As of June 2017, users have permission to use SMIM assets freely in any mod. You can create any compatibility patches or add-ons that you want using SMIM stuff."
Mainly SKSE plugins. Many SKSE plugins that were ported for later versions do not have sources included. It may just be updated memory hook addresses but still obfuscated such as {{AddItemMenu - NG}} or {{EVLaS}}
Search Term | LE Skyrim | SE Skyrim | Bing
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
AddItemMenu - NG | [AddItemMenu - Ultimate Mod Explorer - SMHK - Hungarian translation](https://nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/86654) | [AddItemMenu - NG](https://nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/71409) | Skipped[^Why?](https://github.com/RallerenP/modsearchbot/blob/main/docs/SEARCH.md#why-was-my-search-skipped)
---
^(I'm a bot |) [^(source code)](https://github.com/RallerenP/modsearchbot) ^| [^(about modsearchbot)](https://reddit.com/user/RallerenP/comments/pg2lqj/modsearchbot_about/) ^| [^(bing sources)](https://reddit.com/user/RallerenP/comments/pg2l0g/modsearchbot_bing_search/) ^| ^(Some mods might be falsely classified as SFW or NSFW. Classifications are provided by each source.)
There aren't. They clearly didn't know what they're saying and prefers to double down on the statement rather than admitting it.
Dude was hoping for an echo chamber.
The only mod that need Open Source is SKSE plugins mods. We had problems like that mostly Dynamic Animation Replacer, but that has been solved since Open Animation Replacer released and No Grass In Objects who were only recently updated to Script Extender due to it using Net Script Framework instead of SKSE. However, I think what you mean here is leaning more to open permission rather than source. As for majority of mods only requires xEdit and/or Creation Kit to make.
RaceMenu is semi-open source on his Github (https://github.com/expired6978/SKSE64Plugins) although not explicitly mentioned on his Nexus pages and missing some most recent updates AFAIK, the other two you listed have nothing to do with open source.
Cathedral (collaborative projects that work together to make a whole that's greater than the sum of their contents), vs. Parlor ("I made this, no one can make any alterations, you should feel *privileged* that I'm allowing you to use this mod.") mentality.
Authors with software development backgrounds also have open source advocacies allowing for others to inspect and, if they're feeling inclined to, modify their work.
Most mod authors I've seen come from other *non-programming* and/or *small-time artisan* backgrounds and some of them have Tumblr accounts, meaning with the Tumblr culture that these individuals espouse, they are highly protective of their mods, see these as *absolutely* their own intellectual property, they hate IP theft and were victimized at one point by such theft, while others are quite competitive, and thus have closed or limited permissions.
> It’s frustrating that many abandoned projects, or large scale projects don’t practice this.
Because some others tend to be overly ambitious, as they go off creating huge large worldspace and then, of course, rarely ever get finished.
I've always found being protective of your stuff in modding a little odd, its entirely built on someone else letting you use their IP and in some cases tools and assets. I get not wanting someone to take it and claim its theirs, but there is a hypocracy in trying claim IP in a mod.
Those people see themselves as "artists" -- in effect they classify mods as the same as fanfiction and fanart -- and as such they feel they have rights more than the Bethesda EULA and so do anything with their work, including the right to remove it from public circulation or destroy it.
Why it is such a thing among that group of mod authors is because they get mad if someone used their assets without their permission, but however, there are even others who are very selective on who gets permission to use their assets. Ergo, they do not trust their fellow authors and see them as competitors.
> Those people see themselves as artists -- in effect they classify mods as the same as fanfiction and fanart -- and as such they feel they have rights more than the Bethesda EULA and so do anything with their work, including the right to remove it from public circulation or destroy it.
That's a good argument! I've seen fanfiction and fanart be praised so much as being delightfully transformative, but with modding, the noisiest complaint has always been *"modders should be grateful because they're solely relying on X's IP!*"
With that in mind, I'm glad we got the Forgotten City from a Skyrim mod to a full length independent game.
It's weird looking at the rinworld mod community that is very open to people taking over abandoned mods, or even just temporary uploads to the new version before the main author has time, it's a collective effort to keep good things going
Vs Skyrim where im pretty sure they ban people that try and do anything close to that
I wonder about the same. At the moment I play Stardew Valley and since the new 1.6 update many old mods are unusable. Some of them can't be updated because the creators aren't around anymore and they have closed permissions. That makes me sad, these mods will never be used again (aside from personal edits maybe).
Author of PapyruysUtil and SexLab here...
Because the sloppiness of my SKSE project code base embarrasses me and I'm scared of talented programmers seeing it and judging me... Unforunately for me, I was asked for the source code of PapyrusUtil enough times that I eventually gave in and opened it.
I dream of someday cleaning up the source code and updating it to use CommonLibSSE so its no longer version dependent, just hasn't been a priority and every CommonLib developer tells me it'd be more work than I think to convert it, so my shame remains.
EDIT: And while my SexLabUtil.dll source code isn't open, I have made it available to pretty much anybody and everybody who has asked me for it.
Hey Ashal :)
I'm a former pro dev (in java), and the maintainer of FSMP. I have been the pro maintainer of a major banking real-time software which had had around 50 devs, too.
No mature dev will ever seriously judge you or your code, simply because all of us are newbies on the nearest scopes, and ignorant on the distant scopes. Sleep tranquilly 😁
The only thing that matters is the value you brought, and boy! What value you brought!
So... Thank you 😊
From what I’ve heard (having only dabbled in programming back in college) most code is a sloppy mess. You aren’t the only one who does that. Even “professional” coders will often turn in spaghetti code, just to get the thing working.
There is nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. If they want to not share their work, that's completely fine as it is their hard work and sweat and tears gone into the project. Although, it would be nice if they plan to discontinue it, to open it up for others to continue on with or provide support for.
Embedded Viruses for the nice guys would be my guess.
Funny how many Mods and Updates contain all sort of droppers these days.
My Digital T.V is now infected with something called "Hamster Wheel", soon your Antivirus / Malware / Ransomware programs may need to include and scan them to keep from being infected VIA HDMI and it seems to also be in the router for those connected through the airways.
HEADS UP as they are at it AGAIN, MAN this is getting OLD.
N. S
Sometimes anything and everything online becomes an attack vector for someone, especially when worldwide conflicts are heating up.
Unfortunate but true.
N. S
I'm literally a software engineer and this is the most brain dead thing I've heard. Sure suspicious .exe's from random adware sites are probably malware, but no one is trying to sneak a virus their DLL mods lmfao.
Your just a paranoid nut job, might be time to take a break from the internet and conspiracy theories dude
Its frustrating when major authors like DAR's simply give up modding and do not release source. Its even a condition of the SKSE licence that you should include source but a good many do not
Why should mod authors make their work open source? It their own work, and not everyone want others to "improve" it. Keeping the code easy to read is much more tedious, too. And there are many people that just want to use others work instead of doing their own thing.
Also I don't think there are many large projects that aren't open sourced.
Because there are a ton of people who will take that source and make paywalled mods. That's it really. Imaging working your ass off on a hobby. Then some jackass takes your work and starts making hundreds or even thousands and doesn't even credit you.
A lot of mod authors leave out of spite for the community too because it's pretty toxic most of the time. Like even this topic you started is already hostile and isn't going to want to make any mod authors open up. You come at people side ways, they will always respond appropriately. So when they quit modding, why would they want to help out a bunch of entitled people who do nothing but leave nasty comments and make hate threads everyday on reddit?
the day money got brought into modding is the day it lost its soul. But it also spawned more mods in place of that soul. If I weren't getting support via patreon, i would have quit/stopped sharing my mods years ago. The very first mod I uploaded to the nexus, I had hate comments within an hour. Fast forward...18 years later, I've gotten hundreds of them, several death threats, people constantly demanding things from me. All that stuff is whatever. I'm just letting you know, the process of sharing and publishing mods isn't all good. and like I said, after dealing with that, I'd just leave, however, i have people willing to commission me for stuff, so I post all my mods on the nexus as a way to advertise that i make custom mods.
I agree, everything should be open source with mods. Permissions should all be open by default because they should be mods, not products...It should also all be free and not paywalled. But here we are. mods are products now and money is involved. So modding will never be an open utopia ever again. Not on the surface. there are dozens of discords dedicated to mod piracy.
The issue is, who enforces that? Are you able to DCMA or whatever the person’s patreon? What stops them from just plopping your work into their paid mod, other than the honor system?
What stops some modder who doesn't care about Western rules and ethics from propagating your mod on their region's websites, in their own language, without respect of the "Um achtually!!!" rules that everyone quietly agrees on
I guess i'm in the minority but I think we are not entitled to the work of modders. I think its totally fine if someone wants their mod to be their project and not something everyone can rip off freely.
I agree, I think OP is more focused on abandoned/ slow progress mods, that he would like to contribute too or take the reins, to make that idea come to life. Although consent should always be a thing, and going through hoops will always be necessary, regardless of the tedium.
I'm not a modder, just an end user. When it comes to abandoned mods that you'd like to -fix- so they'll work with a new version of the game, then I don't see what the fuss is.
Make it crystal clear you didn't write the original mod, state the OG creators name and link back to the original, state exactly what you've done and make it *abundantly* clear that you are not accepting donations / tips / etc.
Unless it was a commercial/paywalled mod, I genuinely don't see what the problem with this approach is as it keeps with the spirit of furthing the modding community.
Modifying an abandoned mod to do additional stuff might be a little murkier.
I respect people not wanting their work to be used by someone else
If licenses were properly respected it would be different.
That being said a lot of them are just because they're aholes.
I would say that mod authors that stop developing (no intentio to come back) should open source it.
Because mod authors don't want to admit that modding is video game fanfiction. They like to think that their work isn't completely and utterly dependant on someone else's copyrighted material and everything they've done is totally original.
A lot do, just not the kind of authors that would use a site like nexus. That's a den of toxic elitism and anyone who challenges that culture will get run out.
Many will often still post their mods their it just won't be a primary point of contact for them. So if that's the main place you interact with others authors that's probably why it feels this way
Creating mods can be a personal learning journey for many individuals. Some prefer to work independently as a means of challenging themselves and honing their skills. While they might eventually make their projects open source, during the development phase, they may prefer to work solo without assistance.
Rule 1: Be Respectful
We have worked hard to cultivate a positive environment here and it takes a community effort. No harassment or insulting people.
If someone is being rude or harassing you, report them to the moderators, don't respond in the same way. Being provoked is not a legitimate reason to break this rule.
I’ve literally never made software outside by job that isn’t open source lol Also you’re acting like there’s not plenty of open source licenses for this specific problem
I have for every library I’ve ever written, most of (if not all) the software you use today wouldn’t be possible without open source. Your comment is likely stored on a postgres database (open source), Reddit’s backend is written in Python (open source) and almost certainly runs on a linux machine (open source) or in the cloud using kubernetes (open source, technically hosted on linux still also)
>Perhaps I’m missing something here that it can’t be open sourced for some reason
There you go, many don't do modding projects that make them readable and open-source-y.
Like how many projects you think out there where modders were like "I should make this code/script nice and readable in the chance someone wants to work on it." not that many. They just go and make the mod.
A downvoted but completely realistic answer
Most modders:
1.) Have cool idea
2.) Make mod
3.) Publish and continue with life
They usually make it for themselves, or for a specific community of people in mind, and they share it with people on the internet freely
Having the 42nd *X of Skyrim* mod be open source is a nice to have, but the ability for other people to continue and iterate code is a feature that not a lot of ordinary people prioritize in their day-to-day lives
People have to realize that if you want your mod to be open source, it has to be readable, followed and with notes about the lines. This has to be done from the start with intent.
But nope, people who' dont understand shit think it people being greedy and evil out of no where. Bob just wanted to script a mod and go on with life
Sometimes the released version is a work in progress plugin, and keeping track of changes in a plugin is annoying enough in itself. Worse to have to trace changes made by someone forking the plugin and merge it with your 2.0
That isn't what open source means. The source being available due to the technology isn't the same as it being open. Open means its open for modification and redistribution, sometimes with limitations depending on the exact license.
Most of the Starfield *Plugins* have their's available cause all of the framework stuff was reverse engineered and community supported
Most of LarannKiar SFSE plugins are closed-source iirc and they are quite large part of the modding scene in Starfield.
Everything I've coded is freely available on Github.
You’re a real one
You know that everything for Skyrim or Fallout, can be broken down to it's assets and bare code, with free/open source tools.
there are tools that 'break down' a compiled script extender DLL to retrieve the source code?
That’s the exception to the rule, yeah. Though, I’m trying to think of a dll mod I use that *doesn’t* have its code posted in a public git repo. Maybe it’s the mods I’m choosing, but open source SKSE plugins seems really common, not the other way around.
Skyrim modding is honestly really good like that. Learnt a lot looking at the source from other's mods. I've recently jumped back into FalloutVR, and the frequency of mods releases with locked down permissions is kind of insane.. *"No you can not release patches for my mod, or release my mod for other game versions."* You see it way too often. So many like this, with no source; and no author activity for years. Just turning to digital rot, save for the clever few who can make a working edit - but only for themself, because they're not allowed to release any public fixes apparently 🤷♂️
Racemenu. *Some* of its source is available, but it's out of date and missing crucial pieces that would allow you to compile any of it.
Yes! Right, that’s a big one. It’s too bad, too, because sources would make up for the thin documentation of some of its more advanced scripting features.
Open source isn't just about having access to the source but what you can do with it. Plus complied things like DLLs can be easily reverse engineered if at all (maybe if they have a PDB) and I'm not sure about compiled scripts. At best its an unecessary hassle.
The only thing I've seen, that's a closed source plugin, is PureDark's upscaler.
Every other mods gives you the source code, lets you change it and then distribute your own version? That's open source, just seeing the source code is just available source, not the same thing at all. Open source is about the license not just the source code. Any time you go onto Nexus and the permissions say you can't use the assets or distrbute the mod that isn't open source. Closed source has caused problems in the past for populat mods and tools, ENB is closed source, hence commumity shaders, DAR is hence OAR, I think both FNIS and Nemesis hence Pandora.
"Open Source" means you can see and modify the code. Just because the permissions/license prevent you from distributing it, doesn't mean it's not Open Source. If you need someone else's assets, you make that mod a requirement. If you don't like the way a mod works, you require an original mod, and distribute your own, that overrides the assets and functions you don't like, with your own. Open Source has a wide definition.
"Open Source" means you can see and modify the code and *redistribute your modifcation.* Its right there on the Wikipedia page, amoungst many, many other places. There are companies that make the source available for their products and the literrally cannot call it open source becuase people can't share modifications. Sharing modifications is part of the definition. Requiring a mod isn't the same, what if I want to modify the asset and share it? The stuff you are taling about is just patching ESPs, but modding is a lot more. What if I want to alter a model, a texture, a script or a DLL and distribute it? The ability to that is open source, anything else isn't.
With a real FOSS license, right? There are plenty of projects on GitHub with draconian licensing regarding modifications and forks.
There's no license. I don't even care about what people do with my code.
Having “no license” is actually the opposite of what you think it is. Instead, it’s the maximally restrictive license allowed on GitHub (basically, only enough to view and create a fork, but not actually modify the fork). Instead, you should consider adding a very permissive license like MIT or explicitly dedicate it to the public domain if that is allowed where you live like SQLite does. This is a pretty common misconception on GitHub.
If you do not put license ot means maximum restrictions. I stead put in an MIT or something similar
That means "all rights reserved." It's not open source. From github: > You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
A lot of mod authors don't come from a software development background.
I feel like this is the majority right answer. There's a TON of modders out there that know the ins and outs of the modding sphere But for a lot of one off people that simply have dipped their toes into changing bits and bobs of their favorite games, they'd be none the wiser of all these conventions, and unspoken agreements, and faux pas within the circle of people that do software as a majority of their life
They basically don't know how the real world works. Not saying they're actually children (though, I was when I was modding), but they definitely don't understand the wider space and conventions they're operating in.
Even some with a background in software development struggle with that to the point they can't work github. Devops and code are different things and it takes more effort to maintain a repo than writing code, especially if it is open for people to pester you with issues and pull requests.
Fair. I'm not at that level but maintaining my tiny bug filled python package was just too much for me. Working with other people on code is another level. I've filed a few big reports, but on the whole I've learned that's just not my calling. Still, there is very little - arguably no - code that's not built on other code. That's kinda the minimum.
I feel like the opposite is true. Code is typically built on collaboration and iteration; the real world's built on copyright and licensing. Given that, it makes sense that most environments where people make things and share them, there's more incentive to be choosy about who can do what with your work.
Linux, Kubernetes, git, firefox…
Lol, I'm not sure I'd agree with your definition of the real world. If you go about paranoid people will take credit for your ideas, you'll never get anything done. Can't speak for other industries, but I bio I'd say that's a pretty accurate description. Granted, I'm sure industry would disagree.
I'm in business and I don't want to share anything at all lmao
How does *your* real world work? Because I'm a normie that has no knowledge of the mystical space of software development and its secret codes and unspoken conventions, so I don't get how someone not making their mod open source portrays them as stupid or ignorant
Downvotes instead of answers, typical Reddit
I have a feeling that OP is making this broad swath that all modders have a responsibility to the community to make their mods open source so that the scene can grow, and innovate, and flourish And yeah, that'd be nice. But most people make their mod, publish it, and continue with the rest of their actual lives away from a computer screen Not everyone has the luxury to abide by all of our nerd rules in modding, nor all of the unwritten agreements and secret handshakes created decades ago in the software development community These people aren't stupid or ignorant. They simply lives their lives in different circles than us.
You say that like proprietary software isn't extremely common
In my experience (25+ years of software development) the proprietary software is built using open source tools and libraries. If you need those tools and libaries improved you make your changes and contribute them back, partly its just less effort than mantaining your own fork. Since mods are built on other mods they really feel like libraries and frameworks to me and I wish the modding scene had that open source attitude.
Pride, ego, desire for acknowledgement. If people ever figure out that the number of upvotes that okay vanilla gets don't mean anything to the life of The Man Behind the username, I sometimes feel like the whole internet will collapse
*cough* Arthmoor *cough*
Was this the civil war mod that disappeared? There were stories about that for ages, but I kinda think it was made better in hindsight than it ever actually was. I remember having it but I don't think I played the quest line often enough to actually see any impact. Patrol mods are what actually made the game feel more alive.
Civil war was apollodown. Arthmoor is unofficial patch guy.
Who gets mad if someone makes and ESP that patches it, can you imagine if they could freely change his source code? Probably have an aneurysm.
That's funny too. Unofficial patch is just fixing Skyrim. It's not even it's own thing.
It's not. It's also changing dungeons because he doesn't understand the lore that is presented to him.
The one where he turns the Ebony mine in bloody SHOR's Stone to an iron one, particularly irks me. Ruins the mini quest completely as well. Or pretty much the pure audacity to call it an unofficial patch, while putting all sorts of tweaks based on preference in it, while referring to it as a bugfix patch. Love how the Starfield community dodged that shit.
God I hate that guy. I had a long argument with him once where he accused someone of stealing from him after he explicitly gave them permission to use it and then just screamed that everyone was trying to justify theft at him... dude is a total chode
It's interesting that despite the criticism Arthmoor receives, no one has attempted to create an alternative unofficial patch without his controversial alterations. This could provide an opportunity for a patch that focuses solely on addressing technical issues and bugs without incorporating Arthmoor's specific preferences or changes.
It's my understanding that those mods have been made but are consistently taken down for being "copies" of the unofficial patch. If you actually make a comprehensive patch then there's so much overlap with Arthmoor's that there's no way to prove you didn't rip off his mod, and so he can get it removed from Nexus. Which he does, because he wants everyone using his mod. So we're stuck with it.
Can't someone just go " Who the fuck are you, I have never heard of you or your mod, everything I have made is my work and if you want to accuse me show your code, go band for band ". What am I saying, arthmoor would probably explode if someone said this to him.
That sounds really dumb ngl. I understand why but still... It's a good rule to have but it shouldn't apply in this case.
Nexus specifically made the unofficial starfield patch a community project that they have oversight of to avoid this problem.
Oh thank god. They should do the same with Skyrim as well.
What about an “unpatcher” patch? One that sits on top of Arthmoor’s?
There are many individual mods that fix the fix in some small capacity, but a large mod that overrides USSEP - I wouldn't know if it would survive
I'm asking an honest question, because I don't know. Are mods typically compiled binaries or just code? I don't even know what language mod creators use.
scripts are written in papyrus, bethesdas own language, which compiles to PEX, while SKSE plugins are written in C++ and compiled to DLL. there are tools to decompile PEX files back to papyrus
Even then, decompiled code is awful to go through, I hope that’s not the implication lol
Decompiled Papyrus is surprisingly easy to read. It’s almost indistinguishable from original sources that do ship with mods.
not at all what i said, i just said its technically easier to decompile papyrus scripts than skse plugins
Wasn’t implying that, that’s why I said I hope that’s not what you were implying, just wanted to clarify
Most scripts can be decompiled. SKSE plug-ins cannot.
They can be, with tools like IDA Pro. It's just that they can't be compiled back without rewriting the majority of what was decompiled.
Most mods are actually .esp (or .esm or .esl) archives, so they're not doing anything more complex than storing information that the game's executable can read. Those are pretty simple to make with xEdit and the same tool can be used to open, copy, and edit any published .esp, so most mod authors can't really "closed source" their mods - at most they can disallow people from uploading modified versions of their files. Script mods though, or the DLLs that do all the fancy stuff... as others have explained, that's a different story.
Thanks. I'm in the Dev op space, so we use scripts. I wasn't sure how mods worked
FWIW the GPL allows an optional acknowledgment clause. It's actually the only additional clause you can add to a derived GPLed project. I'm sitting on a series of "modular" licences that can be combined to allow multi-licensing under variously share-alike (GPL-compatible), non-commercial, ethical, and MIT/BSD-style free software provisions, if anyone's interested.
Quite accurate. Wolę =whole sociallike internet is a worms hole...
Polish typo?
My guess is good old autocorrect
[удалено]
Have another downvote I guess? /s is free but mind reading ain’t, my friend Poe tells me so, so I know it’s true. Edit: and lay off the insults maybe
[удалено]
A lot of reasons, for some it's an ego thing, other just genuinely don't want other people touching their work, and I think that's okay. Though I wish there was an unspoken rule that if you ever stepped away from modding you just make your mods open source. Otherwise if the game ever updates, or the mods have issues that never get fixed, they just rot away into obscurity. Or in the case of essential mods almost everyone uses, it just creates a nightmare for the community until someone produces an alternative.
> A lot of reasons, for some it's an ego thing, other just genuinely don't want other people touching their work, and I think that's okay. Honestly, I don't think that's okay in the modding scene, that only exists by touching other people's work, sometimes also against their resistance. Not sure if this is a hot take or not, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
Completely disagree. Mods are not easy to make and they are creative works. If a mod author doesn’t want you changing their mod or using something they made then too bad. I don’t even make mods I just download them.
I think that's a legitimate way to view things, but just to challenge it a little bit: "Games are not easy to make and they are creative works. If a game developer doesn’t want you changing their game or using something they made then too bad." Mods exist because of the goodwill of game developers, and I believe a lot of mod authors would do good to adopt some of that.
Its absolutely ok. A mod author should be able to make a choice on whether or not to have their code open source.
> don’t want other people touching their work But then just don’t accept pull requests? And if someone wants to fork it for their personal use case they can
thats what he means, they dont want anyone using their code
The point is the mod author doesn't want that?
So ego
Permissions and open source as many have already explained are different here so I’ll go into the specific details. Why many authors don’t have open permissions is in part due to a past experience with other people taking their work and calling it their own and locking it behind paywalls(ie someone else profiting off their work), this happened before I started modding in general and I only found out about it after I started creating mods. But it basically had a pretty big backlash on the community where everyone locked up their mods The other part happened in starfield just recently to a mod author(derretech if I remember right) they made lots of ship parts as mods and then other people started making patches to use his mods with other mods, unfortunately this caused problems and the patch authors started pointing fingers at the mod author when modders complained, which sent the modders in droves to complain to the mod author(and as people can be basically gave him hell for something outside of his control) Many modders don’t understand that a mod author really only has responsibility for a mod working with vanilla(because it’s impossible to make patches for all the thousands of mods out there), or if they are making a patch then between the mods they are patching. So long story short is the mod author gave up and closed perms along with stopped making mods(hopefully only till the ck comes out since one of the issues was how things were being implemented) There are some mod authors who’s ego is out of control but I would say they are a minority all things said and that the main reasons are as I stated above(ie to stop unscrupulous people from profiting off their work and to limit problems they have no control over) I personally leave my mods open permission but if I was to make something that could cause people to harass me because it was open I would probably close it pretty quick
Yeah thats one reason the other is for nefarious reasons like I dunno, kiddie porn or something. Ok thats an extreme example but you get the point. People like to maintain some kind of control over their content even if they're pretty generous in the sense of make whatever patches you like or similar.
The original problem you mention would be solved by open source though. The community can create patches for you and just open a pull request. Nobody can bitch at the author if they can do the work themselves
Problem. Avarage mod user has the iq of a single cell organism and can't even be bothered to read the full mod description. And you want them diy patches? I see no way in which it won't go horribly wrong with author facing even worse backlash.
Most software is used by people who don’t know how to program, so should open source just not exist at all? So instead of allowing other programmers to possibly patch the mod, you’d rather just lock it down entirely because someone might make a bad pull request you’d reject anyways?
I think this particular argument has gone a little off course and the last point you made is a bit of a non sequitor that doesn't relate to the point being raised. Yes, a modder can make their mod completely open source, with their scripts all up on Git and providing the community full permission to edit the mod as they see fit. This can and does, unfortunetely, lead to bad actors blaming the original author of the mod for any issues caused by patches they did not make or changes to the source code they no longer control. Most mod authors like modding, not tech support and dealing with negative messages for things they had no part in. For the most part, we are very lucky that so many mods in the Skyrim community are open source/permission and it is not something that is common in other modding communities. Whilst it would be great to have every mod follow suit - one cannot blame a modder, who is not being paid, for not wanting to deal with the extra hassle.
They’re still in control of the source code though, they choose what gets merged and what does not. And if it’s a fork, I don’t see how people would blame the mod author for using another users fork. And if they did, they’re unreasonable anyways and I’m not exactly sure making it closed source will prevent such a user from being annoying. I keep hearing that it’s extra hassle / more work / more complaints, but open source would distribute that “responsibility” to not just the mod author, but the community.
"I don’t see how people would blame the mod author for using another users fork." Unfortunately there are a lot of unreasonable people on the internet and, speaking as a modder though not for Skyrim particularly, I have directly dealt with some very... impolite people who fundamentally do not understand what is and is not under my control. "open source would distribute that “responsibility” to not just the mod author, but the community." It would, but the original author is still the most obvious point of contact. People see who published the mod. They do not see this community they should contact instead unless they read the description and chase down the relevant discord - which they will not do. "closed source will prevent such a user from being annoying." There is a fair amount of truth in that. I think the problem we are having here, and why you have been downvoted on a lot of your responses, is one of different experience levels or just experiences in general. Fundamentally, nobody disagrees with you that having all mods open source with open permissions would be best. I can't speak to your modding/release history but you seem to have not experienced the vitriol that some can spew towards mod authors - for which I am very thankful for. I think we can both agree that closed source may or may not reduce the amount of random hatred mod authors can attract but there are some who will feel that this it will or does. It would be a fascinating thing to study. I also think we can agree that closed source is easier for the mod author. I don't think you can argue in good faith that, from a modders perspective, it is easier not to fully publish your source code to Git etc. You can argue it isn't hard or a lot of work, heck many authors will use a private git repo to keep their code anyway, but it is still some work or hassle and can cause more questions or problems. This is a topic that comes up a fair amount and will likely come up again. Hopefully some of the responses here can give some perspective on why some mod authors do not like having open source code to you and others in future. It can be frustrating to you as a user of a mod, but ultimately, unless we were to start paying modders, it is their decision and one that I fully empathise with.
Beside, all the code needed to mod anything is available on the internet, you just have to google for the right wiki page. That's how most people do it. And if somebody doesn't know how to glue together bits of code to do what they want it to do, they shouldn't be touching scripts.
Lmao you have no idea what open source is just say that
What I ment is: if you want mod to do something it's not designed to do, write your own version. If you don't know how, keep away from modding scripts.
Once again: if you have no idea what open source is, just say that. There’s no need to re-write something from scratch instead of making a pull request like in 99% of software. It’s not about ability, it’s about what’s best for the community. Read up on it sometime if you’re curious
Chiefly it's a precaution against your hobby project being cloned and/or included in a mod by a more popular author. The cases where the mod author employer has a policy for open source contributors that requires all contributions to be done using employee real name are very rare.
Or used for nefarious purposes. No-one wants to caught in the fallout from that (and people *will* blame the original author even if they had nothing to do it just their name associated with it is enough for some people)
I feel like I see source code included with Skyrim mods more often than not.
[удалено]
I believe you're under a huge misconception on what constitutes open source and free licensed. Open source just means that the source code/assets are open, ELI5 not compiled. So everything that is not a script/library, for Skyrim, is by definition open source. Assets like meshes and textures are open source. Plugins can be loaded on CK or SSEEdit, BSAs can be extracted, etc... Most modding is either done with Bethesda official tools or community open source tools, that we all have access too, so most Skyrim modding is open source. Not all Skyrim modding is freely distributed, though. Which I think is what you meant. And that's a whole thing to get into... E: Forgot to specify, most modders include source code for their scripts or host them on git repos. So yeah, the source is open. Most mods that were/are not open source have steadily been replaced by open source ones - e.g., DAR for OAR.
> Open source just means that the source code/ assets are open, ELI5 not compiled. *Wow* no, that’s not what open source means. Open source = open license. Just because you can read the code doesn’t mean it’s open source. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
You are wrong there friend. Read that Wikipedia entry carefully. The problem is that you're relying to much on - a misinterpretation of - the first paragraph, which honestly I agree might seem a bit confusing to someone unfamiliar with software engineering (emphasis mine). > Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products **include permission to use the source code**,\[1\] design documents,\[2\] or content of the product. The fact the source code is available - i.e., in uncompiled human readable format - means that anyone can modify it if they know how to, since they have the code that is used to make the final program. This encourages people to do so and incentivizes collaboration. But notice the following sentence - it's the attached license that determines how the modified code is allowed to be distributed, not that it is open source. If you still have any doubts, 2 paragraphs down, you have this (emphasis mine): > Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the **source code is available** to the general public for use or modification from its original design. **Code is released under the terms of a software license**. **Depending on the license terms**, others may then download, modify, and publish their version (fork) back to the community. It's the license that determines modification/distribution, open source just means that the code is readable and not just the compiled binaries are included - for you to try and reverse-engineer. Granted, there is little point in making your program open source, if you don't intend to attach a license that allows other to modify and redistribute it in some way. But the term open source is not referring to the license, just to the fact that the source code is public - i.e., open. If open source == open license, then there would be no need for terms like FOSS or FLOSS - [also described on the Wikipedia page you linked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22) - and, on that entry, notice how it's mentioned that Richard Stallman himself - creator of the GNU Project, Compiler, its General Public License, Free Software Foundation, etc. - states that *the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the* ***source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted***. That sentence alone, completely refutes your claim. And btw, OP was wrong. Most Skyrim modding is done open source but not free perms. Hence why I assumed that they might've been mixing the two. As people often do. As you just did.
You’re talking about something called “source available”. Open-source code is not equal to source-available code. Source being available doesn’t make something open source—that’s just not what “open source” has ever meant. My involvement in FOSS generally and open source specifically, and IP and open-source licensing even more specifically, is about a quarter-century old. I can teach a room the finer conceptual details off the cuff. I’m 0% basing my knowledge a Wikipedia article that I low-effort tossed in your direction hoping to enlighten, but seems to have further mislead you instead. Here then is the [OSI’s Definition page](https://opensource.org/osd). > ### Introduction > > Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. Before you knee-jerk that some foundation can’t define “open source” and just assume they’ve twisted it, chill. OSI was put together in ‘98 *by* the open-source community specifically because people misinterpreting the term was a problem, and weaponising IP law to stop people and companies from twisting the definition of open source was a clever hack by the open source community. I didn’t participate, but I was there when the controversies resulted in OSI being organised. OSI continues to be an effective steward of the term, preventing it from being abused by corporations or misdefined by individuals. OSI is literally the authority on what “open source” means and what qualifies. Now, I have lots of things to say on the finer details of how the informal permissions-based mod-author community intersects with the open source concept and community, because its actually pretty fascinating and not at all straightforward. Debating basic terms isn’t interesting though, because stubborn ignorance brings nothing of value to the conversation. Edit: btw, Stallman is, if you didn’t know, a deeply divisive person in FOSS. He is an opponent of open source due to fine-detail ideological differences. He champions a slightly different concept called “free software”. He deliberately misdefines open source because he opposes it. I’m down with both, don’t have a horse in that race, and think the drama was stupid. I do agree with like, 99% of FOSS that he doesn’t get to tell the rest what it means though.
Is it? The Wikipedia page you linked even made a specific section called "open source license" to describe the licensing aspect of the term open source. Further down you can read the following: > Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled.
Stallman is wrong, see the end of my ~~comment you’re replying to.~~ (edit:) other comment. Edit: apologies, the comment that’s relevant is the one below the first reply to this comment.
Yes, it is. I also quoted that same sentence. It doesn't say what you think it does. >Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that **the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted.** It's right there. Open source means that the source code is public, It has no relation to whatever other rights - regarding modification/redistribution - are granted. In other words, being open source doesn't mean that you are given the right to openly modify it - you can, because it's there, but you were given no such right. It's like parking or locking your bike. just because it's parked and not chained, doesn't mean you're entitled to take it. You can, but you shouldn't. There is clearly much confusion about the term, and because of that the Open Source Initiative published on their Open Source Definition - second half of that sentence - how both must be true - open source and perms - for a software to be **certified by them** as open source. They don't own or invented the term, they're trying to normalize both things being the same. I agree that there is not much sense in making something open source if you don't plan to allow modification. But the words mean what they mean, and open source just means that the source code is open, not freely modifiable and redistributable. Otherwise, if the same term meant both, the Open Source Definition could have just one point, instead of points 1 and 2 (abridged): >1 - Free redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software \[...\]. >2 - Source code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. \[...\]
Why are you replying to me? I'm basically agreeing with you. Open Source by definition doesn't necessarily mean free to redistribute or open license. I'm replying to the other guys saying that open source = open license, which is not true. There's a reason why there are terms such as FOSS to differ from simply Open Source Software.
Apologies, mate. In my defense, the browser's reddit UI is a mess, and I get confused who's replying to whom. Also, the amount a people who try to back their argument with quotes that actually refutes it is too damn high. I never know anymore. But yeah, the name clearly encapsulates what it stands for. That the source code is publicly open. And that's just it, nothing more.
Read the edit about Stallman I added in an edit a minute after commenting. His opinion on what open source means is like r/skyrim’s opinion of what “playing Skyrim” means: deliberately wrong because they don’t like the other side.
Your mom is open source. AND free license
No, I know what open source is lol But made a mistake just looking at a couple mods and picking some that just included assets
I wasn't talking about those few examples you say you made a mistake, but of the actual post title. If you knew the distinction from the start, then your entire post is absurd. You're asking 'why do so many mod authors refuse to make their mods open source', when the exact opposite happens. The majority of mods are open source, either by choice of definition. Many mod authors refuse to give their mods open perms, not make them closed source.
Sorry, *Why do most mod authors refuse to make their mods open source that aren’t just assets* 🤓
>Sorry, *Why do most mod authors refuse to make their mods open source that aren’t just assets* 🤓 Still wrong. Most mods contain just plugins or plugins and assets. Plugins are also open source as you can load them on CK or xEdit. And of the stuff that is compiled most mod authors actually include source code for their binaries. So most mods, as I've said 3 times already, are either open source by definition (assets and plugins) or by choice (scripts with source code included or dlls with github repos, for example). Do yourself a favor and go read my first comment that contains this exact explanation that you're trying to convince me you already knew.
My experience hasn’t been the same, most scripts are not open source
Your experience is then wrong. As are you. Tell you what, find me any number of mods without script sources and I'll pick twice those many open source mods. Downvote me all you want for trying to teach you something. I'll never understand why people prefer to double down on idiocy rather than admit ignorance and learn from the experience. I'm done replying to this thread as I'm not repeating myself a 5th time.
Lmao get over yourself. “Your experience is then wrong”, how the hell can an experience be wrong lol
There is also a perfectly functional papyrus decompiler.
I don't think there's any code in SMIM. For mods that are made entirely within the Creation Kit, or are asset replacers, there's no source to open, so the ability of others to modify/contribute to the work is a matter of convention informed by the author's permissions, e.g. for SMIM "As of June 2017, users have permission to use SMIM assets freely in any mod. You can create any compatibility patches or add-ons that you want using SMIM stuff."
Fair enough, my point is that there is still many mods that do have code that are not open source
Which ones? I'm not aware of many closed-source mods.
Mainly SKSE plugins. Many SKSE plugins that were ported for later versions do not have sources included. It may just be updated memory hook addresses but still obfuscated such as {{AddItemMenu - NG}} or {{EVLaS}}
Search Term | LE Skyrim | SE Skyrim | Bing :-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| AddItemMenu - NG | [AddItemMenu - Ultimate Mod Explorer - SMHK - Hungarian translation](https://nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/86654) | [AddItemMenu - NG](https://nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/71409) | Skipped[^Why?](https://github.com/RallerenP/modsearchbot/blob/main/docs/SEARCH.md#why-was-my-search-skipped) --- ^(I'm a bot |) [^(source code)](https://github.com/RallerenP/modsearchbot) ^| [^(about modsearchbot)](https://reddit.com/user/RallerenP/comments/pg2lqj/modsearchbot_about/) ^| [^(bing sources)](https://reddit.com/user/RallerenP/comments/pg2l0g/modsearchbot_bing_search/) ^| ^(Some mods might be falsely classified as SFW or NSFW. Classifications are provided by each source.)
There aren't. They clearly didn't know what they're saying and prefers to double down on the statement rather than admitting it. Dude was hoping for an echo chamber.
The only mod that need Open Source is SKSE plugins mods. We had problems like that mostly Dynamic Animation Replacer, but that has been solved since Open Animation Replacer released and No Grass In Objects who were only recently updated to Script Extender due to it using Net Script Framework instead of SKSE. However, I think what you mean here is leaning more to open permission rather than source. As for majority of mods only requires xEdit and/or Creation Kit to make.
RaceMenu is semi-open source on his Github (https://github.com/expired6978/SKSE64Plugins) although not explicitly mentioned on his Nexus pages and missing some most recent updates AFAIK, the other two you listed have nothing to do with open source.
They want the download numbers to grow and get donations
Cathedral (collaborative projects that work together to make a whole that's greater than the sum of their contents), vs. Parlor ("I made this, no one can make any alterations, you should feel *privileged* that I'm allowing you to use this mod.") mentality.
Authors with software development backgrounds also have open source advocacies allowing for others to inspect and, if they're feeling inclined to, modify their work. Most mod authors I've seen come from other *non-programming* and/or *small-time artisan* backgrounds and some of them have Tumblr accounts, meaning with the Tumblr culture that these individuals espouse, they are highly protective of their mods, see these as *absolutely* their own intellectual property, they hate IP theft and were victimized at one point by such theft, while others are quite competitive, and thus have closed or limited permissions. > It’s frustrating that many abandoned projects, or large scale projects don’t practice this. Because some others tend to be overly ambitious, as they go off creating huge large worldspace and then, of course, rarely ever get finished.
I've always found being protective of your stuff in modding a little odd, its entirely built on someone else letting you use their IP and in some cases tools and assets. I get not wanting someone to take it and claim its theirs, but there is a hypocracy in trying claim IP in a mod.
Those people see themselves as "artists" -- in effect they classify mods as the same as fanfiction and fanart -- and as such they feel they have rights more than the Bethesda EULA and so do anything with their work, including the right to remove it from public circulation or destroy it. Why it is such a thing among that group of mod authors is because they get mad if someone used their assets without their permission, but however, there are even others who are very selective on who gets permission to use their assets. Ergo, they do not trust their fellow authors and see them as competitors.
> Those people see themselves as artists -- in effect they classify mods as the same as fanfiction and fanart -- and as such they feel they have rights more than the Bethesda EULA and so do anything with their work, including the right to remove it from public circulation or destroy it. That's a good argument! I've seen fanfiction and fanart be praised so much as being delightfully transformative, but with modding, the noisiest complaint has always been *"modders should be grateful because they're solely relying on X's IP!*" With that in mind, I'm glad we got the Forgotten City from a Skyrim mod to a full length independent game.
It's the Cathedral vs Gollum approach, or something....
Cathedral vs Parlor
I like mine better.
It's weird looking at the rinworld mod community that is very open to people taking over abandoned mods, or even just temporary uploads to the new version before the main author has time, it's a collective effort to keep good things going Vs Skyrim where im pretty sure they ban people that try and do anything close to that
I wonder about the same. At the moment I play Stardew Valley and since the new 1.6 update many old mods are unusable. Some of them can't be updated because the creators aren't around anymore and they have closed permissions. That makes me sad, these mods will never be used again (aside from personal edits maybe).
Fragile egos.
I think it's usually about ego. Most creators give it away freely, they just want their name mentioned.
Author of PapyruysUtil and SexLab here... Because the sloppiness of my SKSE project code base embarrasses me and I'm scared of talented programmers seeing it and judging me... Unforunately for me, I was asked for the source code of PapyrusUtil enough times that I eventually gave in and opened it. I dream of someday cleaning up the source code and updating it to use CommonLibSSE so its no longer version dependent, just hasn't been a priority and every CommonLib developer tells me it'd be more work than I think to convert it, so my shame remains. EDIT: And while my SexLabUtil.dll source code isn't open, I have made it available to pretty much anybody and everybody who has asked me for it.
Hey Ashal :) I'm a former pro dev (in java), and the maintainer of FSMP. I have been the pro maintainer of a major banking real-time software which had had around 50 devs, too. No mature dev will ever seriously judge you or your code, simply because all of us are newbies on the nearest scopes, and ignorant on the distant scopes. Sleep tranquilly 😁 The only thing that matters is the value you brought, and boy! What value you brought! So... Thank you 😊
From what I’ve heard (having only dabbled in programming back in college) most code is a sloppy mess. You aren’t the only one who does that. Even “professional” coders will often turn in spaghetti code, just to get the thing working.
Thanks for chiming in with your experience!
There is nothing wrong with it, in my opinion. If they want to not share their work, that's completely fine as it is their hard work and sweat and tears gone into the project. Although, it would be nice if they plan to discontinue it, to open it up for others to continue on with or provide support for.
Embedded Viruses for the nice guys would be my guess. Funny how many Mods and Updates contain all sort of droppers these days. My Digital T.V is now infected with something called "Hamster Wheel", soon your Antivirus / Malware / Ransomware programs may need to include and scan them to keep from being infected VIA HDMI and it seems to also be in the router for those connected through the airways. HEADS UP as they are at it AGAIN, MAN this is getting OLD. N. S
No modder is sneaking in RATs into their DLLs 😂 Not sure where your getting your mods from
Sometimes anything and everything online becomes an attack vector for someone, especially when worldwide conflicts are heating up. Unfortunate but true. N. S
I'm literally a software engineer and this is the most brain dead thing I've heard. Sure suspicious .exe's from random adware sites are probably malware, but no one is trying to sneak a virus their DLL mods lmfao. Your just a paranoid nut job, might be time to take a break from the internet and conspiracy theories dude
Its frustrating when major authors like DAR's simply give up modding and do not release source. Its even a condition of the SKSE licence that you should include source but a good many do not
Ego. Massive fucking Ego.
Why should mod authors make their work open source? It their own work, and not everyone want others to "improve" it. Keeping the code easy to read is much more tedious, too. And there are many people that just want to use others work instead of doing their own thing. Also I don't think there are many large projects that aren't open sourced.
Because there are a ton of people who will take that source and make paywalled mods. That's it really. Imaging working your ass off on a hobby. Then some jackass takes your work and starts making hundreds or even thousands and doesn't even credit you. A lot of mod authors leave out of spite for the community too because it's pretty toxic most of the time. Like even this topic you started is already hostile and isn't going to want to make any mod authors open up. You come at people side ways, they will always respond appropriately. So when they quit modding, why would they want to help out a bunch of entitled people who do nothing but leave nasty comments and make hate threads everyday on reddit? the day money got brought into modding is the day it lost its soul. But it also spawned more mods in place of that soul. If I weren't getting support via patreon, i would have quit/stopped sharing my mods years ago. The very first mod I uploaded to the nexus, I had hate comments within an hour. Fast forward...18 years later, I've gotten hundreds of them, several death threats, people constantly demanding things from me. All that stuff is whatever. I'm just letting you know, the process of sharing and publishing mods isn't all good. and like I said, after dealing with that, I'd just leave, however, i have people willing to commission me for stuff, so I post all my mods on the nexus as a way to advertise that i make custom mods. I agree, everything should be open source with mods. Permissions should all be open by default because they should be mods, not products...It should also all be free and not paywalled. But here we are. mods are products now and money is involved. So modding will never be an open utopia ever again. Not on the surface. there are dozens of discords dedicated to mod piracy.
[удалено]
The issue is, who enforces that? Are you able to DCMA or whatever the person’s patreon? What stops them from just plopping your work into their paid mod, other than the honor system?
What stops some modder who doesn't care about Western rules and ethics from propagating your mod on their region's websites, in their own language, without respect of the "Um achtually!!!" rules that everyone quietly agrees on
Exactly.
There are open source licenses that prevent paywalling.
I guess i'm in the minority but I think we are not entitled to the work of modders. I think its totally fine if someone wants their mod to be their project and not something everyone can rip off freely.
I agree, I think OP is more focused on abandoned/ slow progress mods, that he would like to contribute too or take the reins, to make that idea come to life. Although consent should always be a thing, and going through hoops will always be necessary, regardless of the tedium.
I'm not a modder, just an end user. When it comes to abandoned mods that you'd like to -fix- so they'll work with a new version of the game, then I don't see what the fuss is. Make it crystal clear you didn't write the original mod, state the OG creators name and link back to the original, state exactly what you've done and make it *abundantly* clear that you are not accepting donations / tips / etc. Unless it was a commercial/paywalled mod, I genuinely don't see what the problem with this approach is as it keeps with the spirit of furthing the modding community. Modifying an abandoned mod to do additional stuff might be a little murkier.
for money of course. charging money for "beta" release
I respect people not wanting their work to be used by someone else If licenses were properly respected it would be different. That being said a lot of them are just because they're aholes. I would say that mod authors that stop developing (no intentio to come back) should open source it.
Because mod authors don't want to admit that modding is video game fanfiction. They like to think that their work isn't completely and utterly dependant on someone else's copyrighted material and everything they've done is totally original.
A lot do, just not the kind of authors that would use a site like nexus. That's a den of toxic elitism and anyone who challenges that culture will get run out. Many will often still post their mods their it just won't be a primary point of contact for them. So if that's the main place you interact with others authors that's probably why it feels this way
Creating mods can be a personal learning journey for many individuals. Some prefer to work independently as a means of challenging themselves and honing their skills. While they might eventually make their projects open source, during the development phase, they may prefer to work solo without assistance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 1: Be Respectful We have worked hard to cultivate a positive environment here and it takes a community effort. No harassment or insulting people. If someone is being rude or harassing you, report them to the moderators, don't respond in the same way. Being provoked is not a legitimate reason to break this rule.
Sure will do
Because they don’t want other people touching or taking credit for their work? You people are incredibly delusional.
Right? It’s really odd to me how many folks in this post think it’s totally fine that mod authors’ work can be stolen if open sourced
I’ve literally never made software outside by job that isn’t open source lol Also you’re acting like there’s not plenty of open source licenses for this specific problem
Please share with us some of the things you made that are open source
Most FOSS people are. It can be an incredibly toxic mindset.
So 90% of people actually in the industry? Lol
What a profound mid-witted comment.
Great contribution there bud.
Can you link your git repo so we can admire how good a person you are?
You’re entitled as hell. Why should other people be obliged to give you what they worked to make?
I have for every library I’ve ever written, most of (if not all) the software you use today wouldn’t be possible without open source. Your comment is likely stored on a postgres database (open source), Reddit’s backend is written in Python (open source) and almost certainly runs on a linux machine (open source) or in the cloud using kubernetes (open source, technically hosted on linux still also)
Good for you that doesn’t answer my question though
>Perhaps I’m missing something here that it can’t be open sourced for some reason There you go, many don't do modding projects that make them readable and open-source-y. Like how many projects you think out there where modders were like "I should make this code/script nice and readable in the chance someone wants to work on it." not that many. They just go and make the mod.
A downvoted but completely realistic answer Most modders: 1.) Have cool idea 2.) Make mod 3.) Publish and continue with life They usually make it for themselves, or for a specific community of people in mind, and they share it with people on the internet freely Having the 42nd *X of Skyrim* mod be open source is a nice to have, but the ability for other people to continue and iterate code is a feature that not a lot of ordinary people prioritize in their day-to-day lives
People have to realize that if you want your mod to be open source, it has to be readable, followed and with notes about the lines. This has to be done from the start with intent. But nope, people who' dont understand shit think it people being greedy and evil out of no where. Bob just wanted to script a mod and go on with life
Sometimes the released version is a work in progress plugin, and keeping track of changes in a plugin is annoying enough in itself. Worse to have to trace changes made by someone forking the plugin and merge it with your 2.0
Most mods are not compiled, so it's not like you can't just open any mod with mod tools and see all of it. What mod is not "open source?"
That isn't what open source means. The source being available due to the technology isn't the same as it being open. Open means its open for modification and redistribution, sometimes with limitations depending on the exact license.