17 Oct 10, 02:59AM
"To answer your question of whether or not making edits of other peoples maps is immoral, it's my opinion that as long as you give the original maker credit when you use someone's idea for a map then it's alright. "
And this is just the wrong way to approach this, a weak justification to screw around with other people's stuff, and so typical. As long as you don't know if it's okay to edit, just assume the author does not want you to. It's called respect.
I have allowed certain edited versions of my maps, when I liked them - but usually those mappers asked me before publishing.
All authors of the official maps have been free to add the license they deemed approriate, by the way.
The correct way to do this is to ask first, then edit - no license or copyright information should always be understood as "don't touch".
But, in reality, all this doesn't work anyways, because noone gives a damn shit on licenses and copyrght anyways these days. I know from experience. I cannot count the times how often people edited my works and failed to understand, read or lest apply the CC license they came with. It used to make me furious at first, but now I stopped to care, because it's not good for me to be mad all day.
People have even replaced parts of my work with stolen/horrible stuff and left the "license.txt" untouched (probably never noticed them) and redistributed it, making me look like an idiot....
The whole CC stuff and similar licenses are just a nice sounding idea that doesn't work out. The only licensing that works are © and PD.
And this is just the wrong way to approach this, a weak justification to screw around with other people's stuff, and so typical. As long as you don't know if it's okay to edit, just assume the author does not want you to. It's called respect.
I have allowed certain edited versions of my maps, when I liked them - but usually those mappers asked me before publishing.
All authors of the official maps have been free to add the license they deemed approriate, by the way.
The correct way to do this is to ask first, then edit - no license or copyright information should always be understood as "don't touch".
But, in reality, all this doesn't work anyways, because noone gives a damn shit on licenses and copyrght anyways these days. I know from experience. I cannot count the times how often people edited my works and failed to understand, read or lest apply the CC license they came with. It used to make me furious at first, but now I stopped to care, because it's not good for me to be mad all day.
People have even replaced parts of my work with stolen/horrible stuff and left the "license.txt" untouched (probably never noticed them) and redistributed it, making me look like an idiot....
The whole CC stuff and similar licenses are just a nice sounding idea that doesn't work out. The only licensing that works are © and PD.