Nevertheless, in any way making the “donation” as part of a condition to receive access to/or getting any part of offered content would be in breach of the License Agreement. Voluntary donations are allowed and are not considered to be a commercial use. Q: Is there any acceptable way I can make money on my server/website?Ī: Yes. Q: Can I host game server and "sell or lease ingame items" or "pay to play" or similar gameplay monetizing methods?Ī: No. This page details what you can and cannot do with the game in simple terms in common English: If you charge (no, taking money from people and giving them something in return is not a donation) for anything, you're breaking the Arma EULA. What steps? Being this vague is just lazy and dramatic.ĭoesn't matter what you charge for. If their copy violates the license somehow, by not retaining the attribution for example, then you can call them out on that, but "because I said so" is not a valid reason.Īlso, is it not the case that Life servers are just charging for the service and not the mod or addons or mission content? I'm kind of curious if that is even allowed? If all of the mods are implicitly under the APL, and the APL requires that mods have no restrictions on who can redistribute them (as long as they properly retain the attribution and license information and all that jazz), then it follows that you can't tell someone that they can't redistribute your mod because they don't have your permission. There are a lot of mentions of people asking that other people don't redistribute their mod because they don't have permission. Using the term "stealing" instead of "copying without attribution" is vague and unhelpful.
I haven't looked very hard, but if you're making those claims you shouldn't make it a chore for the readers to find evidence to support your argument. However, in spite of the complaint being reasonable, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this happening. The only valid complaint I can see is that some people's mods are being copied and used without proper attribution, which is a violation of the (Arma Public License) APL - although that isn't stated explicitly and figuring that out is left as an exercise for the reader. It sounds like people are complaining because a license is being violated, but if any citations are made to support that, it just cites someone complaining - and that isn't evidence. It's really hard to figure out what exactly the problem is.
0 kommentar(er)
