Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hurrrrr! Right.

G

Haven't I read this thread somewhere before?

Gwar probably wrote that one, too.

Isn't putting a lot of the SW faq in the start of this thread infringing GW's copyright? (I know you are trying to show how its the same or similar to yours Gwar but it could cause Dakka hassle).
Mick

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf affect Jetbikes?
How about Artillery?
A. Yes, because ‘Jetbikes’ is a subcategory of the
‘Bike’ unit type. As for Artillery, the crew models
may be affected, but the gun models, being
vehicles, are not affected

This part is stupid, lol.

Yes, my Deffkoptas fall in the crack in the earth, oh wait, they're FLYING.

Happy day for my hydras and now ignoring turbo boosting saves of jetbikes

The proper response to this is; "Cool! They actually listens to what goes on outside of GW and my hard work has not been in vain.", not "Oh man! They didn't credit me and they didn't copy-paste all of it".

Eh, if they're going to crib note from it (especially since they did copy-paste some of it) then yes, they really should credit him (or at the very least send him an email asking if they could do so). I absolutely disagree with your stance on this Steelmage.

Thor665 wrote:Eh, if they're going to crib note from it (especially since they did copy-paste some of it) then yes, they really should credit him (or at the very least send him an email asking if they could do so). I absolutely disagree with your stance on this Steelmage.

I agree its out of order but this is GW we're talking about. If they won't credit the writers of their actual rules (Bloodbowl LRB 6th edition) they certainly won't credit for part of a faq especially when Gwar wasn't asked, or volunteered, to do it.
Mick

Maybe I expressed myself poorly.

I was merely trying to point out the amazing amount of whining (in several threads). I would have hoped that people at least recognised GW fast turnaround (for them anyway) and their willingness to look outside Nottingham for input.

I totally agree. It seems like Gwar! should be credited.
I also understand why GW didn't do it (the debacle when Yakface and the ruling council was credited), but I am sure they will be happy to correct that should Gwar! contact them.

It is not like I am oblivious to the glaring irony in the fact that GW copy-pastes (steals?) with impunity while conducting a C&D crusade of their own.

Games Workshop's Space Wolves FAQ wrote:The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from
many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the
public, others by representatives of the online gaming
community and more still are the result of face to face
meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of
gaming events. We are always happy to consider more
questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is
practical. See the Contact Us page of the Games Workshop
website for the address to which you can send your questions.
Thanks to all those who have done so already!

They probably don't credit Gwar! because they'd have to credit every single person who submitted/answered the questions mentioned.

Crediting who asked a question and crediting a person who word for word wrote the questions and the answers to those questions are two entirely different things.

They should credit who answers the questions if that person does not receive a paycheck from them.

Its obvious. Gwar! hacked GW's servers and stole the half finished FAQ and slapped a big seal of his own on it thinking he could take credit.

I can not believe how badly you've wronged GW, Gwar!. For shame.

Thor665 wrote:Crediting who asked a question and crediting a person who word for word wrote the questions and the answers to those questions are two entirely different things.

They should credit who answers the questions if that person does not receive a paycheck from them.

True, but there's also the possibility that there are legal issues involved (which would cost GW more cash) to get permission from every person who answered a question on an internets forum to print the person's identifiers.

Kanluwen wrote:True, but there's also the possibility that there are legal issues involved (which would cost GW more cash) to get permission from every person who answered a question on an internets forum to print the person's identifiers.

I have a solution I will offer them for free; just change the flipping language instead of using the exact words another person wrote. There, done, and no need to credit anyone. When they copy paste that's when they should include credit and I don't really care if there are legal fees. If they want to avoid legal fees then do the same thing you're required to do for a high school lit paper and don't copy paste someone else's work and act like it's yours.

You do realize that even if they just paraphrase--they would still have to do SOME form of crediting?

Anyone who's passed high school lit knows that just because you paraphrased doesn't mean you get to avoid crediting.

The text may be close enough for Gwar to sue them. That'd be interesting.

Depends on the usage actually (though you are correct about English papers I will give you). Gwar is writing questions and answers for a rule set - since a rule set is theoretically a set series of proofs (debatable with GW I know but go with me) they can easily use different language and simply claim deductive results without having to claim paraphrasing and in the case of answers for a set of proofs it's impossible to tell paraphrasing from original content and if the language were different I would never even begin to suggest Gwar deserved some credit.

Also, while we're at it - they could just note in their little opening disclaimer that you quoted that questions and answers came from these sources. Again, they'd be good to go.

However, since you agree with me that copying and paraphrasing deserve credit then I suppose you concur that Gwar! deserves credit as well, and thus we agree - yes?

Thor665 wrote:Depends on the usage actually (though you are correct about English papers I will give you). Gwar is writing questions and answers for a rule set - since a rule set is theoretically a set series of proofs (debatable with GW I know but go with me) they can easily use different language and simply claim deductive results without having to claim paraphrasing and in the case of answers for a set of proofs it's impossible to tell paraphrasing from original content and if the language were different I would never even begin to suggest Gwar deserved some credit.

Also, while we're at it - they could just note in their little opening disclaimer that you quoted that questions and answers came from these sources. Again, they'd be good to go.

However, since you agree with me that copying and paraphrasing deserve credit then I suppose you concur that Gwar! deserves credit as well, and thus we agree - yes?

Oh, I don't disagree that it would be a fantastic idea to accredit the persons responsible.

But it's entirely possible there are reasons they don't, especially given that it's possible you'd get an influx of people harassing the folks answering the questions.

Gwar!, apparently they need you to clarify their own codex.
Any plans to cut out the middle man and have you write the codexes?

So Gwar lives in the Uk? damn, that means I'm going to be at ground zero when his ego explodes any second now.

DarkHound wrote:The text may be close enough for Gwar to sue them. That'd be interesting.

Not interested in Sueing them :p I just want proper attribution, as required by the Creative Commons licence I released the FAQ under.

Thorgut wrote:Gwar!, apparently they need you to clarify their own codex.
Any plans to cut out the middle man and have you write the codexes?

I wish. I could do with the stable job and, lets be honest, I could do a better job in my sleep than the monkeys at GW atm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:So Gwar lives in the Uk? damn, that means I'm going to be at ground zero when his ego explodes any second now.

Actually I live in Ireland, though I am a smelly Limey. Got my Flag Locked as a sign of Patriotism

I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Ironhide wrote:I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Where have you been?

They've been confirmed as on Forge World's "Things to Do" list for quite awhile. The issue is we don't know when we'll get them. Could be a few months, could be tomorrow, or could be the summer.
I'd guess March, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out too harsh. My bad.

But yeah.
Thunderwolf Cavalry ARE on Forge World's list of things to do. Nothing more than that is really known.

"Fan developed material" can sometimes make it weird for a company to interact with
their communities. One sure way to not get something developed by some companies is
to post it on a website or forum. It's just too tricky for them to use without a get out
of jail free End User License Agreement of some kind.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I notice they didn't say anything about TWC base sizes. Makes me think they don't have a forthcoming model; or if they do, they haven't decided on a base size yet.

Where have you been?

They've been confirmed as on Forge World's "Things to Do" list for quite awhile. The issue is we don't know when we'll get them. Could be a few months, could be tomorrow, or could be the summer.
I'd guess March, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out too harsh. My bad.

But yeah.
Thunderwolf Cavalry ARE on Forge World's list of things to do. Nothing more than that is really known.

No prob. So if it is on their "to do" list, why can't they give a ruling on the base size for the model then?

I love how the title reads "Gwar! wrote most of it!"

I guess his 14 "copypasted" FAQ answers among their 47 FAQ answers (not counting the Errata) = most? Actually, it's about 29.787234% of the FAQ. That's not really "most". Get off your high horse.

Also, I would loooove to see him sue them. That would be rich. So, you're sueing over an intellectual property that you don't own, that is comprised of 30% of "soft house rules" that don't even "have the same authority as the main rules" as they don't "modify the published material."?

Please do. *grabs popcorn*

Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

puma713 wrote:Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

I used the Attribution No Derive Non Commercial Licence.

Gwar! wrote:

puma713 wrote:Edit: I don't know what kind of CC you did. From what you posted, it sounds like you did a CC-BY (Attribution). Also, don't CC's allow the original right-holders (read GW) to redistribute said CC'ed work for "non-commercial purpose without modification"?

I used the Attribution No Derive Non Commercial Licence.

That's what I'm getting at. An ND means they can't modify it (which, according to you, they didn't really) and they can't use it commercially, which they're not. How much are they selling those FAQ's for anyway?

"This court finds the defendant, Games Workshop, Ltd. guilty as charged. They must pay Gwar! the amount equal to the profit that they made as a result of his FAQ rulings."

<Jervis hands Gwar! a check for $0.0>

"This court is adjourned."

Well, they didn't follow the "Attribute" part of the licence. And if you had bothered reading the thread, I don't want to sue them for all their worth (I am not an American), I just want to be properly credited.

Gwar! wrote:Well, they didn't follow the "Attribute" part of the licence. And if you had bothered reading the thread, I don't want to sue them for all their worth (I am not an American), I just want to be properly credited.

That's what I was getting at with my question above. I'm not sure about the "attribution" part of it, but I'm pretty sure, if you're using someone else's material, that rightholder can use your CC'ed material without attribution so long as they're doing it for non-profit.

For instance: someone records a song. You remix the song and CC-ND-NC it. As long as they don't make a profit from it, they can reproduce your remix and not give you credit at all. Not everyone, just the original right-holder.

And I know you weren't talking about sueing them at all (although that is uniquely American, I'll give you that) - but as I was reading through the thread everyone is basically crying foul at GW. Well, as the rightholder to the Space Wolves and all intellectual property related thereto, they've done nothing wrong. Sure, it would've been nice for them to say, "And a thanks to Gwar! for help with this FAQ." (Because, let's face it Gwar!, you didn't write the FAQ. You have snippets here and there within it.) But there is nothing legally binding them to do that.