Wago.io Partners up with WowUp, CurseForge Denies WowUp's Application for API Access

[User517849]

The problem is that no one has argued this. No one has said that addon authors are entitled to make a full time salary off their work on addons, just that they're entitled to monetize their work. Even looking at the conversation between you and @rrayy, they said that they were not arguing that addon authors were entitled to full time salaries several times. If I were to summarize their argument, it seems to be that "addon authors have the right to choose distribution platform(s) and whether they want to monetize their work, and can choose to only host on platforms that provide compensation". They're essentially just arguing in favor of the Curseforge model, nothing else.



Sure, informative content is another possible revenue stream. Discussing how to write LUA, coding best practices, common design patterns, etc., would be a good, but niche, way to make money (although it would probably be better distributed through Youtube and E-Book, with Medium and WoWhead articles acting as introductory material to get people interested).



Sure, and so long as WoWUp is getting consent from the addon authors to distribute their addons, everything is OK. If not, they're opening themselves up to takedowns (DMCA if hosting the content and not just linking to GitHub binary downloads) and possibly authors making the release binaries unavailable on their repository releases.

Did you even read what lead to this conversation? The previous person, rrayy, I was arguing with argued that I was entitled to addons.

I countered by how could I be entitled to something that's free by quoting Blizzard's ToS directly to them. You jumped in at the tail end after I stated how I'm not acting entitled because addons are supposed to be free.

I'll state again to you, very clearly, that since addon authors can't charge for addons, they shouldn't act entitled to compensation for addons. That debate doesn't revolve around CF, WaGo, or a specific host.

Finally, if it's a public repo on GitHub, there's no need for consent to view and download the files. It's a public repo. By hosting it publicly they've already implied consent. Also, WoW addons don't require binaries, they're all plain text files that are interpreted in the client.

[Eosia]

That said, I don't believe the terms laid out by Blizzard are even legally enforceable, although that doesn't stop Blizzard from issuing takedown requests and legal threats.

Any hooks for the Blizzard UI are owned by Blizzard and they can enforce licensing on them. Addons would be considered derivative works since they need WoW and the hooks in order to function.

[User517849]

Any hooks for the Blizzard UI are owned by Blizzard and they can enforce licensing on them. Addons would be considered derivative works since they need WoW and the hooks in order to function.

Yeah, an additional solution would be for Blizzard to force all addons to be distributed under MIT licensing. That really would solve the issue.

[SirReal]

The fundamental problem: why does WoW need so many add-ons to get things right?

It doesn't....

"so many" are available because it's like many other games that have robust support for the modding community. There is passion for add-ons creation and an obvious audience for those add-ons.

That said, there are indeed some add-ons that feel mandatory(different discussion) but that list is <10. So the 'need' for 'so many' isn't actually a thing.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Did you even read what lead to this conversation? The previous person, rrayy, I was arguing with argued that I was entitled to addons.

I countered by how could I be entitled to something that's free by quoting Blizzard's ToS directly to them. You jumped in at the tail end after I stated how I'm not acting entitled because addons are supposed to be free.

They were saying you were being entitled because they took your statements as advocating against addon authors who want to use addon development to create secondary revenue streams:

Addons shouldn't be direct commercial ventures. Indirect commercial ventures is fine, but if addon authors are looking to make money it should be Blizz paying them (which Blizz seems very content not to do), not us.

That said, I've already blocked the advertising in WoWUp so while this change is disappointing, it doesn't impact me.

To which you received the response:

Who made you arbiter of what is right? Aadon operators want to be compensated in some way for their hard work, PEople like you go out of yoru way to circumvent it. I would ask add on operators continnue to try to get some money for their work and try to avoid people like you who want to poach it for free.

Which points out that you are pushing for people to circumvent forms of monetization and that they believe you come off as being entitled because you are advocating against addon authors being compensated for work. And for whatever reason you doubled down on a comment which was off-base from your original post, which you respond with (edited for brevity; bold for emphasis):

Per Blizzard's ToS, it's against the terms to try to charge for addons. Therefore, if you're making addons you should not expect any form of compensation, either direct or indirect.

[B]Add-ons must be free of charge.

...

No one should go into addon development expecting it to be a replacement for a full time job. It might indirectly lead you to other opportunities, especially if you're a skilled programmer, but expecting to sustain a living (or even make a notable amount of money) for addon development is absurd.

...

I'm specifically against the commercialization of addons because addons should not be a commercial endeavor with Blizzard's current ToS.

If Blizzard changed the ToS, then I'd have no issue with them being heavily commercialized and would expect it.

The argument that people are developing addons expecting it to be a replacement for full time employment does not appear to be stated anywhere, is explicitly said to not be the argument of the person you were arguing with, and seems to have come out of nowhere. In good faith I can assume it is hyperbole, but the escalation between "addon authors are allowed to control their work and monetize it" and "addon authors are looking to receive full time salaries worth of payment for making addons" muddies the waters to an extent that it would make sense for @rrayy to assume bad faith.

I'll state again to you, very clearly, that since addon authors can't charge for addons, they shouldn't act entitled to compensation for addons. That debate doesn't revolve around CF, WaGo, or a specific host.

This is still not an argument that has been made anywhere. You keep bringing the conversation to this strawman that people believe addon authors are entitled to compensation. So I shall make it as clear as possible: addon authors cannot paywall their content and are not entitled to compensation; however, they are entitled to control of their work and are allowed to monetize it through advertisements (so long as they are external to the addon), restricting distribution to certain websites, or through donation links.

Finally, if it's a public repo on GitHub, there's no need for consent to view and download the files. It's a public repo. By hosting it publicly they've already implied consent. Also, WoW addons don't require binaries, they're all plain text files that are interpreted in the client.

Even when your work is public, you control the copyright of that work under the license it's packaged with, and GitHub and other online repositories follow DMCA for cases where issues arise. If a host wants to distribute someone's addon and the license does not permit it, that host can be subject to DMCA. Even forks on GitHub can be subject to this, depending on the license. Copyright law is even so awkward as to make it potentially illegal to download publicized works, but there is a question as to whether this is enforceable.

If WoWUp is just providing a link to GitHub's download address for the zip, there might be an issue on GitHub's side (i.e.: I don't know if they have any specific terms regarding this); however, there is also an ethical question regarding taking control of someone's work away from them, but that's a separate issue.

Personally speaking, I think all addons should be under the MIT, BSD, or ISC license, and there should be an option for the files to be free to download in release versions on GitHub; however, my personal preference is secondary when considering what is best for the author.

- - - Updated - - -

Any hooks for the Blizzard UI are owned by Blizzard and they can enforce licensing on them. Addons would be considered derivative works since they need WoW and the hooks in order to function.

Using an API, at least in the way that WoW addons do, likely does not constitute a derivative work in the legal sense. If we were to accept that interpretation, all React websites would be derivative of Meta's work on the React framework which provides APIs for building websites.

[User517849]

Using an API, at least in the way that WoW addons do, likely does not constitute a derivative work in the legal sense. If we were to accept that interpretation, all React websites would be derivative of Meta's work on the React framework which provides APIs for building websites.

React is under the MIT license.

The MIT License is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[6] in the late 1980s.[7] As a permissive license, it puts only very limited restriction on reuse and has, therefore, high license compatibility.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

React's license means that you can use it however you want and products you make with React aren't a derivative of Meta. Contrast that to Activision Blizzard's World of Warcraft where the addons you create clearly cannot function without WoW and the addons are clearly derivative works. Additionally, React doesn't use Meta API calls and is completely self contained. A WoW addon is not self contained and cannot work without World of Warcraft.

In simpler terms, I can make a website run on my own local machine without any internet connection with React. If I tried to make a World of Warcraft addon, that addon won't do anything without running it inside of World of Warcraft. Thus, the addon, is a derivative work of World of Warcraft because it doesn't work without World of Warcraft running.

- - - Updated - - -

They were saying you were being entitled because they took your statements as advocating against addon authors who want to use addon development to create secondary revenue streams:



To which you received the response:



Which points out that you are pushing for people to circumvent forms of monetization and that they believe you come off as being entitled because you are advocating against addon authors being compensated for work. And for whatever reason you doubled down on a comment which was off-base from your original post, which you respond with (edited for brevity; bold for emphasis):



The argument that people are developing addons expecting it to be a replacement for full time employment does not appear to be stated anywhere, is explicitly said to not be the argument of the person you were arguing with, and seems to have come out of nowhere. In good faith I can assume it is hyperbole, but the escalation between "addon authors are allowed to control their work and monetize it" and "addon authors are looking to receive full time salaries worth of payment for making addons" muddies the waters to an extent that it would make sense for @rrayy to assume bad faith.



This is still not an argument that has been made anywhere. You keep bringing the conversation to this strawman that people believe addon authors are entitled to compensation. So I shall make it as clear as possible: addon authors cannot paywall their content and are not entitled to compensation; however, they are entitled to control of their work and are allowed to monetize it through advertisements (so long as they are external to the addon), restricting distribution to certain websites, or through donation links.



Even when your work is public, you control the copyright of that work under the license it's packaged with, and GitHub and other online repositories follow DMCA for cases where issues arise. If a host wants to distribute someone's addon and the license does not permit it, that host can be subject to DMCA. Even forks on GitHub can be subject to this, depending on the license. Copyright law is even so awkward as to make it potentially illegal to download publicized works, but there is a question as to whether this is enforceable.

If WoWUp is just providing a link to GitHub's download address for the zip, there might be an issue on GitHub's side (i.e.: I don't know if they have any specific terms regarding this); however, there is also an ethical question regarding taking control of someone's work away from them, but that's a separate issue.

Personally speaking, I think all addons should be under the MIT, BSD, or ISC license, and there should be an option for the files to be free to download in release versions on GitHub; however, my personal preference is secondary when considering what is best for the author.

- - - Updated - - -



Using an API, at least in the way that WoW addons do, likely does not constitute a derivative work in the legal sense. If we were to accept that interpretation, all React websites would be derivative of Meta's work on the React framework which provides APIs for building websites.

And? I never said or implied that I can force addon authors to host their work elsewhere. I stated that it's extremely misguided to get into addon development to make money considering Blizzard's terms on addon development where you can't directly charge for the addon or paywall the addon.

I backed this up by looking at the history of QuestHelper, a very popular addon that started donation begging in game. Blizzard changed the ToS to prevent donation begging (since every addon was doing it at the time) and the QH guy decided to quit making the addon. The reality was Blizzard simply shrugged and added QH as core functionality into the game.

This was another reason why I'd recommend against depending on making addons for money - Blizzard can easily change the rules or incorporate your functionality into the game and you have no recourse.

It's silly to think you're entitled to compensation for working on an addon that's supposed to be, for all intents and purposes, free. Sure, you're free to try, but you'll end up disappointed and frustrated. You're better off spending your effort elsewhere or finding a better monetization channel like WoWHead and TSM did.

Furthermore, I never said I was against addon authors being compensated for their work; I am against them feeling like it's expected to be compensated for a product that has to be given away for free. That was the crux of the argument I had.

Additionally, I'm saying this as a content creator. I don't expect people to pay for my work, I do it because I enjoy making it and when I don't enjoy it anymore, I'll hand it off to someone else who does or let it die.

Finally, by default, yes, you can't fork someone's Github unless they have a permissive license, however, you can go to the Github, download the files, and install the addon directly from Github itself.

Honestly, this entire exchange has made me realize that Blizzard should force all addons to adopt a copyleft license.

[Ezzet]

Funny seeing people defending overwolf after all the shit they have done in the past, everything overwolf touches dies, teamspeak is a good example.

When they bought curseforge and said they would close the API thats been public for so long is so shitty.

[Magical Mudcrab]

React is under the MIT license.

The MIT License is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[6] in the late 1980s.[7] As a permissive license, it puts only very limited restriction on reuse and has, therefore, high license compatibility.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

React's license means that you can use it however you want and products you make with React aren't a derivative of Meta. Contrast that to Activision Blizzard's World of Warcraft where the addons you create clearly cannot function without WoW and the addons are clearly derivative works. Additionally, React doesn't use Meta API calls and is completely self contained. A WoW addon is not self contained and cannot work without World of Warcraft.

In simpler terms, I can make a website run on my own local machine without any internet connection with React. If I tried to make a World of Warcraft addon, that addon won't do anything without running it inside of World of Warcraft. Thus, the addon, is a derivative work of World of Warcraft because it doesn't work without World of Warcraft running.

As you have said you are a software engineer, I would highly recommend getting a better understanding of what licenses do (not necessarily the minutia, but what they're for more generally). You might run into trouble with this understanding. The license you package software with does not affect whether it is a derivative work. Derivative work is a concept related to copyright law:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.  A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

- Link

What the MIT license does is it states that any changes made to the original source - that is, any derivative works made - are the copyright of the individual who made the changes. It essentially ensures that you own your own work and can do with it as you please. However, and this is important, works that are built on top of other works that are licensed under MIT are still derivative works.

The original owner of a piece of software retains ownership of their work. But while MIT-style license terms give others rights to build on and change the software, creating what the law calls “derivative works”, they don’t give the original author ownership of copyright in others’ contributions. Rather, each contributor has copyright in any even marginally creative work they make using the existing code as a starting point.

- Link

Moving back to APIs, APIs do not always constitute derivative work. When used as a data source, for instance, while you might be violating someone's copyright by using the data (such as the case of Canada Post, which for a time claimed the copyright to Canadian postal codes, and using this data violated their copyright), the work which you have done is independent of the API. In the case of WoW's API, this is really just a set of libraries which is provided to extend the functionality of Lua to enable compatibility (i.e.: it provides hooks which your code can call to actually make in-game changes). I would argue that it would likely be seen as being similar to the APIs provided by something like the Pandas API for Python, which you typically wouldn't call work done with the API derivative of it.

That said, while I don't think it would constitute a derivative work, it can be argued that WoW addons are a derivative work. In cases where the application developed is an extension and requires the game to run (i.e.: it relies on the base code to work), works may be deemed as being derivative; however, in that interpretation, the addons would very likely be classified under fair use. Fair use in software is very strong, and the Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. case has shown us how powerful fair use is where Google essentially copied over 11,000 lines of copyrighted source code from Oracle and was still deemed as fair use (as it was insubstantial relative to Android or Java's codebases, among other reasons).

Getting back to this understanding of derivative work, any extension which requires the original code to work is derivative, regardless of whether it is relying on a game client or a local framework. An unfortunate byproduct of this interpretation is that it extends the definition to derived work to other frameworks in which the software written cannot run without the core work. Take the previously mentioned React example: applications written in React would be derivative of the React framework, as the code is non-functional without the core React framework (i.e.: JSX is meaningless without React). This interpretation essentially causes long chains of derived works, which need to then be defended under fair use (i.e.: instead of proactively defending what should be considered unique or novel work, it forces you to need to reactively defend it when a claim is made).

And? I never said or implied that I can force addon authors to host their work elsewhere. I stated that it's extremely misguided to get into addon development to make money considering Blizzard's terms on addon development where you can't directly charge for the addon or paywall the addon.

I backed this up by looking at the history of QuestHelper, a very popular addon that started donation begging in game. Blizzard changed the ToS to prevent donation begging (since every addon was doing it at the time) and the QH guy decided to quit making the addon. The reality was Blizzard simply shrugged and added QH as core functionality into the game.

Which is a fair argument to make, and I agree that injecting advertisements into your addons, which is essentially what begging for donations via your addon is, should be frowned upon. This is something that's frowned upon more generally in open source. Imagine if you created your own HashiCorp Vault server and every time you opened the CLI to configure it, you were spammed with donation links. It would be an awful experience.

This was another reason why I'd recommend against depending on making addons for money - Blizzard can easily change the rules or incorporate your functionality into the game and you have no recourse.

It's silly to think you're entitled to compensation for working on an addon that's supposed to be, for all intents and purposes, free. Sure, you're free to try, but you'll end up disappointed and frustrated. You're better off spending your effort elsewhere or finding a better monetization channel like WoWHead and TSM did.

Furthermore, I never said I was against addon authors being compensated for their work; I am against them feeling like it's expected to be compensated for a product that has to be given away for free. That was the crux of the argument I had.

Sure, and I would agree with this. If the only problem is that you think people shouldn't feel entitled for compensation, that's understandable. People developing the addons are not entitled to being paid, same as anyone who does open source work is not entitled. I would recommend staying on that base and not using hyperbole, as the more extreme position stood out and changed the context of the post.

Additionally, I'm saying this as a content creator. I don't expect people to pay for my work, I do it because I enjoy making it and when I don't enjoy it anymore, I'll hand it off to someone else who does or let it die.

I agree that a community that has a spirit which embraces open source and collective development of tools would be great, as it would ensure that as addon developers are unable to continue development would be able to pass their work on to someone else and there would be minimal disruption in addon maintenance; however, this is just a personal preference. The WoW addon developer community does not seem to have the same spirit that the larger open source community has, and ownership of work appears to take precedence over free software. Frankly, I'm suprised that addon WoW addon authors don't just use the AGPL license to forcibly kill any attempts to maintain their projects without their express permission. That said, I would probably lay most of the blame at the feet of Blizzard for this, as they haven't taken an active role in developing a community other than to say "we have a forum", which no one uses because CMs ignore it.

Finally, by default, yes, you can't fork someone's Github unless they have a permissive license, however, you can go to the Github, download the files, and install the addon directly from Github itself.

Honestly, this entire exchange has made me realize that Blizzard should force all addons to adopt a copyleft license.

The problem is that there is no formal license distributed at all. They have an Addon Development Policy which links to several other policies, but you never have to agree to anything and you never have to package your projects with a specific license. I don't even know if an implied license would be applicable here.

[Eosia]

Using an API, at least in the way that WoW addons do, likely does not constitute a derivative work in the legal sense. If we were to accept that interpretation, all React websites would be derivative of Meta's work on the React framework which provides APIs for building websites.

The simple test is this... can any WoW Addon function without WoW itself?

Your analogy of React is incorrect. React, as you stated, is a Framework. Web Apps do not need it to function. They can simply recode the app to use Vue, Angular, etc.

A more correct analogy would be a WordPress theme or plug-in, and there is a legal opinion on that from the Software Freedom Law Center. They stated:

The PHP elements, taken together, are clearly derivative of WordPress code. The template is loaded via the include() function. Its contents are combined with the WordPress code in memory to be processed by PHP along with (and completely indistinguishable from) the rest of WordPress. The PHP code consists largely of calls to WordPress functions and sparse, minimal logic to control which WordPress functions are accessed and how many times they will be called. They are derivative of WordPress because every part of them is determined by the content of the WordPress functions they call. As works of authorship, they are designed only to be combined with WordPress into a larger work.

That pretty much describes how WoW Addons work. As such, Blizzard dictates the terms of use and licensing for it and that is most likely is legally enforceable. In the case of WordPress themes, they inherit the GPL licensing that WordPress is released under. This is also why Automattic went after Wix after they tried to create a proprietary, closed source editor using WordPress code.

The problem is that there is no formal license distributed at all. They have an Addon Development Policy which links to several other policies, but you never have to agree to anything and you never have to package your projects with a specific license. I don't even know if an implied license would be applicable here.

Yes they do, the Blizzard End User License Agreement as well as the Developer API Terms of Use.

If an add-on author wants to take it to arbitration, good luck to them.

[Magical Mudcrab]

The simple test is this... can any WoW Addon function without WoW itself?

Your analogy of React is incorrect. React, as you stated, is a Framework. Web Apps do not need it to function. They can simply recode the app to use Vue, Angular, etc.

The Web App example you've given isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if you can re-code it to work, and would never matter when trying to determine whether it is a derivative work. Even if your framing were correct, the fact is that if people really wanted to there are other ways to get their addons to work. Look at FFXIV's developer community, where addon support is lacking and their DPS meters are third party clients which rely on packet capture to calculate DPS instead of underlying APIs made available by the client. While this might seem extreme, you could feasibly re-write all WoW addons to work without the API. All the API does is simplify data collection and presentation.

Regarding their reliance on WoW, I've already linked an article which aptly describes how this could be considered as derivative work. I've done so as, while I don't agree with the conclusion (IANAL), it's important to accurately show both sides of the argument and not hide a source because it's counter to my point. However, in that case WoW addons would very clearly be under fair use, and one of the most prominent examples of fair use was also linked to give a better idea of the breadth of fair use in software.

A more correct analogy would be a WordPress theme or plug-in, and there is a legal opinion on that from the Software Freedom Law Center. They stated:

That pretty much describes how WoW Addons work. As such, Blizzard dictates the terms of use and licensing for it and that is most likely is legally enforceable. In the case of WordPress themes, they inherit the GPL licensing that WordPress is released under. This is also why Automattic went after Wix after they tried to create a proprietary, closed source editor using WordPress code.

This is not an apt analogy. This case is not about derivative work in the same way as the WoW addon, but is about Automattic going after Wix because Wix copied code licensed under GPL. Wix didn't use an API, they forked repositories and built on top of that code and closed sourced the projects, ignoring the license.

Yes they do, the Blizzard End User License Agreement as well as the Developer API Terms of Use.

If an add-on author wants to take it to arbitration, good luck to them.

The problem is that you don't have to agree to any of these. Due to how distributed their licensing is, there's a degree of plausible deniability that makes me question whether you can even infer that they agreed to it. For instance, if you develop an addon by following a WoWhead or Medium article and deploy the addon for public use, at no point have you agreed to or been made aware of any licensing or terms of use. You could say "ignorance of the rules does not mean freedom from the rules", but I would argue that there is no informed consent in this instance and that the fault for this is on Blizzard. We have precedents in other areas, like GDPR, which highlight the importance of informed consent for users and places the responsibility on the companies. It would be nice if we had some clarity regarding Blizzard's thoughts on this, although I would always advise people to take caution and assume some implied copyright when using work that isn't your own (as even GitHub Repositories have an implied copyright).

[User517849]

As you have said you are a software engineer, I would highly recommend getting a better understanding of what licenses do (not necessarily the minutia, but what they're for more generally). You might run into trouble with this understanding. The license you package software with does not affect whether it is a derivative work. Derivative work is a concept related to copyright law:


- Link

What the MIT license does is it states that any changes made to the original source - that is, any derivative works made - are the copyright of the individual who made the changes. It essentially ensures that you own your own work and can do with it as you please. However, and this is important, works that are built on top of other works that are licensed under MIT are still derivative works.


- Link

Moving back to APIs, APIs do not always constitute derivative work. When used as a data source, for instance, while you might be violating someone's copyright by using the data (such as the case of Canada Post, which for a time claimed the copyright to Canadian postal codes, and using this data violated their copyright), the work which you have done is independent of the API. In the case of WoW's API, this is really just a set of libraries which is provided to extend the functionality of Lua to enable compatibility (i.e.: it provides hooks which your code can call to actually make in-game changes). I would argue that it would likely be seen as being similar to the APIs provided by something like the Pandas API for Python, which you typically wouldn't call work done with the API derivative of it.

That said, while I don't think it would constitute a derivative work, it can be argued that WoW addons are a derivative work. In cases where the application developed is an extension and requires the game to run (i.e.: it relies on the base code to work), works may be deemed as being derivative; however, in that interpretation, the addons would very likely be classified under fair use. Fair use in software is very strong, and the Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. case has shown us how powerful fair use is where Google essentially copied over 11,000 lines of copyrighted source code from Oracle and was still deemed as fair use (as it was insubstantial relative to Android or Java's codebases, among other reasons).

Getting back to this understanding of derivative work, any extension which requires the original code to work is derivative, regardless of whether it is relying on a game client or a local framework. An unfortunate byproduct of this interpretation is that it extends the definition to derived work to other frameworks in which the software written cannot run without the core work. Take the previously mentioned React example: applications written in React would be derivative of the React framework, as the code is non-functional without the core React framework (i.e.: JSX is meaningless without React). This interpretation essentially causes long chains of derived works, which need to then be defended under fair use (i.e.: instead of proactively defending what should be considered unique or novel work, it forces you to need to reactively defend it when a claim is made).



Which is a fair argument to make, and I agree that injecting advertisements into your addons, which is essentially what begging for donations via your addon is, should be frowned upon. This is something that's frowned upon more generally in open source. Imagine if you created your own HashiCorp Vault server and every time you opened the CLI to configure it, you were spammed with donation links. It would be an awful experience.



Sure, and I would agree with this. If the only problem is that you think people shouldn't feel entitled for compensation, that's understandable. People developing the addons are not entitled to being paid, same as anyone who does open source work is not entitled. I would recommend staying on that base and not using hyperbole, as the more extreme position stood out and changed the context of the post.



I agree that a community that has a spirit which embraces open source and collective development of tools would be great, as it would ensure that as addon developers are unable to continue development would be able to pass their work on to someone else and there would be minimal disruption in addon maintenance; however, this is just a personal preference. The WoW addon developer community does not seem to have the same spirit that the larger open source community has, and ownership of work appears to take precedence over free software. Frankly, I'm suprised that addon WoW addon authors don't just use the AGPL license to forcibly kill any attempts to maintain their projects without their express permission. That said, I would probably lay most of the blame at the feet of Blizzard for this, as they haven't taken an active role in developing a community other than to say "we have a forum", which no one uses because CMs ignore it.



The problem is that there is no formal license distributed at all. They have an Addon Development Policy which links to several other policies, but you never have to agree to anything and you never have to package your projects with a specific license. I don't even know if an implied license would be applicable here.

You're quite wrong on React.

Derivative works are new, original works based upon one or more existing works. In software and computer programs, this includes lines of code. Creating a software derivative work involves modifying the source code of an existing computer program either by revising it or translating it into another computer language. Simply linking to the existing original code in a library program without modifying it does not create a derivative work. Using a plug-in or a device driver also does not create a derivative work, even if you look at the program’s source code to determine how to use the plug-in or device driver.

https://www.elliottbrownlaw.com/blog...-and-software/

What that means, specifically in terms of React, is that if you modify React and make it into something else. For example, if you took React's code and made a React2 by changing the underlying functionality, that's a derivative work of React. If you use React as a library, then you did not create a derivative work because your work isn't based off of any changes to React.

Additionally, the MIT license means that you don't owe anything to Meta by making your own React2 (or whatever) or using React. You're already licensed to be able to do whatever you want with it.

Finally, you could replace React with Angular or Vue and since you didn't modify any of React, it isn't a derivative work of React. If derivative works worked the way you described, no one could use a library.

In terms of WoW addons, I agree with Eosia:

WordPress themes are a collection of PHP files that are loaded together with WordPress and use WordPress functions and access WordPress core data in order to deliver HTML output. A theme may (and almost always does) include CSS files, JavaScript files, and image files. Note that WordPress theme PHP files are not “templates” or “documents” in the way that most people think of those words (though the word “template” is sometimes used, it is not strictly accurate). They are PHP script files that are parsed and run on the same exact level and by the same PHP process as all the core WordPress files.

https://markjaquith.wordpress.com/20...-of-wordpress/

The difference between WoW Addons and PHP Themes are that WoW Addons are Lua scripts and instead of spitting out HTML, they modify WoW. WoW addons aren't stand alone programs linking to WoW's libraries, they're scripts that the WoW engine parses and runs inside of WoW.

Look at FFXIV's developer community, where addon support is lacking and their DPS meters are third party clients which rely on packet capture to calculate DPS instead of underlying APIs made available by the client. While this might seem extreme, you could feasibly re-write all WoW addons to work without the API. All the API does is simplify data collection and presentation.

I don't even know why you're bringing FFXIV into this. FFXIV does not support addons *at all*.

If you actually did that, that wouldn't be an WoW addon, not by any stretch of the word. TSM has a TSM Client. Is that considered a WoW Addon by any stretch of the word? The answer is *no*. It's a third party application.

You also wouldn't have nearly as much control as you think you do. You'd have a hard time modifying the UI with a third party application considering Blizzard's stance about that (generally due to botting, though).

Additionally, if you think Blizzard has no power to enforce its licensing, think again. Blizzard can and will. They can send you cease and desist letters that are legally enforceable. You can try and fight it all you want, but that'll be costly and expensive (and you'll probably lose).

Here's historical proof: Blizzard has announced a policy change regarding add-ons for the popular game World of Warcraft which asserts requirements on UI programmers, such as disallowing charging for the program, obfuscation, or soliciting donations.

https://games.slashdot.org/story/09/...endent-add-ons

Do any of your addons solicit for donations? No? Well, look at Blizzard flexing their rights.

[ThrashMetalFtw]

Right. It's everyone else who is wrong. It doesn't matter if the majority of people all have essentially the same exact thing to say about Overwolf. Those people are just wrong and have no idea what they are talking about despite them being the majority right?

Yes? There's nothing weird about everybody else being wrong. Being the majority doesn't automatically make you right, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Being the majority only means that you are the majority. You can still be objectively wrong regardless of how many believe the same thing as you.


And in this case it's not a case of a massive majority anyway, it seems to be more of a 50/50 split.

[Magical Mudcrab]

You're quite wrong on React.

Derivative works are new, original works based upon one or more existing works. In software and computer programs, this includes lines of code. Creating a software derivative work involves modifying the source code of an existing computer program either by revising it or translating it into another computer language. Simply linking to the existing original code in a library program without modifying it does not create a derivative work. Using a plug-in or a device driver also does not create a derivative work, even if you look at the program’s source code to determine how to use the plug-in or device driver.

https://www.elliottbrownlaw.com/blog...-and-software/

What that means, specifically in terms of React, is that if you modify React and make it into something else. For example, if you took React's code and made a React2 by changing the underlying functionality, that's a derivative work of React. If you use React as a library, then you did not create a derivative work because your work isn't based off of any changes to React.

I'm not saying React is a derivative work; I don't think either constitutes a derivative work. I'll quote the section which I find most relevant:

Simply linking to the existing original code in a library program without modifying it does not create a derivative work. Using a plug-in or a device driver also does not create a derivative work, even if you look at the program’s source code to determine how to use the plug-in or device driver.

- Link

This means that if you were to call a useEffect hook in a functional component, you would be "linking to the existing original code". Essentially, you would be telling React to execute the given callback when the conditions provided occur. In this case you have no modified the original React codebase, but are calling it to execute some function; however, when looking at things like JSX, things get a little more muddied because of how React now needs to interpret the object tree (VDOM) into HTML.

That's basically what you're doing in a WoW addon. You are using the WoW API to retrieve data (Axios or Fetch API in Web), doing your own internal computation on this data in your Lua scripts, and then you are using the WoW API to present the results (JSX in React).

Additionally, the MIT license means that you don't owe anything to Meta by making your own React2 (or whatever) or using React. You're already licensed to be able to do whatever you want with it.

Yes, a project using the MIT license means that you are free to use it as you please; however, the clarification I was making was to say that MIT does not impact the definition of derivative work. If you create React2, you will own the copyright of all changes made to the React code base, but it would still be derivative of React. That's the point.

Finally, you could replace React with Angular or Vue and since you didn't modify any of React, it isn't a derivative work of React. If derivative works worked the way you described, no one could use a library.

Sure, but that's not relevant. The ability to wholly rewrite an application in order to change framework is not an argument against something not being derivative. If you write a custom math library for Python and copy code from the NumPy library, just because you can remove the NumPy code and rewrite your library to be totally original does not mean that your library isn't derivative when it has the NumPy portions in it. I'll reference again the case of Google LLC v. Oracle of America, where Android's early versions contained thousands of lines of code taken from Oracle's Java SDK, violating their license. Even though Google would go on to remove these offending lines, they were still found to have been derivative of Oracle's Java SE API.

In terms of WoW addons, I agree with Eosia:

WordPress themes are a collection of PHP files that are loaded together with WordPress and use WordPress functions and access WordPress core data in order to deliver HTML output. A theme may (and almost always does) include CSS files, JavaScript files, and image files. Note that WordPress theme PHP files are not “templates” or “documents” in the way that most people think of those words (though the word “template” is sometimes used, it is not strictly accurate). They are PHP script files that are parsed and run on the same exact level and by the same PHP process as all the core WordPress files.

https://markjaquith.wordpress.com/20...-of-wordpress/

The difference between WoW Addons and PHP Themes are that WoW Addons are Lua scripts and instead of spitting out HTML, they modify WoW. WoW addons aren't stand alone programs linking to WoW's libraries, they're scripts that the WoW engine parses and runs inside of WoW.

Eosia brought up Wordpress in regards to Automattic going after Wix. This case is not how they presented it, as this was a case of Wix forking a repository under the GPL license, and then closed sourcing the project. Regarding Wordpress themes, we can take a look at one of the SFLC quotes used in the blog (which Eosia previously quoted):

The PHP elements, taken together, are clearly derivative of WordPress code. The template is loaded via the include() function. Its contents are combined with the WordPress code in memory to be processed by PHP along with (and completely indistinguishable from) the rest of WordPress. The PHP code consists largely of calls to WordPress functions and sparse, minimal logic to control which WordPress functions are accessed and how many times they will be called. They are derivative of WordPress because every part of them is determined by the content of the WordPress functions they call. As works of authorship, they are designed only to be combined with WordPress into a larger work.

- Link

Referring to the first and second highlighted portions, this is not true in relation to WoW addons. While we can already infer that addons are more computational, recent interviews with WoW devs very explicitly stating that WoW addons are more computational in nature than presentational. Most WoW addons will use the API for ingress and egress of information from and to the client; however, most applications contain heavy computation between these steps. In contrast, static calls to Wordpress layouts, templates, etc., is one step removed from you copying and pasting the code into your file, as when you use include() you are essentially telling the interpreter "the entirety of the included file is part of the current file", and the interpreter sees the resulting code as being a combination of the current and all included files. Essentially, what is being compared with WoW addons and Wordpress are computational applications and presentational applications.

The third highlighted portion has already been referenced in my previous posts.

I don't even know why you're bringing FFXIV into this. FFXIV does not support addons *at all*.

If you actually did that, that wouldn't be an WoW addon, not by any stretch of the word. TSM has a TSM Client. Is that considered a WoW Addon by any stretch of the word? The answer is *no*. It's a third party application.

You also wouldn't have nearly as much control as you think you do. You'd have a hard time modifying the UI with a third party application considering Blizzard's stance about that (generally due to botting, though).

That's entirely the point, FFXIV doesn't support addons and yet people still make them. The issue with what Eosia said regarding applications being able to be re-written to not be reliant on an API is irrelevant because you can rewrite these addons to not rely on the API. Would it be difficult? Yes. But we already see people circumventing this limitation in other MMOs.

Regarding what is or isn't an addon, the term is generic and relatively ambiguous. Even companies like Mozilla use addon ambiguously, with it defining browser extensions and plugins in Firefox as being subsets of that overarching concept. If you were to change WoW addons from being officially supported scripts to standalone applications like in FFXIV, they would still be regarded as addons.

In the case of TSM, I don't know what you want me to say. You're comparing apples and oranges. The TSM desktop application exists to keep the TSM addon up-to-date and eliminate the need for constant scanning. The reason it isn't an addon is because it doesn't interact with the game or game data whatsoever. If WoW removed addon support and killed the TSM addon, and the TSM desktop application needed to then access the packets being received by the client to try and figure out AH prices, it would probably be classified as an addon, at least by the FFXIV definition.

Additionally, if you think Blizzard has no power to enforce its licensing, think again. Blizzard can and will. They can send you cease and desist letters that are legally enforceable. You can try and fight it all you want, but that'll be costly and expensive (and you'll probably lose).

You can send cease and desist letters all you want, but unless there's a case of Blizzard enforcing the policy it's TBD whether it's actually enforceable. The ability to enforce your will by threatening litigation does not mean you're right, as strong-arming people into compliance through frivolous litigation while knowing they won't have the money to fight back is just punching down. That said, most people are more than happy to comply with Blizzard, and I would probably recommend compliance over non-compliance (as there's no win case with non-compliance; win the case and lose money through litigation, lose the case and lose money though litigation and damages). The most recent case I'm aware of is when Bellular was helping to make an addon back in 2017, and they killed the project when Blizzard asked them to stop.

Here's historical proof: Blizzard has announced a policy change regarding add-ons for the popular game World of Warcraft which asserts requirements on UI programmers, such as disallowing charging for the program, obfuscation, or soliciting donations.

https://games.slashdot.org/story/09/...endent-add-ons

Do any of your addons solicit for donations? No? Well, look at Blizzard flexing their rights.

Some addons do solicit donations, such as All-The-Things which advertises a donation link and a shop link, and some addons are even paywalled or have paywalled parts of their programs behind a paywall. Even looking at the example of Mythic Dungeon Tools, the author only changed their stance due to sustained harassment from the community, not from Blizzard's intervention (although, there is the open question of whether paying for data constitutes a premium version of an addon).

[Eosia]

{{A lot of stuff I am not going to quote}}

You can dance around the basic issue all you want, but completely ignoring it as you are doing does not change facts... WoW Addons cannot exist or function without WoW. Period. As such, Blizzard has the right to dictate the terms by which you must agree in order to be accessing its platform. Blizzard set the rule, Blizzard can enforce the rule. Blizzard HAS enforced the rule.

[User517849]

This means that if you were to call a useEffect hook in a functional component, you would be "linking to the existing original code". Essentially, you would be telling React to execute the given callback when the conditions provided occur. In this case you have no modified the original React codebase, but are calling it to execute some function; however, when looking at things like JSX, things get a little more muddied because of how React now needs to interpret the object tree (VDOM) into HTML.

When you create JSX, you are not modifying the library of React so it is not a derivative work. I imagine you're trying to say that React interprets the JSX but the reality is JSX is syntactic sugar. You're linking to React (including React as a library) and using the functions of React. At no point are you modifying React's code.

Derivative works are new, original works based upon one or more existing works. In software and computer programs, this includes lines of code. Creating a software derivative work involves modifying the source code of an existing computer program either by revising it or translating it into another computer language. Simply linking to the existing original code in a library program without modifying it does not create a derivative work. Using a plug-in or a device driver also does not create a derivative work, even if you look at the program’s source code to determine how to use the plug-in or device driver.

https://www.elliottbrownlaw.com/blog...-and-software/

That's entirely the point, FFXIV doesn't support addons and yet people still make them. The issue with what Eosia said regarding applications being able to be re-written to not be reliant on an API is irrelevant because you can rewrite these addons to not rely on the API. Would it be difficult? Yes. But we already see people circumventing this limitation in other MMOs.

Do they run inside of FFXIV using FFXIV's engine as an interpreter?

No. They don't. They're *third* party programs. The fact that you're trying to equate ACT and Details is ridiculous. ACT is a completely self contained program that exists outside of FFXIV and is not in any way comparable to a WoW addon. I'm also not talking about Mozilla addons or any other addons.

In regards to the TSM desktop application, it is also a *third* party application. It can run without WoW and is completely self contained. It's a third party program. Hell, WarcraftLogs and FFLogs are also third party applications. They take your combat logs and analyze them, but they aren't dependent on the WoW or FF client to run.

Finally, we're only talking about WoW addons. A WoW addon is a set of Lua scripts leveraging specific WoW APIs that is then interpreted by the WoW client, thus making it a derivative work because it can't function outside of the WoW client.

There's a clear distinction. You link to React. You build your entire addon in Lua and the WoW client is your interpreter.

Some addons do solicit donations, such as All-The-Things which advertises a donation link and a shop link, and some addons are even paywalled or have paywalled parts of their programs behind a paywall. Even looking at the example of Mythic Dungeon Tools, the author only changed their stance due to sustained harassment from the community, not from Blizzard's intervention (although, there is the open question of whether paying for data constitutes a premium version of an addon).

Soliciting donations, per Blizzard, is not having a donation or shop link in the addon. Soliciting donations is when every time you login the addon reminds you to donate in the chat box, through a pop up, etc.

If an addon is actively asking for donations, it's soliciting.

If you going to the settings and it happens to have a donate button, per Blizzard, that's not actively soliciting and it's ok.

The first is Carbonite, an add-on that makes questing easier by telling you where to find things. This has two versions, one paid for by subscription and a lite version that nags you in-game to upgrade to the paid version.

The second is Quest Helper. QH is the most popular add-on in the game, with over 20 million downloads. It does much the same thing as Carbonite but it is paid for with donations. There is a nag message in game to prompt you to donate.

https://www.techradar.com/nz/news/ap...arcraft-587599

[Magical Mudcrab]

You can dance around the basic issue all you want, but completely ignoring it as you are doing does not change facts... WoW Addons cannot exist or function without WoW. Period. As such, Blizzard has the right to dictate the terms by which you must agree in order to be accessing its platform. Blizzard set the rule, Blizzard can enforce the rule. Blizzard HAS enforced the rule.

This has already been addressed in several posts I have made previously. I've even linked relevant sources which outright say that game addons are derivative work, and then I posted my contentions with them. I'm not "ignoring the facts" because I don't accept that Wordpress themes and WoW addons are similar, especially given the Wordpress themes example you gave focused largely on a case that wasn't as presented (i.e.: Wix forked repositories). Outside of that case, to give more clarity, Wordpress themes are really just templates that you are extending when developing your Wordpress site (i.e.: they are site layouts, incl. CSS, HTML, and PHP code required for the site page to work). This is the equivalent of downloading boilerplate code and extending it, and that's being as generous as possible to that position. In many cases, the template can just be added via the Wordpress dashboard without any coding involved.

- - - Updated - - -

When you create JSX, you are not modifying the library of React so it is not a derivative work. I imagine you're trying to say that React interprets the JSX but the reality is JSX is syntactic sugar. You're linking to React (including React as a library) and using the functions of React. At no point are you modifying React's code.

Derivative works are new, original works based upon one or more existing works. In software and computer programs, this includes lines of code. Creating a software derivative work involves modifying the source code of an existing computer program either by revising it or translating it into another computer language. Simply linking to the existing original code in a library program without modifying it does not create a derivative work. Using a plug-in or a device driver also does not create a derivative work, even if you look at the program’s source code to determine how to use the plug-in or device driver.

https://www.elliottbrownlaw.com/blog...-and-software/

Yes, you're not modifying React when you use JSX, that's the point.

Do they run inside of FFXIV using FFXIV's engine as an interpreter?

No. They don't. They're *third* party programs. The fact that you're trying to equate ACT and Details is ridiculous. ACT is a completely self contained program that exists outside of FFXIV and is not in any way comparable to a WoW addon. I'm also not talking about Mozilla addons or any other addons.

In regards to the TSM desktop application, it is also a *third* party application. It can run without WoW and is completely self contained. It's a third party program. Hell, WarcraftLogs and FFLogs are also third party applications. They take your combat logs and analyze them, but they aren't dependent on the WoW or FF client to run.

This personal definition of what constitutes an addon isn't supported by any technical definition or common understanding so far as I'm aware. Addon is an ambiguous term, and even Blizzard refers to Addons as Third Party Software, and that's because Third Party Software is an obscenely broad term (for a good reason). All addons are third party software because they were developed by parties other than Blizzard, and obviously third party applications that do not interact with WoW aren't addons.

No one is comparing TSM's desktop application to something like Details. TSM acts as a means to update the TSM Addon's datasource for AH prices and doesn't interact with WoW at all. As I said before, if addon support was changed such that the TSM Addon stopped working, so TSM desktop was updated to interact with the client (i.e.: capturing packets to retrieve AH prices, or spoofing packets to list player auctions), then it would be considered a WoW addon (i.e.: addon in this context is better described as third party software that interacts with the [game] client, data, or communication). Whether something is considered an addon depends on how it interacts with WoW. TSM's desktop application, as it is currently, is abstracted from WoW through the local data storage they use.

Finally, we're only talking about WoW addons. A WoW addon is a set of Lua scripts leveraging specific WoW APIs that is then interpreted by the WoW client, thus making it a derivative work because it can't function outside of the WoW client.

Sure, and if we want to stay on the position of "a work is derivative if it can only function in the [game] client", then that's a valid position to have. I posted that as a valid criticism of my position in the thread, and I believe I was the first to cite a reference to this. Obviously, given I've already linked such a source, I accept that interpretation and have put forward my contention of it; however, IANAL. That said, the Wordpress argument markedly different position as it relies on several other criteria for why it is considered derivative work.

Soliciting donations, per Blizzard, is not having a donation or shop link in the addon. Soliciting donations is when every time you login the addon reminds you to donate in the chat box, through a pop up, etc.

If an addon is actively asking for donations, it's soliciting.

If you going to the settings and it happens to have a donate button, per Blizzard, that's not actively soliciting and it's ok.

Wouldn't links to a merchandise shop in an addon, such as All-The-Things, violate rule 4 (Add-ons may not include advertisements.)?

The first is Carbonite, an add-on that makes questing easier by telling you where to find things. This has two versions, one paid for by subscription and a lite version that nags you in-game to upgrade to the paid version.

The second is Quest Helper. QH is the most popular add-on in the game, with over 20 million downloads. It does much the same thing as Carbonite but it is paid for with donations. There is a nag message in game to prompt you to donate.

https://www.techradar.com/nz/news/ap...arcraft-587599

Yeah, and I think everyone can agree that both of these are bad to have in game. I believe Zygor's quest addon is paywalled as well. Now that I think about it, I think that most addons that come to mind with a paywall are quest or exploration addons of some kind.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that I've made you read all that, I'm more than happy to give this olive branch as I don't think we're going to come to a clean resolution. Lets ignore Wordpress, React, static and dynamic linking, and whether the scripts can run independently. I took a look at the GPL license and what it means to be a mere aggregation (bold for emphasis):

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

- Link

Disregarding our disagreement on whether using the API constitutes a derived work, I am happy to agree with the interpretation here. In the case that modules are executing as part of the same process, then they are derived work. This would mean that addons loaded from the AddOns folder are derivative because they execute as part of the WoW process, but FFXIV-style AddOns would not be considered derivative work because of the communication mechanisms between itself and the WoW client.

[User517849]

This has already been addressed in several posts I have made previously. I've even linked relevant sources which outright say that game addons are derivative work, and then I posted my contentions with them. I'm not "ignoring the facts" because I don't accept that Wordpress themes and WoW addons are similar, especially given the Wordpress themes example you gave focused largely on a case that wasn't as presented (i.e.: Wix forked repositories). Outside of that case, to give more clarity, Wordpress themes are really just templates that you are extending when developing your Wordpress site (i.e.: they are site layouts, incl. CSS, HTML, and PHP code required for the site page to work). This is the equivalent of downloading boilerplate code and extending it, and that's being as generous as possible to that position. In many cases, the template can just be added via the Wordpress dashboard without any coding involved.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, you're not modifying React when you use JSX, that's the point.



This personal definition of what constitutes an addon isn't supported by any technical definition or common understanding so far as I'm aware. Addon is an ambiguous term, and even Blizzard refers to Addons as Third Party Software, and that's because Third Party Software is an obscenely broad term (for a good reason). All addons are third party software because they were developed by parties other than Blizzard, and obviously third party applications that do not interact with WoW aren't addons.

No one is comparing TSM's desktop application to something like Details. TSM acts as a means to update the TSM Addon's datasource for AH prices and doesn't interact with WoW at all. As I said before, if addon support was changed such that the TSM Addon stopped working, so TSM desktop was updated to interact with the client (i.e.: capturing packets to retrieve AH prices, or spoofing packets to list player auctions), then it would be considered a WoW addon (i.e.: addon in this context is better described as third party software that interacts with the [game] client, data, or communication). Whether something is considered an addon depends on how it interacts with WoW. TSM's desktop application, as it is currently, is abstracted from WoW through the local data storage they use.



Sure, and if we want to stay on the position of "a work is derivative if it can only function in the [game] client", then that's a valid position to have. I posted that as a valid criticism of my position in the thread, and I believe I was the first to cite a reference to this. Obviously, given I've already linked such a source, I accept that interpretation and have put forward my contention of it; however, IANAL. That said, the Wordpress argument markedly different position as it relies on several other criteria for why it is considered derivative work.



Wouldn't links to a merchandise shop in an addon, such as All-The-Things, violate rule 4 (Add-ons may not include advertisements.)?



Yeah, and I think everyone can agree that both of these are bad to have in game. I believe Zygor's quest addon is paywalled as well. Now that I think about it, I think that most addons that come to mind with a paywall are quest or exploration addons of some kind.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that I've made you read all that, I'm more than happy to give this olive branch as I don't think we're going to come to a clean resolution. Lets ignore Wordpress, React, static and dynamic linking, and whether the scripts can run independently. I took a look at the GPL license and what it means to be a mere aggregation (bold for emphasis):


- Link

Disregarding our disagreement on whether using the API constitutes a derived work, I am happy to agree with the interpretation here. In the case that modules are executing as part of the same process, then they are derived work. This would mean that addons loaded from the AddOns folder are derivative because they execute as part of the WoW process, but FFXIV-style AddOns would not be considered derivative work because of the communication mechanisms between itself and the WoW client.

My personal definition of addon isn't what's at stake here, though.

When I reference a WoW Addon, I specifically am talking about a set of Lua scripts that are combined as one program that the WoW client executes. That's what the general definition of a WoW Addon is. No one goes to CF/WaGo/etc. and downloads entire third party programs and considers them addons.

There are a lot of uses of addons (or mods) that aren't relevant to the discussion.

I also agree with GNU's definition, too.

That said, if you do find paid addons, you can report them to Blizzard and Blizzard might take action. It's hard to say, what would happen, though. They have an email address specifically designed to address issues when people violate the addon terms. I assume it would result in a C&D or other legal action.

https://eu.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...nt-policy/1642

There is an email to report violations in the policy itself.

Additionally, due to the expensive nature of copyright cases, I imagine Blizzard would prevail. A great example is below:

https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

I'd actually argue, in that case, that a pixel art version of a picture is covered under fair use, but that's a bit off topic and is more or less commentary on how our copyright system, in general, is broken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

[RobertMugabe]

The Overwolf message to WoWUp is the most disingenuous bullshit I think I have EVER read from a Curse affiliate. A shame on everyone involved.

"We welcome competition but will do anything to squash it"

Actually go fuck yourselves.

????

So you think it is fine from a competition perspective to have an addon manager like WoWUp that supports all competing platforms, while Curseforge isn't able to do the same?

- - - Updated - - -

The intent of this is to stop paywalling of addons or forcing users to pay for premium versions of an addon. Websites like Curseforge don't do either of these things, they instead monetize via ads or by giving priority in download queues. Addon authors, on their part, typically monetize through sites like Curseforge or through donations. That said, I don't believe the terms laid out by Blizzard are even legally enforceable, although that doesn't stop Blizzard from issuing takedown requests and legal threats.

Of course Blizzard has every legal right in this case, at least in the US and EU.

If you want to use their tools and API for their game, you have to agree to their conditions. And them requiring you to make all addons you make free of charge (and also: open source) is a perfectly fine requirement (not all conditions are legal, but those are). Many companies have been successfully sued in the past for breaking similar licenses, like how Linksys once broke the GNU GPL license by using Linux.

[Eosia]

This has already been addressed in several posts I have made previously. I've even linked relevant sources which outright say that game addons are derivative work, and then I posted my contentions with them. I'm not "ignoring the facts" because I don't accept that Wordpress themes and WoW addons are similar, especially given the Wordpress themes example you gave focused largely on a case that wasn't as presented (i.e.: Wix forked repositories).

I don't care that you personally do not accept that WordPress Themes/Plugins are analogous to WoW Addons. Does not change the fact that it is true.

Outside of that case, to give more clarity, Wordpress themes are really just templates that you are extending when developing your Wordpress site (i.e.: they are site layouts, incl. CSS, HTML, and PHP code required for the site page to work). This is the equivalent of downloading boilerplate code and extending it, and that's being as generous as possible to that position. In many cases, the template can just be added via the Wordpress dashboard without any coding involved.

The HTML/PHP IS the derivative work. This is already been established by a legal entity that specializes in these issues. The PHP is 100% dependent on WordPress' functions and hooks in order to actually work. Any extra JavaScript and CSS is not because WordPress ignores it outside the wp_eneque() function which simply is a wrapper that places the <link> element inside the <head> element properly. WordPress does not process it, the browser does.

"Extending" something doesn't change the licensing requirements of it. In the WordPress case, since the GPL is a "viral" license, themes MUST be GPL licensed as well. End of discussion.

And as for your counter point, you missed the mark... again. Headless clients, like one written in VueJS, that accesses a WordPress, or any other CMS, via an API are not analogous. As I stated before with your React example, they can be refactored to access another data source or even converted into a static site and still retain their functionality. Regardless, these headless clients can exist without WordPress or whatever CMS manager they use. WoW Addons cannot. Period. They MUST use Blizzard-created hooks/functions in order to actually work.

No amount of your silly denials change that fact because it boils down what does the "processing", WoW or the Addon. Since everything from an addon originates with WoW, the answer is rather obvious.

Unless you can prove that DBM, ElvUI, WeakAuras, GatherMate, or any other WoW Addon can work without WoW, then they're technically derivative works. And you've lost the argument. Especially in light of Micro Star v FormGen Inc.

Addon authors cannot copyright addons technically. At least no under US Law. This is what the US Copyright Office says on the ability to copyright derivative works:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

WoW Addons do NOT modify the game in an extensive way nor does it have substantial new content as to be its own work. The only one that came close was Bellular's Warcraft Tales addon that changed the way questing was presented to players and made it a more immersive experience. Blizzard sent him a C&D notice which he abided by because while he saw it as an addon, they saw it as more of an unauthorized expansion given what it did.

Oh, and I mentioned the Wix thing because Wix's editor was a derivative of WordPress' code, therefore it had to have a GPL license per the WordPress license. Wix closed the source which was illegal to do under the GPL. While not analogous to a WoW Addon, it is analogous to Blizzard's onwership rights and ability to enforce its policy, which carries the force of the Blizzard End User License Agreement as you agree to abide by all official policies as well, in court if necessary.

Again... if you feel so strongly that you're so right, then throw down the gauntlet to Blizzard. Take them to arbitration and get the addon policy declared unenforceable. Just don't forget to let us know how it turns out.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I don't care that you personally do not accept that WordPress Themes/Plugins are analogous to WoW Addons. Does not change the fact that it is true.

I'm interested in re-hashing this issue in full, as it has been done ad nauseum. You've misrepresented the Wordpress argument several times, including knowingly misrepresenting a Wix case in which they had violated GPL after forking several repositories and closed sourcing them. Even in the original post you didn't feel the need to clarify why it was violating copyright and was a derivative work (nor provide links), and for whatever reason used it to support a point which wasn't even relevant to why the case violated GPL, and I was the one who had to link several related articles with that conclusion of how they violated GPL. Regarding WoW Addons and Wordpress Themes, and the reasons they are derivative is not the same. Derivative works can be derivative for different reasons, WoW addons are derivative because of what constitutes a mere aggregation and WoW addons being part of the WoW client process, whereas Wordpress templates are derivative for a deluge of reasons that aren't even necessarily due to the code (incl. art and pictures, layout, page composition, fonts, the fact that you're wholesale copying source code and only making minor changes, etc.).

Moreover, the ability to refactor is not important. That you can wholly replace your source code in order to operate on another platform or with another framework would not impact whether or not it is derivative; the ability to delete your project and start from scratch, which would be required to switch from React to Vue, does not impact whether something is a derived work or not. And, just for clarity, my position is not and has never been that React projects constitute a derived work, which was the original point. Moving back to refactoring impacting what a derived work is, I would advise looking at in what cases browser plugins are considered derivative.

- - - Updated - - -

Off topic I know, but scrolling through this thread and it's several small novels y'all are writing back n forth to each other, I can't help but wonder do you put the same effort into school/work as you do in arguing with each other on here? Lol

I kid, but I came in here interested in reading about the topic until I saw several works of literature in here jesus

The TL;DR is that WoW addons would likely be considered derivative works. I would refer you to the GNU description of a Mere Aggregation (i.e.: they are effectively a single program with the WoW client, running at a shared address):

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

- Link