Porting Discussion

[Omicron]

[rage]

Eesh, no need to get so hostile man. I have no idea what you mean by Grievous-legged Maul, unless you mean it's the one he apparently made in Blender. (I don't have, or ever had any evidence to support this claim, but I could be wrong.)

The Greivus isn't as much of a loss, considering there is already a good one made by neomarz.

 

So you are going to start calling me a liar huh? I was considering about sending you that Grievous-legged Maul, if it's the same one that he uploaded here, but considering you're being so rude to me, I have decided against it. I apoligised, but you don't seem to accept it at all, and have gone all [angry] on me and AshuraDX.

[MoonDog]

Bullshit, Omicron! CWA only has that Grievous-legged Maul and Khameir made Maul in Blender.

Also, thanks for bitching about Savage again, a character nobody is willing to model. But I don't need JKHub's ****ing sponsorship to make him public

And finally, a Grievous that's better than a cartoony booger-ized version. Of course you have to throw that under the bus too

 

F*** JKHub. Thanks for removing my downloads, @@AshuraDX.

 

Sorry isn't enough to reduce a lie that made one of my Christmas presents go to waste.

 

It's been a pretty good discussion so far, let's just calm down a bit. Doesn't need to turn into an attack on the JKHub staff or other members. I like it when the discussions let reason prevail and good points are communicated on both sides. Lets just try to keep it like that for a bit.

 

I can concede pretty easily to these constraints.

 

I already brought it up in this thread: fully ported content (duel music packs, 100% ripped models with no new textures/sounds (NEW, -not- base), 100% ripped maps, etc) would be bad, wheras content with some ported content and some not (ie the New Vegas trooper, which had new textures, the multitude of models with ripped sounds, maps with SW music etc etc etc) would be okay. Fully ported content is okay with -written- permission from the copyright holder.

 

All legal responsibility for content falls on the shoulders of the uploader; JKH cannot be responsible for 100% of its files because it might not know where they're ported from, same as how YouTube operates.

 

Get rid of this "Acknowledged Rules" crap on files, it's annoying and makes no sense.

 

This seems to me to be the most reasonable discourse regarding rules about ports. Technically, my entity mods can be construed as ports, but I've sufficiently altered the original BSP structures to create a work very much different from the originals while retaining that I did not make the original levels. Situations like that I'd be okay with. A ported asset, original flare, 110% acknowledgement of source material with no claim whatsoever to have had anything to do with's creation. Pretty much the definition of modification right there.

[Lamented]

It was a baseless claim without any evidence to support it! And no, I refer to the Season 4 Darth Maul as Grievous-legged, not Khameir's!

 

I already have Death Watch Maul, so I don't require your send...

 

Also, I searched for over an hour for a portable .obj that looks exactly like Khameir's Maul and I found nothing. You expect me not to get mad at you and AshuraDX for getting my file deleted baselessly--my Christmas present? How do you think Khameir feels, being shit on and called a porter just because he actually made a nice Maul for once!

 

"OH LOOK, A GOOD CLONE WARS MODEL MADE BY A MYSTERIOUS FOREIGNER! THIS MUST MEAN IT'S A PORT!"

[ChalklYne]

ahhhh ok... wow...Seems a little below the belt but 1 point for eez. XD

[therfiles]

It seems like we are picking apart a lot of nuances while disregarding the ideas behind a lot of these posts. @@eezstreet, it seems like you are advocating for an absolutely no porting policy while suggesting that we should allow ports used moderately. It's very confusing.

 

 

 

You know what else is "impossible" to replicate, and yet gets copies illegally distributed of?

 

Sorry, "replicate" was a poor word choice. As modders, we can't create original content of Ewan McGregor's voice. We cannot. These sounds, like voices from the movies, are impossible for us, as modders, to re-create.

 

 

 

What about all the expensive software used to make a model? What about all the expensive software used to make textures? What about all the expensive software used to write code?

I mean sure, you have free alternatives, but you also need a fairly high-end computer in order to run these tools, do you not? Aren't these fairly expensive too?

 

Certainly a valid point, but my argument was that it is beyond our bounds to acquire the original source material (actors, etc) to recreate it. Models and such can.

 

 

so what you're saying is that it's alright to do stuff illegally because there's no other way unless you pay money...also kinda like pirating movies, games, or y'know, armed robbery, breaking and entering, shoplifting, heists, grand theft auto, etc etc

 

We are trying to find a solution to the porting problem in the modding community. Simply saying ports are linkable to major crimes and such doesn't help us resolve this issue, as we are trying to find a policy that covers the issue and doesn't ban it 100%.

 

 

So you're perfectly okay with armed robbery, but not okay with ported models? WTF.

lol lets not argue for argument's sake here please

 

 

Yep. I totally agree here. Moderators shouldn't be able to delete stuff like that willy-nilly. Omicron was just pointing out that the hub had several models which were ported, and now we have lost access to these models...

I knew I should have downloaded the New Vegas trooper.

 

I understand that the action was rash, but the mods were created 100% from ported materials which, under your and my ideas, should be removed. 

[Lamented]

I understand that the action was rash, but the mods were created 100% from ported materials which, under your and my ideas, should be removed. 

 

That is untrue...

 

I know this for a fact.

[Omicron]

@

I don't recall a Grievus legged maul ever getting uploaded here...

 

Do you have any evidence which shows he made the death Watch Maul? In the comments for it, people said it was a port, and considering he uploaded the ported savage at the same time, I think it's more than likely he ported Maul, even if you can't find it. But maybe I'm wrong about him porting it, perhaps he did make it, but i won't believe that until I see some LEGITIMATE evidence.

[Lamented]

@

I don't recall a Grievus legged maul ever getting uploaded here...

 

Do you have any evidence which shows he made the death Watch Maul? In the comments for it, people said it was a port, and considering he uploaded the ported savage at the same time, I think it's more than likely he ported Maul, even if you can't find it. But maybe I'm wrong about him porting it, perhaps he did make it, but i won't believe that until I see some LEGITIMATE evidence.

 

I said Grievous legged Maul was the only Maul in Clone Wars Adventures! ffs...

 

Secondly, there is no proof that there was a port, and I'd have Khameir deliver us a bit of evidence but, I see JKHub decided to treat him poorly and make him go.

 

BUT, I have evidence.

 

Quite clearly, Death Watch Maul was not a port. After several checks, CWA's Maul and Khameir's Maul are different in terms of texturizing. CWA's Maul's head model is different from Khameir's. The chest textures are different, Khameir's was not as correct (which I cleared up in my later version, which got DELETED!) To top it off, the CWA's Maul's Death Watch Robes were not saturated like Khameir's, nor did the cybernetic legs exist in Death Watch Maul's!

[Omicron]

I never claimed the Maul was CWA's, I don't even know who that is.

[Circa]

I never claimed the Maul was CWA's, I don't even know who that is.

Clone Wars Adventures. It's a game that the models were claimed to be ported from.

 

@, raging isn't helping this discussion.

 

Now, didn't you say that the Savage model was proven to be ported? And why doesn't @@khameir come explain his models to us? If he can prove that they aren't ported, then great.

[Ory'Hara]

its jkhub whos ragin, shame on all your messes, jkhub is illegal

[therfiles]

I don't think we scared @@khameir away, because he has never posted and he's been off since the tenth of December.

[eezstreet]

It seems like we are picking apart a lot of nuances while disregarding the ideas behind a lot of these posts. @@eezstreet, it seems like you are advocating for an absolutely no porting policy while suggesting that we should allow ports used moderately. It's very confusing.

 

Nope. I'm just saying it's super hypocritical that we treat models and maps differently from sounds, even though people have worked very hard to make them.

 

 

Sorry, "replicate" was a poor word choice. As modders, we can't create original content of Ewan McGregor's voice. We cannot. These sounds, like voices from the movies, are impossible for us, as modders, to re-create.

I'm sure you could if you had enough $$$, which was my point.

 

 

Certainly a valid point, but my argument was that it is beyond our bounds to acquire the original source material (actors, etc) to recreate it. Models and such can.

What about impressions and impersonators? There's a guy floating around on YouTube that can do a near-perfect Morgan Freeman impersonation, for example.

 

 

We are trying to find a solution to the porting problem in the modding community. Simply saying ports are linkable to major crimes and such doesn't help us resolve this issue, as we are trying to find a policy that covers the issue and doesn't ban it 100%.

So stealing and IP theft are not major crimes? You can get quite a hefty fine for doing this sorta thing. A C&D is just a warning.

 

 

I understand that the action was rash, but the mods were created 100% from ported materials which, under your and my ideas, should be removed.

They weren't.

The New Vegas model wasn't 100% ported, only the mesh was ported, the rest wasn't.

The Maul model wasn't ported at all, it was original.

Deviance's reskins of Maul (which wasn't ported) weren't 100% ported even if the mesh was.

 

khameir openly ported the Savage Oppress model but the Maul model was made by him, if I understand correctly.

[Lamented]

'Xactly!

[Kualan]

@@eezstreet

 

RE - your point about SW sounds/music that doesn't come directly from Lucasfilm, but from individual studios such as Bioware.

 

In the point I was making (that you quoted), they wouldn't come under any policy allowing Lucasfilm-sourced sounds. They would fall under the same logic as 3D models; property of the game studios. Though to use the KOTOR example in particular, there is the potential for a 'loophole' in that for a large number of the audio effects / music tracks from that series, they feature in both KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2. But those games were developed by different studios, whose link was Lucasfilm.

 

So in reality, anyone seeking to cause legal trouble over the use of KOTOR sound assets would find it very difficult to prove whether or not they came from Bioware's property or Obsidian's, and thus effectively negate an already unlikely 'lawsuit'. Does that make it any less 'illegal'? No, of course not. But it is near impossible to actually get punished for it. Which raises a new, more moral-based question:

 

Are we banning ports because we, as a community, believe they are inherently wrong? Or are we banning them because we believe the risk of legal consequences, however small, is a possibility? Neither is a wrong answer, but clarifying which one JKHub is siding with might help determine to what level of discretion the admins might utilise when it comes to maps/mods/models making use of ported content such as sound effects.

[eezstreet]

@@eezstreet

 

RE - your point about SW sounds/music that doesn't come directly from Lucasfilm, but from individual studios such as Bioware.

 

In the point I was making (that you quoted), they wouldn't come under any policy allowing Lucasfilm-sourced sounds. They would fall under the same logic as 3D models; property of the game studios. Though to use the KOTOR example in particular, there is the potential for a 'loophole' in that for a large number of the audio effects / music tracks from that series, they feature in both KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2. But those games were developed by different studios, whose link was Lucasfilm.

 

But you also missed the point where I said that Lucasfilm is no longer a thing. :>

[Kualan]

But you also missed the point where I said that Lucasfilm is no longer a thing. :>

 

 

That just adds more weight to the need to clarify JKHub's stance on whether we ban ports because they're judged to be morally wrong, or do we only ban the ones where there is someone still out there who cares enough to protect the copyright of the asset in question?

 

Or to really summarise it in blunt terms:

 

"If you can get away with it, should you?"

[eezstreet]

That just adds more weight to the need to clarify JKHub's stance on whether we ban ports because they're judged to be morally wrong, or do we only ban the ones where there is someone still out there who cares enough to protect the copyright of the asset in question?

 

Or to really summarise it in blunt terms:

 

"If you can get away with it, should you?"

My solution seems like the best one, and the one that encompasses all of this, and is LucasFilm/whatever agnostic.

[Pande]

Now you got me wondering, I'm working on getting Kain in game as we speak and I had planned on just using the voice recording sessions since there's no background noise to filter out but now I think it may keep my model from being hosted.

 

It's a little less wrong in my opinion,  at least as far as morality is concerned. It may indeed be infringement but them putting it on youtube like that, it would almost seem more offensive to the original creators to ignore their higher quality, authentic work.

 

Just my 2¢, yeah it's still stealing.

[Grab]

Why do you guys care this much about legality?...

If this site is against illegal software, shouldn't you remove mods based on JK2/JKA Source Code, because it's illegal.

[Ory'Hara]

lol, their just whining and making disinformation over a  couple retextured models, lol.

 

since this is just turning into another failfront, i'll most likely be leaving jkhub.

[MoonDog]

Why do you guys care this much about legality?...

If this site is against illegal software, shouldn't you remove mods based on JK2/JKA Source Code, because it's illegal.

 

 

lol. u srs bro?

 

 

 

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

 

Copyright © 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,

51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

 

Preamble

 

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your

freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public

License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free

software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This

General Public License applies to most of the Free Software

Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to

using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by

the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to

your programs, too.

 

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not

price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you

have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for

this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it

if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it

in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

 

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid

anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you

distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

 

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether

gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that

you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the

source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their

rights.

 

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and

(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,

distribute and/or modify the software.

 

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain

that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free

software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we

want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so

that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original

authors' reputations.

 

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software

patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free

program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the

program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any

patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

 

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and

modification follow.

 

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

 

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains

a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed

under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,

refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"

means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:

that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,

either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another

language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in

the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

 

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of

running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program

is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the

Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

 

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's

source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you

conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate

copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the

notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;

and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License

along with the Program.

 

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and

you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

 

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion

of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and

distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1

above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

 

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices

stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

 

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in

whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any

part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third

parties under the terms of this License.

 

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively

when run, you must cause it, when started running for such

interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an

announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a

notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide

a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under

these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this

License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but

does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on

the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

 

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If

identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,

and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in

themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those

sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you

distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based

on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of

this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the

entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

 

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest

your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to

exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or

collective works based on the Program.

 

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program

with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of

a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under

the scope of this License.

 

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,

under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of

Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

 

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable

source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections

1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

 

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three

years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your

cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete

machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be

distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium

customarily used for software interchange; or,

 

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer

to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is

allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you

received the program in object code or executable form with such

an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

 

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for

making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source

code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any

associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to

control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a

special exception, the source code distributed need not include

anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary

form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the

operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component

itself accompanies the executable.

 

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering

access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent

access to copy the source code from the same place counts as

distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not

compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

 

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program

except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt

otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is

void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under

this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such

parties remain in full compliance.

 

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not

signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or

distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are

prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by

modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the

Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and

all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying

the Program or works based on it.

 

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to

these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further

restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to

this License.

 

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent

infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),

conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or

otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not

excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot

distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this

License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you

may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent

license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by

all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then

the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to

refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

 

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under

any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to

apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other

circumstances.

 

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any

patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any

such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the

integrity of the free software distribution system, which is

implemented by public license practices. Many people have made

generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed

through that system in reliance on consistent application of that

system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing

to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot

impose that choice.

 

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to

be a consequence of the rest of this License.

 

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in

certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the

original copyright holder who places the Program under this License

may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding

those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among

countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates

the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

 

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions

of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will

be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to

address new problems or concerns.

 

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program

specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any

later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions

either of that version or of any later version published by the Free

Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of

this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software

Foundation.

 

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free

programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author

to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free

Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes

make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals

of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and

of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

 

NO WARRANTY

 

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY

FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN

OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES

PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED

OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS

TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE

PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,

REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

 

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING

WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR

REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,

INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING

OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED

TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY

YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER

PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE

POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

 

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

 

 

[eezstreet]

Why do you guys care this much about legality?...

Because we don't want shit to get removed or this site to get C&D'd. It's pointless drama and having a clear-cut set of rules will help to alleviate that.

 

 

If this site is against illegal software, shouldn't you remove mods based on JK2/JKA Source Code, because it's illegal.

Based on what? OpenJK removed the BINK code, the xbox SDK stuff, the FeelIt code, etc etc. If anything, Raven was sorta obligated to release the source code after it was uncovered that they were using an MP3 library which as part of their license forced them to release their source code...

And now I'm kinda curious if that same library isn't being used in Call of Duty games, because that might warrant them releasing their code too.

 

lol, their just whining and making disinformation over a  couple retextured models, lol.

 

since this is just turning into another failfront, i'll most likely be leaving jkhub.

good riddance

[Lamented]

Tbh, I second Ory'Hara. This entire policy itself is beginning to tear apart modding resources, as well things people in this community would have preferred, and maybe JKHub itself some time, unless hypocrisy still works for ported resources that AREN'T models.

 

Look at Circa's Star Wars sound pack. Would you consider that a port, considering it all came from StarWars.com's soundboard?

 

Is it considered porting to use sounds from other games, or to use other textures for a new model? Why it is that such things are placed beyond restriction, I wonder. A considerable percentage of mods in the JKA community, then, should be deleted because of it's vast porting material, which at the same time would be a dumb idea because of the enjoyment others receive, but isn't that the policy? Or does hypocrisy still keep this kind of thing going?

 

Movie Battles II ported Darth Malak and nobody's filing lawsuits against them as far as I know.

 

And, lastly, one of my Christmas presents were completely safe of porting material. Khameir modeled it himself in Blender, someone did his own voice-overs, and lastly, all I did was retexture.

[DT.]

JKHub has rules. If you don't want to abide by them, leave.