NAF still Banned (on LL) ?

[McAztec]

Just now, dagobaking said:

 

No. Your argument is not clear and the white paper you cite does not seem to challenge my copyright claim.

 

What you seem to be arguing is that somebody can copy copyrighted work as long as they make it open source. Which obviously does not make any sense. Otherwise, we could all share Open Source Windows 11 that works exactly the same as Microsoft Windows 11.

 

 

You misunderstood, the quoted part is very clear, it doesn't even contain the usual legalese, but I will try in any case: You can use a FORMAT/STRUCTURE made by someone else without infringing their copyright if it's the only way to ensure interoperability. In other words, I can use the format you defined (and made publicly available to everyone with docs) to ensure interoperability with mods made for AAF. Open-source is just the cherry on top and not the focus of the issue.

 

If you don't believe me ask a lawyer.

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, McAztec said:

 

You misunderstood, the quoted part is very clear, it doesn't even contain the usual legalese, but I will try in any case: You can use a FORMAT/STRUCTURE made by someone else without infringing their copyright if it's the only way to ensure interoperability. In other words, I can use the format you defined (and made publicly available to everyone with docs) to ensure interoperability with mods made for AAF. Open-source is just the cherry on top and not the focus of the issue.

 

If you don't believe me ask a lawyer.

 

No. I didn't misunderstand the quote. It simply does not compare. You can't use an API made by someone else to inform exactly how your product will work.

 

Also, a format is not an API. XML is a format. An API is the specific schema that can be deployed via XML. You are making an Apples and Oranges comparison.

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, McAztec said:

If you don't believe me ask a lawyer.

 

Why do you think I haven't?

 

After all, I'm the one who has offered to cooperate toward resolving this in court.

 

If the law is on SnapDragon's side, he should gleefully accept my offer.

[McAztec]

6 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

No. I didn't misunderstand the quote. It simply does not compare. You can't use an API made by someone else to inform exactly how your product will work.

 

Also, a format is not an API. XML is a format. An API is the specific schema that can be deployed via XML. You are making an Apples and Oranges comparison.

 

Actually that's exactly what it said, you can use the same API structure (same function definitions, etc) for interoperability, and lower it argues that copyright overcompensates copyright holders of APIs due to the cost of user switching and the value of standards. It's a balancing act to prevent monopolies to some extent.

 

That interoperability means reading and using the XML format you defined. I fail to see how you "deploy" an API via XML, an API defines how you can interact with a piece of software, the XML is a file that's read and processed, it just contains data. Did you mean that the XML format you created is an API specification? Because that's not quite the case imo.

 

4 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Why do you think I haven't?

 

After all, I'm the one who has offered to cooperate toward resolving this in court.

 

If the law is on SnapDragon's side, he should gleefully accept my offer.

 

You mean beside lack of evidence supporting that hypothesis? Firstly because you'd have more believable arguments and understanding of the law and secondly because it's not worth the time of day to defend the AAF API and XML structure, or even to seek counsel for it. I've never heard of plaintiffs "offering" to sue before, that's a new one.

 

In any case I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

[shittyguy]

man if this was a court dago would have lost long ago.
1. for not showing proof or evidence.
2. saying xml format is his.
3. using to sue someone as a fear tactic and yes fear tactic is against the law in some states.
 

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, McAztec said:

Actually that's exactly what it said, you can use the same API structure (same function definitions, etc) for interoperability, and lower it argues that copyright overcompensates copyright holders of APIs due to the cost of user switching and the value of standards. It's a balancing act to prevent monopolies to some extent.

 

#1 - This is a white paper. Not some side of a case that won in court (aka legal precedence).

 

#2 - The case you zero in on involves one opinion in one specific case where a menu was ruled uncopyrightable due to the Merger Doctrine. You are taking that and making a magical leap to conclude that it applies to any copying of any API. In reality, the Merger Doctrine is very rarely applied and some courts question whether it should ever apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_doctrine_(copyright_law) From your citation, the important words are "at least to the extent of Borland’s use".

 

#3 - Where in the law does it say that any effort toward interoperability is not copyright infringement? Interoperability is not a free pass to copy other people's work. And your citation does not say or even suggest that.

 

2 minutes ago, McAztec said:

That interoperability means reading and using the XML format you defined. I fail to see how you "deploy" an API via XML, an API defines how you can interact with a piece of software, the XML is a file that's read and processed, it just contains data. Did you mean that the XML format you created is an API specification? Because that's not quite the case imo.

 

I think you are just being obtuse here. You fail to see how specific commands creating specific results in a program is an API?

 

Surely, you are aware that CLI commands utilize an API. And you can also put those same commands into a .bat file. The .bat file itself is not the API. The rules regarding the commands are.

 

AAF is the same. It just uses XML as a vehicle rather than .bat. The API is the specific way that you must write the XML in order for it to work. That is not open source, even though documentation is public. Just like documenting the API of a CLI command does not automatically make that open source.

 

2 minutes ago, McAztec said:

You mean beside lack of evidence supporting that hypothesis? Firstly because you'd have more believable arguments and understanding of the law and secondly because it's not worth the time of day to defend the AAF API and XML structure, or even to seek counsel for it. I've never heard of plaintiffs "offering" to sue before, that's a new one.

 

In any case I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

 

Perhaps you need to do a little catch-up and thinking then.

 

I "offer" to sue because Snapdragon is anonymous to me. I can't sue him unless I know who he is and where his jurisdiction is. Are you familiar with that part of the law, Mr. Mason?

 

And please, you don't wish me any luck here. I'm supposed to buy that you are some disconnected traveler who swooped in randomly to give legal wisdom? Just like the others, you have an agenda and have worked backward to try to find some angle that supports your interests. And just like the others, you wish for a result at other peoples expense, including Snapdragon himself. Everyone is happy to encourage Snapdragon's legal position when its not their ass that is on the line. If it was a risk that you (or they) were taking, I doubt you would be counting on some novel Merger Doctrine ruling.

[dagobaking]

28 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

man if this was a court dago would have lost long ago.
1. for not showing proof or evidence.
2. saying xml format is his.
3. using to sue someone as a fear tactic and yes fear tactic is against the law in some states.
 

 

#A. A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A person has an original idea for an app that nobody has done. They build it out based on their own imagination and skills without any reference to the exact way a pre-existing app works. Other people use the first version, give feedback, and the app is revised over time.

 

#B. THE PROCESS SNAPDRAGON FOLLOWED: He did not have an original idea. Instead, he liked my ideas in AAF. He even admits it in his mod descriptions ("inspired by AAF"). Instead of going through his original idea to create something new he had to go through my XML API piece by piece and make C++ equivalents. There is no other way that would technically work. Let me repeat: In order to make NAF, SnapDragon had to look at the way AAF works IN VERY TECHNICAL AND SPECIFIC DETAIL and rule-by-rule make C++ equivalents.

 

#C THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING "The Hunger Games" TO FRENCH: A writer does not have an original idea. But, they want The Hunger Games to reach French people and they want to add their own twist to the ending. So, word by word, they go through The Hunger Games in English and draft the same story in French. And then at the end they add their own chapter.

 

I am 100% confident that any judge or impartial jury would reach the same conclusions as me:

 

ONE: #B is in fact what SnapDragon did. The evidence is obvious by looking at the way NAF works and even just reading his own descriptions.

 

TWO: #B is more similar to #C than #A. In other words, what SnapDragon did is called copying and it infringes on my rights.

[shittyguy]

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

#A. A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A person has an original idea for an app that nobody has done. They build it out based on their own imagination and skills without any reference to the exact way a pre-existing app works. Other people use the first version, give feedback, and the app is revised over time.

 

#B. THE PROCESS SNAPDRAGON FOLLOWED: He did not have an original idea. Instead, he liked my ideas in AAF. He even admits it in his mod descriptions ("inspired by AAF"). Instead of going through his original idea to create something new he had to go through my XML API piece by piece and make C++ equivalents. There is no other way that would technically work. Let me repeat: In order to make NAF, SnapDragon had to look at the way AAF works IN VERY TECHNICAL AND SPECIFIC DETAIL and rule-by-rule make C++ equivalents.

 

#C THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING "The Hunger Games" TO FRENCH: A writer does not have an original idea. But, they want The Hunger Games to reach French people and they want to add their own twist to the ending. So, word by word, they go through The Hunger Games in English and draft the same story in French. And then at the end they add their own chapter.

 

I am 100% confident that any judge or impartial jury would reach the same conclusions as me:

 

ONE: #B is in fact what SnapDragon did. The evidence is obvious by looking at the way NAF works and even just reading his own descriptions.

 

TWO: #B is more similar to #C than #A. In other words, what SnapDragon did is called copying and it infringes on my rights.

A. what is SexLab vs OSA? then?

B. C++ is public domain same with xml format. other mods use xml like cbbe. which means you have to go after them to using xml.
and everyone uses C++

C. what the fuck dose this random part have to do with anything?

D. if your so confident in court then go to court already then wasting time here. all you doing is wasting time not going to court. i want to see what the judge say about case.
so do it.

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

A. what is SexLab vs OSA? then?

B. C++ is public domain same with xml format. other mods use xml like cbbe. which means you have to go after them to using xml.
and everyone uses C++

C. what the fuck dose this random part have to do with anything?
 

D. if your so confident in court then go to court already then wasting time here. all you doing is wasting time not going to court. i want to see what the judge say about case.
so do it.

 

 

A. Two different animation frameworks that borrow nothing from each other? Proves my point.

B. Your sentence is incoherent.

C. How was I not clear? It more closely resembles what Snapdragon did than what almost every other mod author does.

D. Great! DM me Snapdragon's name and address then! I'm not the one avoiding this.

[shittyguy]

3 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

 

A. Two different animation frameworks that borrow nothing from each other? Proves my point.

B. Your sentence is incoherent.

C. How was I not clear? It more closely resembles what Snapdragon did than what almost every other mod author does.

D. Great! DM me Snapdragon's name and address then! I'm not the one avoiding this.

D. are you asking me to dox someone? ok yeah you really lost your shit, i'm not breaking the law for you mate or anyone in fact.

Edited January 6 by shittyguy

[dagobaking]

Just now, shittyguy said:

D. are you asking me to dox someone? ok yeah you really lost your shit, i'm not breaking the law for you mate or anyone in fact.

 

lol - You know as well as I do that I wasn't asking you to dox. Ask him to voluntarily give the info to you. See what happens.

 

I'm asking you to stop trying to gamble with someone elses money.

[shittyguy]

6 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

lol - You know as well as I do that I wasn't asking you to dox. Ask him to voluntarily give the info to you. See what happens.

 

I'm asking you to stop trying to gamble with someone elses money.

you reply to me with "D. Great! DM me Snapdragon's name and address then! I'm not the one avoiding this."

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

you reply to me with "D. Great! DM me Snapdragon's name and address then! I'm not the one avoiding this."

 

Yep. And if you take this to mean I was asking to dox it makes me wonder whats up with you.

 

Are you perhaps not old enough to be on this site?

[mrwiseman]

1 hour ago, dagobaking said:

The animation problem is partially why AAF hasn't been updated lately. Instead of coding, I've been spending my time learning Blender to build an FO4 animation kit for Blender. I'm actually pretty far along with it now. It includes a scripted process for publishing animations because the current process is very tricky to figure out and I think blocks a lot of animators. I am now just in the bells and whistles phase of it and hope to be done soon.

In advance, thank you for this. Anything to ease the workflow is welcome. I had done some research into the subject few years back, between plugin for obsolete version of blender and the use of specifics Havok SDK, i understood why most animators would be throw off. Even a doing just UI require to dig up an adobe Flash almost old enough to drink.

For what i understand, the only way around is to inject the animation (or at least the keys) directly though f4se, bypassing the native loader. Similar to CBP overriding Havok physic.
I even look into using Niflib with F4SE for this, with not much results. For what i could understand, there are some limitations the numbers of memory slot in the VM memory and interpolation methods are hard-coded.

But still many things are possible :
* Hooking Dear ImGui/Nuklear as an overlay for AAF could be an improvement.
* Maybe just a loader for a glTF containing a dummy rig and the animations ? As a format, it is fairly extensible and flexible (can include everything from texture/overlay to shape key, stepping on F4EE territory  ) and well integrated into blender and multiples implementation exist on Github ( And Snapdragon can even write his own parser ). 

[dagobaking]

32 minutes ago, mrwiseman said:

In advance, thank you for this. Anything to ease the workflow is welcome. I had done some research into the subject few years back, between plugin for obsolete version of blender and the use of specifics Havok SDK, i understood why most animators would be throw off. Even a doing just UI require to dig up an adobe Flash

almost old enough to drink.

For what i understand, the only way around is to inject the animation (or at least the keys) directly though f4se, bypassing the native loader. Similar to CBP overriding Havok physic.
I even look into using Niflib with F4SE for this, with not much results. For what i could understand, there are some limitations the numbers of memory slot in the VM memory and interpolation methods are hard-coded.

But still many things are possible :

* Hooking Dear ImGui/Nuklear as an overlay for AAF could be an improvement.
* Maybe just a loader for a glTF containing a dummy rig and the animations ? As a format, it is fairly extensible and flexible (can include everything from texture/overlay to shape key, stepping on F4EE territory  ) and well integrated into blender and multiples implementation exist on Github ( And Snapdragon can even write his own parser ). 

 

Thank you. It has indeed been way more work than I expected. 3D is very frustrating work imo. Especially when you are kind of building things backward. Most tutorials are assuming that you are building models/rigs/etc. from scratch before a game needs them. But, in the case of modding Fallout 4, you have to make everything so that it will be compatible with the existing meshes/skeletons/etc. It greatly complicates everything.

 

I'm pretty happy with the result so far though. Rigify is very feature-complete and "industry standard" as far as animation rigs go (and as far as my 3D experience goes). Check out the controls:

 

 

As far as formats go. I'm open to some new way. For Blender, the only process I've seen work is FBX->HKX.

 

I dont really like how Blender makes you bake actions. So, my last step now is to make a python script to do a one-click Fallout 4 anim export that does the bake and saves separate FBX for each actor with one click.

Edited January 6 by dagobaking

[mrwiseman]

37 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

As far as formats go. I'm open to some new way. For Blender, the only process I've seen work is FBX->HKX.

 

I dont really like how Blender makes you bake actions. So, my last step now is to make a python script to do a one-click Fallout 4 anim export that does the bake and saves separate FBX for each actor with one click.

Isn't a limitations from FBX with your specific rig ?
glTf came to mind, because it support skeletal animation decoupled from and applicable to any models.
The hard parts would be decoding the animation and applied transformations on each bones, but i figured that most of it has already be done in one form or an other.

[dagobaking]

18 minutes ago, mrwiseman said:

Isn't a limitations from FBX with your specific rig ?
glTf came to mind, because it support skeletal animation decoupled from and applicable to any models.
The hard parts would be decoding the animation and applied transformations on each bones, but i figured that most of it has already be done in one form or an other.

 

No. It's Blender. So, you could export to any kind of format. I haven't tried it. But, it should work fine exporting to glTf.

 

The FBX part I mentioned is just the process of converting it to HKX for in-game use (with the vanilla system).

Edited January 6 by dagobaking

[sen4mi]

7 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Google v Oracle involved the API for an entire language that was used on a huge number of applications in different industries. That is not remotely comparable to a single API made specifically for one application.

 

Well, it's certainly true that the Oracle API issue covered quite a lot of ground, while here we're talking about a mod which (in comparison) relatively few people use.

 

But that does not mean that the concept of "fair use" becomes irrelevant just because we're talking about modding.

 

Your assertions here seem sort of like if Bethesda were to claim that they could monetize mods without mod authors agreements because mod authors are using their interfaces. There's a bunch of reasons why they do not do that.

 

And, here, your xml specification is little more than an interface to Bethesda's engine. Which you do not own.

[mrwiseman]

13 hours ago, sen4mi said:

 

Well, it's certainly true that the Oracle API issue covered quite a lot of ground, while here we're talking about a mod which (in comparison) relatively few people use.

 

But that does not mean that the concept of "fair use" becomes irrelevant just because we're talking about modding.

 

Your assertions here seem sort of like if Bethesda were to claim that they could monetize mods without mod authors agreements because mod authors are using their interfaces. There's a bunch of reasons why they do not do that.

 

And, here, your xml specification is little more than an interface to Bethesda's engine. Which you do not own.

I do understand your frustration, but :
an API is an interface to a service aka the Papyrus functions exposed by AAF/NAF to dev ( not the same since mods need to be made compatible ).
XML is a storage format with is own specifications (syntax, types..) could be JSON, CSV.
ex : Lookmenu exposed his API to mods (tint, overlay, morph..) and presets are stored in JSON.
Dagobaking create an XML schema to store Animation datas. Think like a internal form at your job with fields specific to your work, that is protected.
just google "can you legally protect an XML schema"
Dagobaking made his decision very clear and i don't think he will change his stance not matter how much you "Phoenix Wright" him, but it will impact his work if we keep bugging him. 
Like all of us, i only want FO4 modding to be the best it can be. If Snapdragon and others really want to push forward FO4 animations, create a thread or a Discord ( i hate that thing ), invite all the LL's greatest minds and brainstorm the shit out of it.

[mrwiseman]

17 hours ago, dagobaking said:

 

The FBX part I mentioned is just the process of converting it to HKX for in-game use (with the vanilla system).

That's the "disgusting" part i whish to avoid :D. Having to chased Havok SDK on a suspect website written in Cyrillic just to get the tool is an harrowing experience.

[sen4mi]

38 minutes ago, mrwiseman said:

I do understand your frustration, but :
an API is an interface to a service aka the Papyrus functions exposed by AAF/NAF to dev ( not the same since mods need to be made compatible ).
XML is a storage format with is own specifications (syntax, types..) could be JSON, CSV.
ex : Lookmenu exposed his API to mods (tint, overlay, morph..) and presets are stored in JSON.
Dagobaking create an XML schema to store Animation datas. Think like a internal form at your job with fields specific to your work, that is protected.
just google "can you legally protect an XML schema"
Dagobaking made his decision very clear and i don't think he will change his stance not matter how much you "Phoenix Wright" him, but it will impact his work if we keep bugging him. 
Like all of us, i only want FO4 modding to be the best it can be. If Snapdragon and others really want to push forward FO4 animations, create a thread or a Discord ( i hate that thing ), invite all the LL's greatest minds and brainstorm the shit out of it.

Of course.

 

But an issue is whether this means that Dagobaking owns all of the mods which use that API -- whether he has the right to prevent other people from supporting that API.

[Dlinny_Lag]

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

You guys keep insisting that whether or not infringement occurred depends on me "showing proof" of some identical code.

Really? Perhaps, you just missing part of the messages. As usual. See my comments about data structures.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

I have proven, over and over, that this is not what the law is. Look up the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test.

You didi't. Screenshots you provided are lost. Code samples comparison is not provided. Data structures comparison is not provided. There is nothing to refer to. 

It looks like you think that just claim is enough to blame and punish someone, and you do not need to do anything to prove your point of view. But people still remember about presumption of innocence. 

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

examine the details of the products NOT JUST INCLUDING THE SOURCE CODE

Once again. You just skepped what I said about data structures. Seems like you think that ignoring reality would help you to prove the rightness of your position.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

whether something is substantially similar

Of course. There is more or less strict procedure exist to examine similarity. Still not perfect, but pretty manageable by a court.

 

 

Have to be ignored. Ideas are not the subject of copyright protection.

Spoiler

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

#A. A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A person has an original idea for an app that nobody has done. They build it out based on their own imagination and skills without any reference to the exact way a pre-existing app works. Other people use the first version, give feedback, and the app is revised over time.

 

#B. THE PROCESS SNAPDRAGON FOLLOWED: He did not have an original idea. Instead, he liked my ideas in AAF. He even admits it in his mod descriptions ("inspired by AAF"). Instead of going through his original idea to create something new he had to go through my XML API piece by piece and make C++ equivalents. There is no other way that would technically work. Let me repeat: In order to make NAF, SnapDragon had to look at the way AAF works IN VERY TECHNICAL AND SPECIFIC DETAIL and rule-by-rule make C++ equivalents.

 

 

Irrelevant example. have to be ignored. Software copyright protection processes and rules are not same to processes related to books/movies/songs/etc translations:

Quote

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

#C THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING "The Hunger Games" TO FRENCH: A writer does not have an original idea. But, they want The Hunger Games to reach French people and they want to add their own twist to the ending. So, word by word, they go through The Hunger Games in English and draft the same story in French. And then at the end they add their own chapter.

 

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

SnapDragon had to look at the way AAF works IN VERY TECHNICAL AND SPECIFIC DETAIL and rule-by-rule make C++ equivalents.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

ONE: #B is in fact what SnapDragon did.

You have to prove it. Just a reminder - presumption of innocence. You said that it is impossible to achieve the same result in NAF as in AAF without copyright infringement, but you are wrong. I've provided you a real world example.

Moreover, it is possible to express pretty complex idea by multiple ways. Always. I can confirm it as a software development expert.

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

The evidence is obvious by looking at the way

No. Defenitely, no. I can help you to see how it is not so obvious. Do you need it? FYI, level of similarity between AAF and NAF (data models and sequence of operations) is not so significant you may think. You mentioned Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. Try to execute it, you have access to your source codes %)

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

TWO: #B is more similar to #C than #A. In other words, what SnapDragon did is called copying and it infringes on my rights.

Making conclusion based on irrelevant points doesn't help. Sentence can be ignored.

Edited January 7 by Dlinny_Lag

[Dlinny_Lag]

20 hours ago, dagobaking said:

A. Two different animation frameworks that borrow nothing from each other? Proves my point.

Definitely, it doesn't . When both of them borrow something from 3rd side work. 

[mrwiseman]

1 hour ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Really? Perhaps, you just missing part of the messages. As usual. See my comments about data structures.

 

You didi't. Screenshots you provided are lost. Code samples comparison is not provided. Data structures comparison is not provided. There is nothing to refer to. 

It looks like you think that just claim is enough to blame and punish someone, and you do not need to do anything to prove your point of view. But people still remember about presumption of innocence. 

 

Once again. You just skepped what I said about data structures. Seems like you think that ignoring reality would help you to prove the rightness of your position.

 

Of course. There is more or less strict procedure exist to examine similarity. Still not perfect, but pretty manageable by a court.

 

 

Have to be ignored. Ideas are not the subject of copyright protection.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Irrelevant example. have to be ignored. Software copyright protection processes and rules are not same to processes related to books/movies/songs/etc translations:

 

 

 

You have to prove it. Just a reminder - presumption of innocence. You said that it is impossible to achieve the same result in NAF as in AAF without copyright infringement, but you are wrong. I've provided you a real world example.

Moreever, it is possible to express pretty complex idea by multiple ways. Always. I can confirm it as an software development expert.

 

No. Defenitely, no. I can help you to see how it is not so obvious. Do you need it? FYI, level of similarity between AAF and NAF (data models and sequence of operations) is not so significant you may think. You mentioned Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. Try to execute it, you have access to your source codes %)

 

Making conclusion based on irrelevant points doesn't help. Sentence can be ignored.

Once and for all, it is not about the code use. 

NOT THE SAME API :

NAF is not a dropping replacement, because it didn't expose the same API than AAF, otherwise you wouldn't have to wait for mods to be compatible. ex : AAF_something vs somethingNANIM

NOT THE SAME CODE, BUT :

The only thing in common between AAF and NAF is the usage of AAF's XML to load animation. Sure both code will share ressemblance, there is not many way to parse a file, a state machine or a simple loop are the same in every languages.

THE PROBLEM IS WHAT THE CODE READ NOT THE CODE ITSELF :

An XML schema is an intellectual proprietary.
It is the usage of Dagobaking XML schema and the fact Snapdragon obviously read AAF sources to retroengineer his own parser. He surely wrote it from scratch and i suspect it was for him the easiest way to get animations in his framework.

By the way Modding doesn't equal piracy. There is no illegalities involved with the script extender, not the way it is done. There is no patching of codes involved, no binaries modifications. Silverlock team used some mighty black magic to map every memory addresses used by the creation engine and hooked an interface to it.

THERE IS NO BAD GUYS :

But in the end, he use all past and future efforts put in AAF for his own project, clearly announce as an AAF replacement.
Imagine Dagobaking publish his animation workflow for AAF and everybody use it with NAF. It would be a kick in the balls ? Like if Android phone had a compatibility with iOS and access to the AppleStore.
He is welcome to create is own format ( surely needed anyway to handle the extra features ) and even open it to be integrated elsewhere, if popularity grow. 
To be fair to Snapdragon, jumpstarting a new framework with no contents or mod integrations must feel like being asked to have prior experiences during your first job interview.

Unlike Skyrim or Sims, there not that much animators for FO4, wouldn't take long to PM them about a new format, a new API, needs. I feel that NAF was born from a frustration with AAF and like Thanos said "Fine, i will do it myself".
If he really wanted to replace AAF, he would have exported the same functions as AAF.

[Dlinny_Lag]

2 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

The only thing in common between AAF and NAF is the usage of AAF's XML to load animation.

Not the only. There are a few other areas that might be considered as "similar". For example, as Dagoba mentioned in the messages that are lost already - list of arguments passed to Play functions. But its similarity is very low - less than 20%. And moreover - it can be easily decreased to 10%. To the 0% - not so easily, but feasible.

Another aspect - importing XML files does not violate Dagoba's copyright at all. It is technical method that is not considered as creative work and falls to exclusions category. Even data model used to store imported data in memory is not the subject of protection.

The only thing that remain unclear - similarity of processes that uses the data. Dagoba states that it is not possible to achieve same result as in AAF using the same data without infringement. I say that it is possible. And I can see it from NAF sources.

 

2 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

the fact Snapdragon obviously read AAF sources to retroengineer his own parser.

Not at all. It is not necessary to read Dagoba's code to read AAF XML files. XML schema is publicly documented. Moreover - the strong documentation (XLS file) is published. It is enough to write code for data importing.

 

2 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

clearly announce as an AAF replacement.

Stop, what? Where did you see an announce of replacement?

 

2 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

Like if Android phone had a compatibility with iOS and access to the AppleStore.

Why not? Pretty good idea. Standardization is a blessing.

 

2 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

he would have exported the same functions as AAF.

Oh, no. Don't please. AAF design is pretty mediocre. I don't like the idea to replicate such crude design.

 

 

Edited January 7 by Dlinny_Lag