The Bridge (AAF to NAF)

[Dlinny_Lag]

 

9 hours ago, dagobaking said:

9 hours ago, nodtrial said:

Actually it have basically difference in it meaning. So if it was your file, it works with your mod AAF, isn't it? But it don't. It just doesn't make any sense, right?

 

Nope. I looked at many different files, i'm studying. And from your files and many other. Anyway my file is more then for 50% different from yourse. The similarity in some places is due to the fact that I learned from your code, and also my mod should deceive mods written for your mod. You do not have rights to the papyrus, sorry. 

 

Sorry, English is not my native language, so maybe I'm writing something unclear. But I can always try to explain.

Expand  

 

It doesn't matter that your file is 50% different. It could be 99% different and if you derived it from mine, which you admit that you did, you are infringing on my copyright.

 

You both are wrong.

Computer programs are not just literary works. And text comparison is not applicable here to make a decision about similarity.

Text similarity may be an indicator of infringement, but it is not the acceptable proof. Not acceptable in a court, I can't say what happens in a head of different people.

Maybe 40 years ago computer programs was considered as just literary works, but not today.

 

 

5 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I have copyrights to the work that I create. The fact that you can make derivatives with Bethesda tools does not change anything about my rights.

I guess you misunderstand the word "work". Not any type/kind of work is protected by copyright low. But "creative work" is under protection.

 

1) You have to know already - ideas are not protected by copyright low. For computer programs the only expression of idea is protected. 

2) Also you should know about Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison approach used today to distinguish idea and expression. And see the quote:

Quote

" [w]hen there is essentially only one way to express an idea, the idea and its expression are inseparable and copyright is no bar to copying that expression."

 

Now about how above is applicable to your "work".

Papyrus in Fallout 4 game gives a techical method to call functions and pass arguments to these functions. This method requires functions declarations and arguments declarations in Papyrus source code. So, when it is necessary to call any Papyrus function and pass arguments then function and argument types must be declared. It is the only known way to guarantee that function can be called.

To be honest, in theory it is possible to manupulate script engine and intercept Papyrus binary code execution, but there is no known sample to prove that it is achievable.

 

Now back to the ideas and expressions in products we discussing:

Bridge's idea - allow 3rd party mods that uses AAF API to use NAF functionality without 3rd party code modification. I want to note - it is completely diffrent idea, than expressed by AAF. 

To express this idea author has only single known way - declare functions and structures identically as it is done in AAF. Declare, not implement.

This part of expression is not protected by copyright low.

Another aspect - names of functions, names of structures, names of structure fields are considered as facts, not expressions. Names itself are filtered out during Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison and can not be protected by copyright low.

And I repeat, API itself is not protected by copyright low. There were a lot of wide known examples of it. Most important (from my point of view) example - Wine project.

 

@dagobaking

In Bridge, there is no infringement at all, I do not see any idea expression copied. If you want to prove infringement you have to show identical expressions, not functions and structures declarations.

Maybe your thoughts was truth 40 years ago, but the courts makes decisions using different criteria more than 30 years.

Don't push your vision of it, we refuse your incorrect vision of copyright protection.

 

For those interested:

You can use this article as the start the bulding of your knowledge about copyright protection.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Dlinny_Lag

[Miauzi]

No copyright on a "work" - because you don't use a program interface for your "work" - which you obviously wrote yourself - but the rights holder of the program interface would automatically have the rights to all "works" created on his products. .

What a stupid argument... then "Mircosoft" as the rights holder of the "Window" operating system should have all rights to products that run on its operating system - for example to all Window versions of Bedestha.

And of course no architect would have the copyright to his building design (such as an airport terminal) - just because he used a CAD program or a "painting" program (for the sketches) - but rather these rights (for the "work") would lie with the owners of the programs used.

Attention - purchasing a CAD program does not acquire ownership, but only a right of use... the product aka "work" - which is created with it - of course belongs to the designer or his company!

 

 

[nodtrial]

10 minutes ago, georgechalkias said:

The negative part is;

- The strap-on doesn't appear? At least in manually assigned animations. It still appears in violate for example.

- Some animations don't play or aren't too synced? Could be animation issue rather than NAF.

- I can't move when NAF menu is opened?

- Didn't seem to be super compatible with FO4's existing NSFW. Some work is still needed.

1. For strapons trouble you should check for xmls, it should works fine.

2. It is probably xml troubles too. It will be better if you ask Snapdragon about it! Check the naf log first!

3. You cant, yes it is. It opens/closes by pressing one key.

 

P s. I like that finally we started talk about mod))

[Miauzi]

2 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

 

 

Ihr habt beide Unrecht.

Computerprogramme sind nicht nur literarische Werke. Und ein Textvergleich ist hier nicht anwendbar, um eine Entscheidung über die Ähnlichkeit zu treffen.

Textähnlichkeit kann ein Indikator für einen Verstoß sein, ist aber kein akzeptabler Beweis. Vor Gericht nicht akzeptabel, ich kann nicht sagen, was in den Köpfen verschiedener Leute passiert.

Vor 40 Jahren galten Computerprogramme vielleicht nur als literarische Werke, aber heute nicht mehr.

 

 

Ich vermute, Sie verstehen das Wort „Arbeit“ falsch. Nicht jede Art von Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Aber „schöpferische Arbeit“ steht unter Schutz.

 

1) Sie müssen es bereits wissen – Ideen sind nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt. Bei Computerprogrammen ist lediglich der Ausdruck einer Idee geschützt. 

2) Sie sollten auch über den Abstraktion-Filtration-Vergleich-Ansatz Bescheid wissen, der heute zur Unterscheidung von Idee und Ausdruck verwendet wird. Und siehe das Zitat :

 

Nun dazu, wie das oben Gesagte auf Ihre „Arbeit“ anwendbar ist.

Papyrus im Fallout 4-Spiel bietet eine technische Methode zum Aufrufen von Funktionen und zum Übergeben von Argumenten an diese Funktionen. Diese Methode erfordert Funktionsdeklarationen und Argumentdeklarationen im Papyrus-Quellcode. Wenn es also notwendig ist, eine Papyrus-Funktion aufzurufen und Argumente zu übergeben, müssen Funktions- und Argumenttypen deklariert werden. Dies ist die einzige bekannte Möglichkeit, um sicherzustellen, dass die Funktion aufgerufen werden kann.

Um ehrlich zu sein, ist es theoretisch möglich, die Skript-Engine zu manipulieren und die Ausführung des Papyrus-Binärcodes abzufangen, aber es gibt kein bekanntes Beispiel, das beweist, dass dies möglich ist.

 

Nun zurück zu den Ideen und Ausdrücken in Produkten, die wir besprechen:

Die Idee von Bridge: Erlauben Sie Mods von Drittanbietern, die die AAF-API Funktionen aufzurufen verwenden, NAF- , ohne den Code von Drittanbietern zu ändern. Ich möchte anmerken, dass es sich um eine völlig andere Idee handelt als die, die AAF zum Ausdruck bringt.  

Um diese Idee auszudrücken, gibt es für den Autor nur eine bekannte Möglichkeit: Funktionen und Strukturen auf die gleiche Weise zu deklarieren, wie es in AAF geschieht. Deklarieren, nicht implementieren.

Dieser Teil des Ausdrucks ist nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Ein weiterer Aspekt: Namen von Funktionen, Namen von Strukturen und Namen von Strukturfeldern werden als Fakten und nicht als Ausdrücke betrachtet. Namen selbst werden beim Abstraktion-Filter-Vergleich herausgefiltert und können nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt werden.

Und ich wiederhole, die API selbst ist nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt. Es gab viele weithin bekannte Beispiele dafür. Wichtigstes (aus meiner Sicht) Beispiel – Weinprojekt .

 

@dagobaking

In Bridge liegt überhaupt kein Verstoß vor, ich sehe keinen kopierten Ideenausdruck. Wenn Sie einen Verstoß nachweisen möchten, müssen Sie identische Ausdrücke anzeigen, keine Funktions- und Strukturdeklarationen.

Vielleicht waren Ihre Gedanken vor 40 Jahren wahr, aber die Gerichte treffen ihre Entscheidungen vor mehr als 30 Jahren nach anderen Kriterien.

Übertreiben Sie nicht Ihre Vorstellung davon, wir lehnen Ihre falsche Vorstellung vom Urheberrechtsschutz ab.

 

Für Interessierte:

verwenden Sie können diesen Artikel als Ausgangspunkt für den Aufbau Ihres Wissens über den Urheberrechtsschutz .

 

 

 

The courts do not make a uniform decision... everyone can choose the judgments that suit their argument - especially in matters of "copyright" or which "work" has sufficient "authority".

I know this because of my professional life in the construction industry... as a rule, building designs (the actual work of an architect) are created on CAD programs... at what point is there a "level of creation" protected by copyright - because often it is The architect's design was changed during the actual construction phase - without the architect being contractually involved.

The questions that often need to be clarified before a court are:

- the architect must be compensated because his “work” was changed

- the client may change or have the design (the architect's work) changed or changed without the architect's consent

etc.

[nodtrial]

37 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

No copyright on a "work" - because you don't use a program interface for your "work" - which you obviously wrote yourself - but the rights holder of the program interface would automatically have the rights to all "works" created on his products. .

Stupid or not, but it is. It is in bethesda license. If microsoft had same for visual studio for example... Nobody would use it ))

Actually it not exactly as you wrote. It is more about files format. Pex and psc is bethesda files, and if you used their formats you've transferred all your rights for your product to bethesda. Thats the license.

 

But it is from law point. I can say in any gentlement rules - I am wrote code poviding mod functionality fully by myself. It is very different in its work and in its full text from d-code. Mod have aaf as hard requirement. I didn't do something that can be identified as steal nowhere except healthless fantasies of someone person.

Sorry it was wrote without translater, so... I hope you understand correct what it is about.

 

Actually i think he is upset because AAF still is somewhere in 2017-18 in its realization. I'm sure, a long time ago it was revolutionary, it was good, and we must to tell "Thank you for this". And go further. Because time is goes on. Skyrim have much better frameworks, because there is no such kind of Dagoba, whose doesn't do any by hisself, but stops other to do better things. Some people just dont want to look at reality and change themself with it. 

And it is not about my bridge. Bridge is minor. The most is NAF.

Edited March 16 by nodtrial

[Dlinny_Lag]

7 hours ago, Ashal said:

and decompiled PEX files don't look like that.

It might be a bad idea to just compare results of decompiler. The order of code elements (functions, variables, events, etc.) declarations causes difference in the texts. 

Better way - sort all code elements and then compare text. But anyway, it is incorrect to compare text of computer programs. See my previous post.

[Dlinny_Lag]

45 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

everyone can choose the judgments that suit their argument

Dagoba refer US court. So I refer US copyright protection low.

[nodtrial]

Actually I dont mind if Dagoba will do best again. I ll be one of the first who will tell - wow king back. But there is no possibility to do best if all you are doing is scandals and hysterics.

[Dlinny_Lag]

52 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

I know this because of my professional life in the construction industry.

Sorry, but referencing different domain is irrelevant. Software copyright protection has own proving procedures that are different to procedures of copyright protection in other domains.

Your reference might be used as a metaphor, but metaphor can not be used as a prove of something. Metaphor just allows to understand something in a more easier way than direct explanation.

Edited March 16 by Dlinny_Lag

[DasKebab]

Hmm, what happened to the Nexus version? Did it got clapped?

[Dlinny_Lag]

6 minutes ago, nodtrial said:

Sorry, I don't know what the customs are on the site.

You can use "Contact Us" link at the bottom of page.

Edited March 16 by Dlinny_Lag

[DasKebab]

I haven't seen this much modding discourse since Ostim and Osex issues lmao.

From my own experience with NAF, NAF appears much stabler and runs better in general compared to AAF. Both used the same framework from what I can gather, but seeing how different both run, I can say that NAF is it's own thang.

[DasKebab]

Also, detecting Trojan on download, or is it just me?

[Dlinny_Lag]

7 minutes ago, DasKebab said:

Also, detecting Trojan on download, or is it just me?

Just your antivirus software. False positive detection

[NS13]

Do I need to keep a copy of the XMLs in the AAF folder or can I just delete them once I've moved them to NAF?

[Dlinny_Lag]

27 minutes ago, NS13 said:

Do I need to keep a copy of the XMLs in the AAF folder or can I just delete them once I've moved them to NAF?

It theory, yes, you can delete them. But it would not recommended now, while Bridge is not fully tested yet.

Edited March 16 by Dlinny_Lag

[nodtrial]

26 minutes ago, NS13 said:

Do I need to keep a copy of the XMLs in the AAF folder or can I just delete them once I've moved them to NAF?

No, you don't should delete it. As I said some functions didn't provides by NAF at this moment, so I used third-party AAF requests to implement it.

[kziitd]

5 hours ago, nodtrial said:

I wrote a new code. This code doesn't do similar as Dagoba code, and main part of this code works by my algorythm, not Dagoba's. I can use papyrus, I can name my file as I want. So as you were say : yes, it is nothing. Any who can read papyrus - can be convinced personally. So, if we even move through that fact Dagoba have no any copyrights and exceptional right for using papyrus, there is no Dagoba code used for primary mods function. There won't be basically elements used in primary mod's function from Dagoba. 
Some code similarity is definitely possible, this is due to the fact that the task of the mod is to bypass AAF and transfer most of the functions to NAF. But this similarity is not much, and it does not provide the main declared functions of the mod. So you can kiss your Dagoba, take him on your hands and go to hell.

 

p.s. I would prefer that the whining and suffering stop in this thread and a healthy discussion of the mod itself begin. And please direct all your suffering to the Lord God, and not in this topic any more.

 

p.p.s. I kindly ask the moderators to wipe the comments of this topic. I am ready to answer all possible questions from moderators in private messages. It is very uncomfortable for users to open mod's topic and immediately fall into the abyss of squabbles and showdowns.

Why continue to use the path data/scripts/AAF?

Why name it the same AAF apipex?

Can it be data/scripts/bridge/bridge api.pex?

Do you need the same path and name to make other mods created for AAF think it hasn't changed?

If there are any changes, is your mod invalid? Because those mods only care about AAF api.pex?

Oh, by the way.

If you can't discuss with normal emotions, then the word 'go to hell' will be returned to you.

[iPhoenix8]

3 hours ago, georgechalkias said:

The author clearly doesn't speak English so there's some communication issues here.

 

What I'll say below is my personal opinion and feedback between the two mods. I decided to give NAF a brief try just to check. After giving it a try, I'll stick to AAF until NAF becomes easier to use.

For all its worth, NAF feels better on performance. Opening a menu when surrounded with multiple actors doesn't mini-freeze your game as AAF, mysteriously, does at random times. I tried to set 500ft or away in AAF and not only it would take a long time to scan actors but also froze for a second when it finished its scan.

With NAF, it instantly finds those actors within 500-700ft and no freeze either.

 

- Then you can easily choose actors with your mouse cursor on the list which is neat because such as feature does not exist in AAF since you are forced to use keyboard buttons to cycle through actor list which can take a long time.

- You can also choose actors during animation to QUICKLY swap animations (by going from Animation 1 to Animation 5 in one go) because AAF forces you to cycle through animations to find the animation you want.

- Finally, you can also choose furniture for huge distances (up to 750ft). I believe you can adjust that in AAF anyway. However, NAF instantly finds furns when AAF takes ~5 seconds more or less. So, I can choose up to 750ft for furniture. Not very viable since NPCs will despawn in such distance anyway. Companions may get auto-teleported back to you, depending on your multi-follower mod.

 

And, with this bridge mod, there are some MCM features to tick without manually editing .ini files as you have to with AAF.

 

The negative part is;

- The strap-on doesn't appear? At least in manually assigned animations. It still appears in violate for example.

- Some animations don't play or aren't too synced? Could be animation issue rather than NAF.

- I can't move when NAF menu is opened?

- Didn't seem to be super compatible with FO4's existing NSFW. Some work is still needed.

 

And, to be fair, while all these copyright stuff violation sucks (if true, anyway) and all that, you aren't immune from criticism @dagobaking either.

Your mod receives very few and minor updates over the years, it's not only a monopoly mod but archaic and not very convenient to use as I said above.

You claimed updates were in the works but halted due to IRL issues. While that is obviously understandable, you are charging unreleased versions in your Patreon. Your newest unreleased version is in July 2023. Since then, no updates. Not like there were any significant updates over the years anyway.

It appears that you have more time to argue on forums and send legal threats / DMCA against NAF rather than spend that free time improving your mod.

 

NAF is a good competition as it provides vastly different (and more) features than AAF does, is more modernized and is more convenient. What did YOU do to take steps to improve your mod since NAF was removed from LL? NAF's existence didn't seem to motivate you to improve AAF's convenience of use, for example.

However harsh it might sound, most players don't care about copyright stuff. They care about a good product. And that's up to them to judge which product is good in the end; AAF or NAF?

 

I'm sticking with AAF for now till NAF gets better because it has its potential. Despite AAF's cons, it's more 'ready' to use than NAF for now.

My take; instead of arguing about copyright and the whole 'stealing work' - AGAIN, IT SUCKS, YES - do take feedback as to why NAF exists and why people prefer NAF over AAF.

 

Below is the basic comparison I could see in limited gameplay. I'll leave that to your conclusion.

 

 

 

100%

[Douie]

2 hours ago, DasKebab said:

Hmm, what happened to the Nexus version? Did it got clapped?

Someone part of AAF went to nexus.

[evp]

The opinion of a mere user of your mods.

 

NAF v. AAF:

 

Speed of operation:

• AAF takes tens of seconds before the animation starts playing. Sometimes by the time the black screen ends, the animation was almost finished and I could only see the last frames of the animation.
• NAF starts showing instantly, it takes a few milliseconds. I first saw the first frames of some animations only when using the bridge discussed here.

Summary: The NAF is a modern jet as opposed to the early 20th century flying bookcase called the AAF.

 

Ease of Installation:

• Proper installation of an AAF is something not everyone can do. The existence of an "Fucking Manual" is proof of this.
• AAF is installed by the mod manager in two clicks. It can just as easily be installed manually.

Summary: hell and pain is what AAF installation is all about. NAF is no more difficult to install than any other single file mod.

 

I was shocked after installing this mod for the first time. Nexus - NAF download link, MO downloaded the archive himself and installed it in seconds. The same goes for the bridge. Then the more difficult part is copying the .xml. I believe this may be difficult for some. In my opinion, having to do this is the main drawback. I then launched the game. I didn't believe it would work right the first time, and prepared to spend a few hours customizing and googling for help. Surprisingly, everything worked right away. And very quickly, too. It was like a native animation released by the game developers.

 

Nothing can make me go back to AAF.

 

And I'm going to ask the developer not to make us copy the .xml. In my opinion it should happen without our direct involvement. And I'm not concerned about fictitious copyrights. The game should flow easily and smoothly. And that's the NAF way.

Edited March 16 by evp

[Yannis Valentine]

Ashal already said that this mod is allowed in this website so I dont see why people are still discussing 

[georgechalkias]

10 minutes ago, evp said:

The opinion of a mere user of your mods.

 

NAF v. AAF:

 

Speed of operation:

• AAF takes tens of seconds before the animation starts playing. Sometimes by the time the black screen ends, the animation was almost finished and I could only see the last frames of the animation.
• NAF starts showing instantly, it takes a few milliseconds. I first saw the first frames of some animations only when using the bridge discussed here.

 

Lemme correct on that part a bit.

You can actually 'disable' the black screen in AAF ini files. You can actually shorten the 'walk to target for animation' in the same ini file. If the duration surpassed and the NPCs still couldn't meet up? It'll skip straight to anim. It's all done manually in the ini file.

But, that's where NAF becomes successor; you can manually skip the walking time in real time. If you don't skip it, they'll try to walk. Furthermore, the bridge mod allows you to tune the animation duration.

 

But, I agree that the whole copy XML files to NAF can be a negative part. Furthermore, some other issues have been noted such as no strap-on on manually assigned anims which requires some manual work and can't move with NAF menu open.

Edited March 16 by georgechalkias

[jarno5]

This bridge mod is build to fail. As soon as Dago updates his API.pex, this mod will break.
I usualy dont take sides in futes like this, but im leaning towards Dago here.
This is the reason why we ask premission from mod authors to make patches and such.

 

 

 

This mod has potential if it can use the API instead of replacing it.

[Dlinny_Lag]

1 hour ago, kziitd said:

Why continue to use the path data/scripts/AAF?

Why name it the same AAF apipex?

Can it be data/scripts/bridge/bridge api.pex?

Do you need the same path and name to make other mods created for AAF think it hasn't changed?

If there are any changes, is your mod invalid? Because those mods only care about AAF api.pex?

I've answered these questions in my post.

Maybe answer is not detailed enough to be fully clear. I will try to clarify details:

3rd party mods expect functions with certain name in the script with certain name. It is the part of Papyrus scripting system, not Dagoba's "work". Dagoba had  to follow scripting engine rules with no choice, so it is not a creative work that can be protected by copyright lows.

So path and name of pex file must be identical to AAF's one. Not because of infringement, but because of functions calling system provided by Papyrus engine.

If there are any changes in AAF scripts that make Bridge invalid, then 3rd party mods become invalid as well. Maybe not all of them, depends on certain changes.