Does this really mean what it says?

http://wiki.yoyogames.com/index.php/Game_M...Property_Rights


That everything related to your game (music, concept art, story, etc) is property of YoYo Games if it's made in Game Maker?

If not, this really needs clarification. (Also, you typo'd "therefore")

No, it doesn't say that.

It's something that is called a legal text. In legal texts the last thing that's important is the readability, so if you're not able to read it, you should let someone else explain it to you. Now it has been explained countless times before, so just search for it.

Also, no, they didn't typo therefore. Therefor is a formal alternative to therefore.

Reread the first paragraph where "Software" is defined as:

In the EULA the legally defined word "Software" never refers to your game and your IP. Basically what they are saying in the part you quoted is that if you use within your Game Maker game any assets (sprites, sounds, etc) provided by YoYo, you must agree not to claim that they are yours whether YoYo allows you to use them or not.

This has been covered many times here. Search or consult a legal expert for more information.

Though I don't agree with Score_under's interpretation of that paragraph, he is correct that the EULA is unnecessarily unreadable. Including unenforceable and nonsense statements, with the release of GM8, this is an opportunity to clean it up. Perhaps a bug report, when mantis is available, might be prudent.

That's what I find unclear. Having the runner software doing all the processing could possibly be a connection. (And... what catch phrases exist in any examples? How about storylines? I don't see why else they'd write this).


Is the second one really a viable option? Seriously?

(That is, for a 16-year-old hobbyist with a grand total of ten pence to spend.)


I am glad that someone else sees this.
Also, practicality. Unreadability has none.

I'd always thought this was a common sense thing. Like if they actually owned the rights to anything you created for your GM game then surely hardly anyone would use GM at all. I'd find it too hard to believe they'd do that.

YoYo responds to this very issue in this topic:
http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=2131627

And from the end of the thread:


I hope that's enough to satisfy you that YoYo isn't out to steal your stuff.

so the fact of the runner is still a problem in commercial distribution. No way around it, I guess?

It's not a problem; you just can't claim that you made it, because you didn't. Still common sense.

It's a bit verbose, and it contains some redundant and unnecessary verbiage. That's harmless. But there's nothing particularly ambiguous.

Given the user base, however, it might be useful to add a simple "preface" like the Game Maker software, and all its component parts, belong to YoYo Games. Any games or applications created by the user belongs to him.

Most users would stop there. Anyone wanting more clarity could read the EULA that follows.

Sorry, but it's not. I haven't wirtten anything!

Could this be a deliberate tactic to ensure victory over Game Maker users in the great struggle to control all GM-made games and then place them on the YYG site? I mean, not everyone will notice the misplaced 'r'. It's almost as if someone's up to something... Hmm...

Well, some of us never complete our games anyway.

They could simply write a better EULA for GM8. This one is not clear about our rights. All we have is a forum post, nothing legally valid.

The forum post explains the EULA. It means the same thing.

Yes it is. It's perfectly clear.


The EULA is legally valid. In addition to the section already discussed, it contains this statement at the beginning:

The Games you create with the Software may be used by you as you wish without payment of any licence fee or royalty PROVIDED THAT such Games comply with these Terms including without limitation as set out in clause 3 below.

Then again is Section 3:
3.2. Stand-alone versions of games created with the Software can be distributed without any licensing fees.

So what exactly are you worried about?

@score_under



I was thinking that the whole time I was reading the first post to this topic.

Yeah, the only people who are going to understand that are lawers(spelling?). And if they did do that then less people would be asking these questions.

Note To Self: Don't take future legal advice from the above kid.

Haha!

lol. hehe. It was supposed to be different. Oh, and that joke is true(except the kid part), I have no idea about legal stuff. Only that doing certain things like stealing, etc, is ilegal. lol.

There was a thread in the Distributing forums, asking 'exactly' the same question:
http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showtopic=443451

After NPT provided the answer, and link, that xot provided in this thread, the topic was closed.

@Commander of Games: 'lawyers'.

Little do any of you realize the invisible printed bit at the end which sells your soul to YYG.

You seriously just realized this? Dude, GM7's been out for years. So has this argument.

Also, I remember a promise a long time ago about a new EULA being released. As with most Sandy promises, we've yet to see it come. Hopefully GM8 would be a good time for an update.

It creates limitations well beyond their mandate to limit.

If you have a problem with this EULA take a look at apples.

So how exactly does looking at apples EULA, alleviate my problems with YYG's EULA?

Oh, I get it! You've found another EULA, that in your opinion, is worse than YYGs, therefore your point is YYG's EULA must be okay because there's a worse one out there.

Do you know how silly that argument is?

Ahahaha! Those limitations are hilarious.

Does it say anywhere I can't make a game that features child labor?

That depends, does



count?

So I can't make a pot smoking hero!??! By unlawful, illegal, immoral, which country's law are we talking about here?

And I agree that the words "in or connected with the Software" are ambiguous... After all your game, your self made dlls are or any other resources used by you game is "connected" to the software since they rely on GM to work.

Those "limitations" aren't intended to be enforced by the EULA. They're intended to help protect YYG from 3rd-party litigation. If a user gets sued for illegal activity while using GM, YYG doesn't want to share his fate.

For example, after a murder has been committed with a gun, there's been civil lawsuits against gun shop owners who sold the gun, and even gun manufacturers who made the gun! There's been similar lawsuits against software makers whose users were involved in illegal file-sharing.

In our overly litigious world, these EULA statements are a necessary precaution, as silly they may sound. They provide some distance between the manufacturer, and a criminal who might misuse their product.

It would be rather simple just to state, in plain English
GM cannot be held accountable for the products created by it's users...

Can you imagine the eula for MS word trying to enumerate every possible negative outcome of a document in order to detach themselves for the actions of the people who uses it? fonny eula excerpts: You cannot write break up letters, terrorist manifestos,...

I don't know why lawyers think adding more and more details to cover their asses is a good thing. Even using/inventing new lawyer lingo to encompass many outcomes under illegible word or sentences. There is simply no way to put to words all possible outcomes. Unfortunately we are living in a world where you need warning on everything because people a freakn crazy and can sue everybody else for their stupidity. Soon you will find a "Do not use as suppository" on McDonald's coffee cups because some dumb ass will do it and claim there was no warning on the cup.

there seems to be alot of legal wizards in here, so Im going to ask this, I DO NOT want to start a discussion on this, just a quick answer if you please!

in the EULA it states this :

3.3. Neither you nor any third party may modify, adapt, decompile or reverse engineer the Games.


as the GML code contained in the exe version of the game is not compiled, does this mean those so-called decompilers (that get GML code out of the exe) are not breaking this section of the EULA. or would that come under the monicer of reverse-engineer?

if you must know why I ask this, I cannot understand why I am not allowed to do this to my own games. I had a situation a while back where I had lost the GM6 file for a game I made, but later got it back by used a so called decompiler (which recreated the gm6 for me in its complete form) and as a result I got a complete and utter reeming on this forum. :S

Yes, it would fall under reverse-engineer. Also under modify and adapt. I think you knew that already, but just wanted to discuss decompilers... which we're not going to do here.


That section is already plain English, and easy to understand. But I DO agree it's somewhat redundant. They could probably reduce it and be just as effective. Nevertheless, given the INCREDIBLE hassle of litigation, it's understandable why EULAs tend to go overboard with specifics.

But that wasn't the point of my comment. I was simply pointing out that its purpose isn't an attempt to mandate users, as NPT implied. Its purpose is liability protection.

no I actually wanted to clarify a EULA term, which is the topic of the thread "Clarifying The E.u.l.a. Terms"

but thanks for your answer, next time think about keeping personal opinions to yourself, also I said I dont want to start a discussion

I only just found out today that gm doesnt compile your code, but interprits it at runtime. hence the question

modify, adapt, should not even be in the same sentence as decompile or reverse engineer here... BTW, this sentence implies that a virus injecting malignent code in one of your games <after distribution> would put you ask risk of loosing your GM licence.

decompile or reverse engineer:
It is not enforcable if you own the game. In fact it is not enforcable period. Only the creator of the game can complain and sue about his game being decompiled or modified.

Reverse engineering is perfectly legal (if properly done, see link), no matter what any eula says. In fact that is how we now have IBM PC clones today. So it's in the eula but not enforcable
[edit] Actually, I may have flipped my terminology here in that IBM case... verifying
link
link2
[/edit]

suggested decompile or reverse engineer eula:
GM cannot be held responsible for intelectual property theft by use of decompilers or any other means to extract game code or resources contained in the runner or project files.

suggested modify, adapt eula
GM Cannot be held responsible for end user arm (your game users) caused by modified runner code of the games. Using such (non approved) techonogy may result in (your) licence termination.

Note that if you use a decompiler and it screws up your stuff, don't go ask yoyo to fix it LOL.

If that is the case, that's very unprofessional.

You might as well be limiting the use to not making any sprite with the resolution 32x32

Just another lame, half-thought excuse to keep 6.1 for a second longer.

What's anything in this topic have to do with that?

The [yoyogames] EULA isn't associated with Gm6, is it?

You mean the game <example> or the eula?

LOL... Like I said, what country's law are we supposed to assume. It's an international product.

How about some bubble gum chewing hero? That would be unlawful/immoral in Singapore (is that stupid law still there). What would yoyo do in this case?

Anyhoo. this discussion is only for fun. I understand that eula is there to cover all possible grounds for protection agains the ridicule. However this can be covered in more general terms whitout attempting to enumerate specific cases and without using words that sound limiting to the game creator/developer but using words meant to protect the game maker product.

I think the main problem here is that if you would reference Game Maker in your game splash screen (eg, like non registered GM automatically does) then it appears that Game Maker is the creator of the game. And therefore, would be the target of any legal persuits. It is understandable to find such requirements in the eula. However the flaw is that the statements in the eula are not distributed to the final user, nor are they worded in a way to inform that user of the steps Game Maker went through to make sure everything made with GM is relatively "clean" and if it is not, it is Not Game Maker's fault.

I know, I'm aware of that. I mean I have to include it myself (and no one does it). Have you seen even one game that did it? It relies on me doing it and if I make a game anonimously there is no way they can trace it back (i think). GM's protection related writings should be included in the exe and shown by GM when it boots. Maybe just a short blurb to visit www.yoyogames.com for it would be sufficient.

No.

Just, no. That little clause protects YYG. Forcing it on the user is ridiculous. You don't get a "Made in Adobe Flash" before you play a flash game.

EDIT: Also, KCLC has included a YYG eula thing in one or two of her games.

The concept of immoral in this sort of context is absolutely ridiculous, as morality (as opposed to ethics) is a personal thing. It would be difficult enough to define "unethical," but "immoral" would never hold up in court. EULA's have a hard time holding up when legally challenged, GM's EULA would crumble if a lawyer so much as looked at it.

You've obviously missed the point of this recent discussion. YYG would never try to enforce that on a user. That's just silly.

Look, many EULAs include similar statements. YYG is just following the trend of self-protection. For example, here's the EULA for PaintShop:


None of these statements are an attempt to "control user behavior". Besides, this has nothing to do with who owns your Games -- and that's what is important here.

NPT got it right. Just because Apple or PaintShop do something, it doesn't mean YYG should too. That's stupid.

Oh, come on! Sure, just following someone blindly, is stupid, but Apple, Paintshop, and YYG aren't dumb people!(indeed, they are full out companies) Ever stopped to think 'why' they are writing this 'stupid' stuff? I can give you a clue... it's not 'just' because someone else did it.

/edit: spelling

It should suffice to say this:

But we can understand why they include all these "you shall not" statements. Who can blame them?

In today's world, as soon as someone gets in trouble, we start looking for someone to sue. Like parent's lawsuits against Facebook because someone bullied their kid.

What I find ironic about these (justifiably) paranoid EULAs, is that they're an attempt by one group of lawyers to protect the Company from.... other lawyers! In response to frivolous lawsuits from unscrupulous lawyers, companies must hire more lawyers to write these EULAs.

Now that's a profession that knows how to do business.

NPT, I don't know who said it better {in spirit}, King Henry VI or Shakespeare.


EDIT: @Post below.