[Mazzlefizz]

Yeah, I've seen the thread in the UI forums. I think it's a vicious mob-like mess that is strife with inaccuracies and unfair characterizations. I must admit there are a couple good points though.

Aurelai, I never said that people should not modify their own files. Just because I did not allow them to be posted here, does not imply the stronger position that I think people are not allowed to modify their files. I just don't want to support this particular one. It's not hypocritical to discourage things I don't agree with.

And your claim that copyright does not apply is also not true. Well, iyou didn't actually specify an object, but if you mean to imply that copyright does not apply to addons, that's not true. When I mentioned copyright, I was specifically talking about the first "patch" he posted that was straight-up code modified and re-distributed. In one of WoW forum post, Iriel even confirmed that she'd think I have every right to complain about code modified and redistributed.

Originally Posted by Iriel I believe he can reasonably object to people re-distributing his AddOn with the gasm removed, or edited, simply because he specifically requests that they dont in each file. I dont believe he has any such objection to executables performing 'surgical updates' of the code, or AddOns that ensure that the code doesn't actually happen. (And if so, they're most certainly NOT on copyright grounds)

Anyway, when that guy changed his patch from actual code re-distribution to some sort of diff patch, I explicitly said that I had no idea how copyright applies to patches. I did not petition any site to remove those patches. (I might have at worldofwar, but I at that time I was assuming that it was the same as the one he posted on curses. Actually, I don't know which one he has up there now.) So, all these people extending what I said to procedural patches or even just self-modifications is patently unfair.

And Psychehammer, just b/c I know people have every right to do whatever the hell they want on their own computer (I never said otherwise), does not mean I have to support, encourage or instruct people on how to make changes. I don't like this particular change, so I didn't support it. If somebody released a patch that turned the installer graphics into a bunch of nude porno starlets, I would not support those (well, maybe a little on the inside, but not enough to allow it to be hosted in whatever capacity to choose that). My not actively or passively supporting external modification does not imply anything about your rights on your computer.

That said, I did find that post you linked to makes a good point. I'm big enough to say that he's probably right. I do some patch-like stuff in my add-ons. While I don't do it to override the specific wishes of the author -- it's usually just to make things easier to configure or modify -- I don't think there's an objective measure of what's a valid reason to patch and what isn't. While I probably won't continue this project -- today really opened my eyes to the nasty and unfair nature of people I'm spending all my time on -- as long as they're not releasing modified code, I'm not going to take any issue with patches being posted elsewhere any more. Post a porn version of the installer at your own risk. I don't think people will react well to it.