Sorry, I often overlook the members of Q that behaved in this manner since I was never part of that camp and they are all gone now - out of sight out of mind. Anyway they all left when they realized that the rest of the Q Team wasn't going to go further than stating that people who wanted to rip Q apart had to ask the creators of the stuff in it and not the Q Team to use that content. To MY knowledge, Project Q has never threatened to sue people for removing Q content and adding it to their own HAKs or modifying it. I can't really comment on chat conversations that I wasn't privy too or have no knowledge of. I can only comment on the conversations I had with people and, in those conversations, we were too busy discussing modeling. That being said, I'd love to see that chat transcript because, AFAIK, it was only two members of the Q Team that "vigorously pursued these issues with the community" and it was largely over works they had done BEFORE Q and had NOTHING to do with Q and was largely centered on content listed on the Vault. I know for a time he had me leaning towards the "ownership camp," but then I saw what the argument was doing to the community, smartened up, and moved on.
The current Project Q Team is NOT the old Project Q Team - ALL of those people have moved on and left us holding the bag. Holding the current team responsible for what a former team member once said - when it reflected only their personal feelings and NOT the rest of the team - is no fairer than someone saying that TAD is now responsible for everything ever said by the CEP Team because he's taken over CEP development. You also missed the point of my previous post: the only threats of litigation came from within the community. I used the CEP2 Team as an example because Malishara was the most recent purveyor of these views.
As far as people using Q content, whether in whole or in part, I think I speak for all the current team members when I say we love to see derivative works by other people. It makes me giddy just knowing that people are actually using some of the stuff I have worked so hard to get out to the community.
A pity you edited this post after I'd liked it; the new wording (which I QFT above) is
not agreed. My evidence might be in breach of the site rules, so I will post elsewhere and provide a link.
EDIT : on reflection, to keep this low profile, I've sent the evidence to Pstemarie. If anyone else wants to see, send me a PM.
There's nothing in my post to suggest that anyone currently involved in Project Q is a threat to the community (quite the contrary), but it's only in recent weeks that I've downgraded Q from a red risk, as a result of your helpful license clarification. It's well understood in professional marketing that when a brand creates a toxic image for itself, customers will continue to have a negative impression long after the underlying reality has improved; you can't fix that by blaming the customers. I commend your efforts to overcome that, but, if you don't mind me saying so, you're not helping by being in denial about the past.
The point here is not to reopen old wounds, but to be clear about what went wrong, so that we don't do it again.
Modifié par Proleric, 14 juin 2014 - 07:26 .
