Hammer Editor - We have Valve's blessings!
by Mitovo · in Torque Game Engine · 04/05/2004 (10:13 am) · 39 replies
Hello all..
A little while back when I was looking for an editor to replace QuARK, I was checking out the Hammer editor and then quickly became aware of the uncertainty surrounding the terms of its use.. if it's allowed or not..
Well, me being rather impatient and unwilling to "sit and wonder" about such things, I decided to contact Valve directly.. Below is my email to them, and their response:
-------------------------------
From: mtvogel@bellsouth.net [mailto:mtvogel@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:30 PM
To: Contact
Subject: Licensing question...
To whom it may concern,
Hello. I'm emailing you to try and clear something up that seems to be a topic of some debate.
I'm a user of the Torque game development system from Garage Games. Part of that engine's development requires the use of BSP based geometry, specifically the V220 format common to Half Life (I believe).
The Hammer editor is a common recommendation for people to use. It's often noted that Valve had given their blessing for the Torque community to use the Hammer editor without fear of any kind of infringement or violation of licenses, etc. However, it's often followed-up by others with warnings that we are not allowed to use the editor because the permission was never made "official".
I really like the Hammer editor and would like to use it if possible (as I'm sure many others would as well). However, the uncertainty among the Torque community has me wary of doing so. So, I thought I'd go to the Source (no pun intended :-) and find out by contacting Valve directly.
So, is use of the Hammer editor permitted by developers using the Torque engine, or is it still disallowed?
I appreciate your time and assistance in helping to clear up this matter and look forward to your response..
Thank you and take care..
Mike V.
------------------------
Hi Mike,
Yes Hammer use *IS* permitted by developers using the Torque engine. We just have been too busy to formalize this legally, however we still have plans to do so in the future.
Rick Ellis
Valve Corporation
ricke@valvesoftware.com
---------------------------
So, there you have it. Some might still want to wait for a more formal announcement, but I think that clears up any uncertainty.
Take care!
Mike
A little while back when I was looking for an editor to replace QuARK, I was checking out the Hammer editor and then quickly became aware of the uncertainty surrounding the terms of its use.. if it's allowed or not..
Well, me being rather impatient and unwilling to "sit and wonder" about such things, I decided to contact Valve directly.. Below is my email to them, and their response:
-------------------------------
From: mtvogel@bellsouth.net [mailto:mtvogel@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:30 PM
To: Contact
Subject: Licensing question...
To whom it may concern,
Hello. I'm emailing you to try and clear something up that seems to be a topic of some debate.
I'm a user of the Torque game development system from Garage Games. Part of that engine's development requires the use of BSP based geometry, specifically the V220 format common to Half Life (I believe).
The Hammer editor is a common recommendation for people to use. It's often noted that Valve had given their blessing for the Torque community to use the Hammer editor without fear of any kind of infringement or violation of licenses, etc. However, it's often followed-up by others with warnings that we are not allowed to use the editor because the permission was never made "official".
I really like the Hammer editor and would like to use it if possible (as I'm sure many others would as well). However, the uncertainty among the Torque community has me wary of doing so. So, I thought I'd go to the Source (no pun intended :-) and find out by contacting Valve directly.
So, is use of the Hammer editor permitted by developers using the Torque engine, or is it still disallowed?
I appreciate your time and assistance in helping to clear up this matter and look forward to your response..
Thank you and take care..
Mike V.
------------------------
Hi Mike,
Yes Hammer use *IS* permitted by developers using the Torque engine. We just have been too busy to formalize this legally, however we still have plans to do so in the future.
Rick Ellis
Valve Corporation
ricke@valvesoftware.com
---------------------------
So, there you have it. Some might still want to wait for a more formal announcement, but I think that clears up any uncertainty.
Take care!
Mike
About the author
#2
They have had TWO years now to formalize this legally, and nada. Not even a blurb on the download page for Hammer, when it happens I'll think about looking at hammer. Until then I'll stick with Quark.
04/05/2004 (10:25 am)
Again... until it is in the EULA or some other legal document... it means diddly squat.They have had TWO years now to formalize this legally, and nada. Not even a blurb on the download page for Hammer, when it happens I'll think about looking at hammer. Until then I'll stick with Quark.
#3
As enthusiastic as you are (and it's a good thing ;)), don't expect anyone to jump in joy until Valve corrects the EULA : emails still don't have any legal binding value, even less so than an oral contract :)
As has been said before, if you're not doing commercial work, and have no plan on releasing your work, you can work with whatever tickles your fancy.
04/05/2004 (10:46 am)
Michael, there has been at least a handful of such emails in the past two years, as hinted to by the other posters :)As enthusiastic as you are (and it's a good thing ;)), don't expect anyone to jump in joy until Valve corrects the EULA : emails still don't have any legal binding value, even less so than an oral contract :)
As has been said before, if you're not doing commercial work, and have no plan on releasing your work, you can work with whatever tickles your fancy.
#4
I would hate to waste a bunch of time building stuff in Hammer, have my product get published and then have Valve decide to "formalize this legally" against me. Even if it was not for malicous reasons.
It just adds to the uncertainy from a legal standpoint. You can use it but can you distribute your creations with a commercial product, or any product at all?
Way to many un-answered questions and ambiguities to risk a few hundred or thousand man hours on.
04/05/2004 (10:46 am)
I second Harold, until it is "formalize this legally" I would stay well away from it. I would hate to waste a bunch of time building stuff in Hammer, have my product get published and then have Valve decide to "formalize this legally" against me. Even if it was not for malicous reasons.
It just adds to the uncertainy from a legal standpoint. You can use it but can you distribute your creations with a commercial product, or any product at all?
Way to many un-answered questions and ambiguities to risk a few hundred or thousand man hours on.
#5
My take on it was that people didn't know if they could use it *at all* or not..commercial-use or otherwise. And I'd seen so much speculative posts going back and forth that I decided to just look it into it myself..
Sorry.. didn't mean to beat a dead horse there.. Just thought I'd do something to maybe clear it up for some folks..
04/05/2004 (11:20 am)
Ahh.. Fair enough.My take on it was that people didn't know if they could use it *at all* or not..commercial-use or otherwise. And I'd seen so much speculative posts going back and forth that I decided to just look it into it myself..
Sorry.. didn't mean to beat a dead horse there.. Just thought I'd do something to maybe clear it up for some folks..
#6
Now I do consider myself a fairly moral person, but come on guys, this is really pushing it. Everytime someone prefers Hammer, someone else has to try to shoot them down with warnings of doom.
04/06/2004 (7:39 am)
Other than the morality issues, I must ask; What difference does it make? What you are releasing commercially is the dif file. Torques compiler made that dif from a map file that is never seen. If Valve said you could use it, and later on they change their mind, do you think an officer will head for your studio with a warrant to search your assests to see if they were created in hammer or quark? And since both are outputting the exact same format map, even thats not enough evidence.Now I do consider myself a fairly moral person, but come on guys, this is really pushing it. Everytime someone prefers Hammer, someone else has to try to shoot them down with warnings of doom.
#7
04/06/2004 (7:43 am)
Where is your law degree from Erik?
#8
04/06/2004 (7:48 am)
That is irrelevant. I am fully versed in the requirements of warrants, and their execution. I am not condoning breaking the law, I am merely stating that if you have Valves blessing, there is no reason to fear a change of heart later on by them.
#9
Period.
And it's not someone, it's GG themselves : they've said a few times already that they will not publish games made with WorldCraft.
Also, if they wanted to prove you'd been using WorldCraft/Hammer in your commercial project, they'd do a lot more than just look at the published assets, which you know if you're such en expert on legalities...
04/06/2004 (8:03 am)
The point is not fearing a change of heart : the EULA, which is the binding legal document, not the handful of emails, be them from Gabe himself (he's not Valve's lawyers, right ?:)), clearly forbid the usage of WC/Hammer in commercial projects. Period.
And it's not someone, it's GG themselves : they've said a few times already that they will not publish games made with WorldCraft.
Also, if they wanted to prove you'd been using WorldCraft/Hammer in your commercial project, they'd do a lot more than just look at the published assets, which you know if you're such en expert on legalities...
#10
No matter how much they want to forbid it, for the individual who is going to use it anyway, it's difficult.
04/06/2004 (8:17 am)
I agree with Erik on this one, actually.No matter how much they want to forbid it, for the individual who is going to use it anyway, it's difficult.
#11
And please don't make this a personal attack. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand law.
04/06/2004 (8:21 am)
Quote:Also, if they wanted to prove you'd been using WorldCraft/Hammer in your commercial project, they'd do a lot more than just look at the published assets, which you know if you're such en expert on legalities...Perhaps in your country. Both GG and Valve are American companies, and this would be fall under American jurisdiction. An assumption of use is NOT the burden of proof required. A grand jury would laugh at that assumption.
And please don't make this a personal attack. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand law.
#12
04/06/2004 (8:24 am)
It is a violation of the existing EULA. Please don't encourage peopel to break the license agreements. This is a professional forum. This is no different than saying to someone "Well you can just download a pirated version of 3ds max, make your models, and convert them to DTS. No one will know." Both statements are unprofessional and condone such behaviour. That does not belong on these forums.
#13
04/06/2004 (8:27 am)
But since some of you seem to care more about my credentials than the issue at hand; I am more knowledgable on constitutional law (which a warrant would fall under) than most lawyers. I have no desire to become a lawyer, but that does not stop my quest for knowledge. Being a descendent of James Madison, I consider it my birth duty to be fully versed in Americas constitution.
#14
My thinking was purely on the use of it in general, not specifically for commercial use (which, by extension, would make sense, considering Torque's purpose). There seemed to be alot back and forth on whether it was ok or not to use it, and so I figured getting word from someone at Valve would be a good enough indication either way. But, again, not in the context of commercial use.
My thinking falls somewhere in the middle.. I would have no fear of violating any license simply by using Hammer/Worldcraft for my own learning purposes. However.. that's where it would end.
I wouldn't go so far as to produce a product to be published and sold using Hammer, unless I had the "All Clear", legalese and all, from Valve in black and white to do so. It's just not worth the risk - especially with the alternatives available that carry no such concerns.
Paper trails can be as much an asset as an enemy.
04/06/2004 (8:41 am)
Ack.. I didn't mean to rile up a firestorm here, folks... My thinking was purely on the use of it in general, not specifically for commercial use (which, by extension, would make sense, considering Torque's purpose). There seemed to be alot back and forth on whether it was ok or not to use it, and so I figured getting word from someone at Valve would be a good enough indication either way. But, again, not in the context of commercial use.
My thinking falls somewhere in the middle.. I would have no fear of violating any license simply by using Hammer/Worldcraft for my own learning purposes. However.. that's where it would end.
I wouldn't go so far as to produce a product to be published and sold using Hammer, unless I had the "All Clear", legalese and all, from Valve in black and white to do so. It's just not worth the risk - especially with the alternatives available that carry no such concerns.
Paper trails can be as much an asset as an enemy.
#15
It's the same up here : if you have money, you can get anything in front of a civil court, and forget about burden of proof and all that :)
I also never said that them thinking you're using would be enough, albeit we do facilitate them proving it by using their .map format...
As for your legal expertise, sorry if you're really an afficionado, but in this day and age, you hear so many proferring expertise in a domain because they've read one chapter in one condensed book (not saying it's your case) in Reader's Digest that you'll excuse me for being sarcastic, right ?
As for bringing our ancestors in, I don't see where that matters : I'm Don Quixote's heir in a more or less direct line, and I don't go charging at windmills (at least, not litterally ;))
04/06/2004 (9:09 am)
James, you really believe that your (and ours north of the border, really similar btw ;)) court system still works on its principles ? How come MS hasn't been found guilty yet ? ;)It's the same up here : if you have money, you can get anything in front of a civil court, and forget about burden of proof and all that :)
I also never said that them thinking you're using would be enough, albeit we do facilitate them proving it by using their .map format...
As for your legal expertise, sorry if you're really an afficionado, but in this day and age, you hear so many proferring expertise in a domain because they've read one chapter in one condensed book (not saying it's your case) in Reader's Digest that you'll excuse me for being sarcastic, right ?
As for bringing our ancestors in, I don't see where that matters : I'm Don Quixote's heir in a more or less direct line, and I don't go charging at windmills (at least, not litterally ;))
#16
But hey folks there is a solution ahem "Cartography Shop" ok ok I had to plug that again. but its definitely no license issues involve with it its just cost $65 US dollars.
Ok back to my Procedural tutorials lying around my feet. :)
04/06/2004 (9:32 am)
You did mention right at the bottom. :) Quote:Some might still want to wait for a more formal announcement, but I think that clears up any uncertainty.
But hey folks there is a solution ahem "Cartography Shop" ok ok I had to plug that again. but its definitely no license issues involve with it its just cost $65 US dollars.
Ok back to my Procedural tutorials lying around my feet. :)
#17
04/06/2004 (9:39 am)
As far as i've seen, there is no exporter for Cartography Shop 4, or whatever the latest version is. I wish there was because CS seems really nice.
#18
I'd love to use Cartography Shop instead of Quark, only thing is, does it export to .dif ?
It's my understanding that the current exporter doesn't support v4.
Besides, before this thread goes out of hand, lets wait for that EULA shall we !!
Nicolas@
I heard MS was found guilty in the EU and are forced to rid their OS of WMP and opening it up for competitors, unless their appeal will fall trough....
04/06/2004 (9:42 am)
Johnny@I'd love to use Cartography Shop instead of Quark, only thing is, does it export to .dif ?
It's my understanding that the current exporter doesn't support v4.
Besides, before this thread goes out of hand, lets wait for that EULA shall we !!
Nicolas@
I heard MS was found guilty in the EU and are forced to rid their OS of WMP and opening it up for competitors, unless their appeal will fall trough....
#20
Just as a simple example of what a mess you can get into with your attitude, I guess you never read about all those software developers that had to pay royalties after the fact because their projects wrote out .GIF files.
And the ones that didn't or were out of business, the end users were hit up with having to pay the royalties. Hundreds if not thousands of website operators, ISP's and others were hit with "pay up letters" because they were using "freeware" GIF encoders. So if the author of the program did not pay the royalty, then the users had to. Thus was born support for PNG! Not because of the file format but because of LICENSES on the software that was used to create the files.
So it is relevant, you are not a lawyer and thus I don't think I would follow your advice that this is more a "moral" issue than anything else.
That is why the only advice I would follow is, if in doubt don't do it or consult a real lawyer.
That is unless you want at best owe Valve a lot of money and worst owe Valve more money that you have. :-)
You can argue your expertise all you want, it is a moot point with so many UN-AMBIGUOS alternatives that are free of all the legal uncertainty.
04/06/2004 (10:30 am)
But it is relevant you aren't an intellectual property lawyer so your opinion is just that and an un-qualified opinion at that.Just as a simple example of what a mess you can get into with your attitude, I guess you never read about all those software developers that had to pay royalties after the fact because their projects wrote out .GIF files.
And the ones that didn't or were out of business, the end users were hit up with having to pay the royalties. Hundreds if not thousands of website operators, ISP's and others were hit with "pay up letters" because they were using "freeware" GIF encoders. So if the author of the program did not pay the royalty, then the users had to. Thus was born support for PNG! Not because of the file format but because of LICENSES on the software that was used to create the files.
So it is relevant, you are not a lawyer and thus I don't think I would follow your advice that this is more a "moral" issue than anything else.
That is why the only advice I would follow is, if in doubt don't do it or consult a real lawyer.
That is unless you want at best owe Valve a lot of money and worst owe Valve more money that you have. :-)
You can argue your expertise all you want, it is a moot point with so many UN-AMBIGUOS alternatives that are free of all the legal uncertainty.
Associate Craig Fortune
Maybe as you already have this contact with them you could use it to find out this piece of information too?
*eagerly awaits outcome*