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
#22
I dont know how it works in america but in australia, emails DO have legal binding value. The email does not state about commercial use, however, so I would be contacting hammer about commercial use before using it.
04/06/2004 (1:31 pm)
I would just like to point out one small thing
emails still don't have any legal binding value, even less so than an oral contract
I dont know how it works in america but in australia, emails DO have legal binding value. The email does not state about commercial use, however, so I would be contacting hammer about commercial use before using it.
#23
And BTW, I personally hate Hammer, so in no way am I telling anyone to use it. I am merely stating it's not quite the volatile situation the forum police are attempting to make it out to be.
04/06/2004 (3:19 pm)
Emails are legally acceptable in America, and according to Hammers EULA, written authorization from a legal representative of Valve is enough to alter its terms. Who exactly is authorized would need some more research though.And BTW, I personally hate Hammer, so in no way am I telling anyone to use it. I am merely stating it's not quite the volatile situation the forum police are attempting to make it out to be.
#24
Got a reference on either of those concepts? First time I've ever heard of either one, and I'd be pretty surprised if they were true.
04/06/2004 (4:59 pm)
Quote:Emails are legally acceptable in America, and according to Hammers EULA, written authorization from a legal representative of Valve is enough to alter its terms.
Got a reference on either of those concepts? First time I've ever heard of either one, and I'd be pretty surprised if they were true.
#25
The second one is easy.
5.1 Modification. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding on the parties unless made in writing and signed on behalf of both of the parties by their respective duly authorized officers or representatives.
This wording works both ways. If you get a signed authorization, it is legal, irregardless of any outstanding EULA.
04/06/2004 (5:52 pm)
As to the first, I'm not going to search the law library at this hour for a precedent setting case, but perhaps you'll remember that some of the most damaging evidence in the MS trial was emails, namely dealing with burying Netscape.The second one is easy.
5.1 Modification. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding on the parties unless made in writing and signed on behalf of both of the parties by their respective duly authorized officers or representatives.
This wording works both ways. If you get a signed authorization, it is legal, irregardless of any outstanding EULA.
#26
As to the other bit, I highly doubt that typing a name at the end of an email constitutes a signed amendment to the EULA.
04/06/2004 (6:14 pm)
An email as evidence is quite different than an email as a contract. AFAIK, only original printed documents or FAXes can serve as a contract.As to the other bit, I highly doubt that typing a name at the end of an email constitutes a signed amendment to the EULA.
#27
One thing is pretty clear, the requirements for a legally binding contract, go way beyond what Michael got by a long shot!
04/07/2004 (8:15 am)
Mark is right, emails as evidence are different than contract law. There are entire tomes of legalese on what is and isn't a "digital signature" in all that crap that the Clinton administration passed years ago and not a single person or company has adopted, becuase it is so ambigous legaly and cumbersome technologically. One thing is pretty clear, the requirements for a legally binding contract, go way beyond what Michael got by a long shot!
#28
This is very true, especially being no where in the request nor the response e-mail did it state use for a Commercial Game without making a note you used Hammer, paying them cash, etc.
04/07/2004 (9:44 am)
Quote:
the requirements for a legally binding contract, go way beyond what Michael got by a long shot!
This is very true, especially being no where in the request nor the response e-mail did it state use for a Commercial Game without making a note you used Hammer, paying them cash, etc.
#29
Then explain to me how the "click this button to proceed" thing works on the internet. You read the agreement and press the "I agree" button. You don't sign anywhere - still, it binds you to whatever stood in that contract.
True, no?
Jarrod Robertson
Where is your law degree from Jarrod-Boy?
04/07/2004 (10:07 am)
Mark MozynskiThen explain to me how the "click this button to proceed" thing works on the internet. You read the agreement and press the "I agree" button. You don't sign anywhere - still, it binds you to whatever stood in that contract.
True, no?
Jarrod Robertson
Where is your law degree from Jarrod-Boy?
#30
Not everywhere in the US, no. Click-wrap licenses had a few split decisions in US courts - One region goes one way, others go another. To muddy the waters further, some but not all states have passed laws regulating internet licenses. It depends which legal jurisdiction you bring the suit in. FAX and hardcopy are still the only universally accepted ways to form a binding contract.
04/07/2004 (10:32 am)
Quote:Then explain to me how the "click this button to proceed" thing works on the internet. You read the agreement and press the "I agree" button. You don't sign anywhere - still, it binds you to whatever stood in that contract.
True, no?
Not everywhere in the US, no. Click-wrap licenses had a few split decisions in US courts - One region goes one way, others go another. To muddy the waters further, some but not all states have passed laws regulating internet licenses. It depends which legal jurisdiction you bring the suit in. FAX and hardcopy are still the only universally accepted ways to form a binding contract.
#31
To answer the question you posed to mark, "click thru" EULA, have never been challenged in court, at least not in the US. So it is kind of a legal CYA in some respects. That it could be challenged in court but it is valid until someone challenges it as un-enforceable.
The reasoning behind a "click-thru" EULA is that you ahve to take some kind of diliberate concious action to AGREE to it. That is why the DIS-AGREE button is selected by default, so know one can say they "didn't see it because they hit the key to fast" or whatever other lame-o excuse.
That said, as I stated before, no one has really challenged it in court to the degree that they are universally enforceable or unenforceable. So it is valid until someone challenges it in court as un-enforceble and wins, and the all the appeals and what not get exhausted and it becomes precident.
But I can't see any reasonable judge striking down something so common-sense / common-knowledge as a "click-thru EULA" that could potentially cripple online trade.
But I did ask my lawyer about these very things recently. His advice was that it is not legally binding in anyway unless it conforms to the digital signature thingy that no-one uses because it has never been challenged in court.
If you read what constitutes a contract in your jurisdiction it is usually pretty clear cut what is legally binding, and everything else is not. if email is not mentioned anywhere in what is legal then it is not.
Matter of fact, in a recent civil case I participated in email was used as evidence only after it was PROVEN that it was actually sent from where the headers said.
99% of abiding by the law is common sense, it is the 1% that want to argue some 'wiggle' room or ambigutity that screws it up for the rest of us and makes things like this such an issue.
My lawyers advice is what I stated above.
If you don't know then don't do it or consult a real lawyer.
My take is if I got to go to all the trouble and expense of contacting a laywer to use a piece of software, I will find something else that does not cause all that trouble.
04/07/2004 (10:33 am)
To answer you question, I don't have one yet ;-)To answer the question you posed to mark, "click thru" EULA, have never been challenged in court, at least not in the US. So it is kind of a legal CYA in some respects. That it could be challenged in court but it is valid until someone challenges it as un-enforceable.
The reasoning behind a "click-thru" EULA is that you ahve to take some kind of diliberate concious action to AGREE to it. That is why the DIS-AGREE button is selected by default, so know one can say they "didn't see it because they hit the key to fast" or whatever other lame-o excuse.
That said, as I stated before, no one has really challenged it in court to the degree that they are universally enforceable or unenforceable. So it is valid until someone challenges it in court as un-enforceble and wins, and the all the appeals and what not get exhausted and it becomes precident.
But I can't see any reasonable judge striking down something so common-sense / common-knowledge as a "click-thru EULA" that could potentially cripple online trade.
But I did ask my lawyer about these very things recently. His advice was that it is not legally binding in anyway unless it conforms to the digital signature thingy that no-one uses because it has never been challenged in court.
If you read what constitutes a contract in your jurisdiction it is usually pretty clear cut what is legally binding, and everything else is not. if email is not mentioned anywhere in what is legal then it is not.
Matter of fact, in a recent civil case I participated in email was used as evidence only after it was PROVEN that it was actually sent from where the headers said.
99% of abiding by the law is common sense, it is the 1% that want to argue some 'wiggle' room or ambigutity that screws it up for the rest of us and makes things like this such an issue.
My lawyers advice is what I stated above.
If you don't know then don't do it or consult a real lawyer.
My take is if I got to go to all the trouble and expense of contacting a laywer to use a piece of software, I will find something else that does not cause all that trouble.
#32
But I don't quite believe what I read :P You got any links or a good source for this other than your uber-lawyer? ;)
The Online-Agreement thing has been tried in Europe I think and it didn't work out for the company. What if they change their EULA afterwards to fit their needs? It could be traced, sure.. but what IF.
A contract is harder to manipulate to look "different" when someone already has typed their name on the piece of paper.
Getting somewhat off-topic but.
04/07/2004 (10:37 am)
Well, I kinda agree with you on that last part.But I don't quite believe what I read :P You got any links or a good source for this other than your uber-lawyer? ;)
The Online-Agreement thing has been tried in Europe I think and it didn't work out for the company. What if they change their EULA afterwards to fit their needs? It could be traced, sure.. but what IF.
A contract is harder to manipulate to look "different" when someone already has typed their name on the piece of paper.
Getting somewhat off-topic but.
#33
the point that most people try to make about issues like this is simple.
There are many different jurisdictions ( global ) and local to the US ( things like this vary from state to state ) and an email is not sufficient to base a commerical venture on.
And if in doubt don't do what ever you are thinking about doing, that is the cheapest way out. Contacting real legal advice in person is the second option.
I am not in the UK but this was easy enough to find. And shows that it is really specific to where you are.
04/07/2004 (11:42 am)
Sorta off topic but not. Things like this that can cause hidden problems are important for the un-initiated to avoid.the point that most people try to make about issues like this is simple.
There are many different jurisdictions ( global ) and local to the US ( things like this vary from state to state ) and an email is not sufficient to base a commerical venture on.
And if in doubt don't do what ever you are thinking about doing, that is the cheapest way out. Contacting real legal advice in person is the second option.
I am not in the UK but this was easy enough to find. And shows that it is really specific to where you are.
#34
The company i work for deals in ~100k digitally signed electronic documents monthly, as legally binding as they come (in the banking industry), and a digital signature is not as simple as an "i agree button". These digital credentials equate to basically a psudeo fingerprint of the parties involved, but then again i am probably pushing this issue further off topic. I for one am glad this corrospondence was posted, just to know that i'm not the only one who may or may not be using hammer.. :) as soon as support for CS 4 comes out i may change my opinion.
04/07/2004 (1:47 pm)
I just thot i'd throw my 2 cents in on this..The company i work for deals in ~100k digitally signed electronic documents monthly, as legally binding as they come (in the banking industry), and a digital signature is not as simple as an "i agree button". These digital credentials equate to basically a psudeo fingerprint of the parties involved, but then again i am probably pushing this issue further off topic. I for one am glad this corrospondence was posted, just to know that i'm not the only one who may or may not be using hammer.. :) as soon as support for CS 4 comes out i may change my opinion.
#35
04/17/2004 (7:12 pm)
I was under the impression that by version CS 5 that Direct Export of .dif fiels will be possible. 
#36
About the EULA... there is alot of confusion about this and alot of discussion about it in the GG forums. To put it simply...if it causes this much debate and is not fully clear in the EULA... don't use it if you plan on putting your game out in public. Personally, I would take your email that Valve sent you to a lawyer with a copy of the Hammer EULA and see what they say. It might cost you $50 or more for a lawyer to look at it, but that will be cheaper than a lawsuit against you.
There are a couple of ways to export to .dif formats that work in Torque. And all are legal ...with clear EULA's.
You have Quark (free)... but a pain in the butt for users to use. A book is comming out that will have a section on how to make buildings with Quark. "3D Programming All in One" the April 16,2004 thread shows the TOC.
Cartography Shop ($65)...expoter for 3.1 (some things dropped out on export). He is working on CS5 that will export directly into Torque...but will not be out til the end of the year sometime.
GameSpace Torque bundle ($299)...The gameSpace Torque bundle ships with the DTS exporter from Dark Industries and Ted Southard's .map exporter. The DTS exporter is also available as a free download for gameSpace and trueSpace 6.5+ from both the Caligari and Garage Games websites if you already own either app.
What really confuses me about the whole Worldcraft/Hammer EULA subject is that GG emplyees tell you to use Quark. But in the newly released docs they have a section on Worldcraft. Configuring Worldcraft for Torque and the exporting of files to Torque. Worldcraft is now Hammer. I think this is causing alot of the confusion about using Hammer for your projects.
04/17/2004 (8:16 pm)
@James: Here is a link to what CS5 will have in it. Beware of flames on the thread, people are mad because you will have to pay for the update. About the EULA... there is alot of confusion about this and alot of discussion about it in the GG forums. To put it simply...if it causes this much debate and is not fully clear in the EULA... don't use it if you plan on putting your game out in public. Personally, I would take your email that Valve sent you to a lawyer with a copy of the Hammer EULA and see what they say. It might cost you $50 or more for a lawyer to look at it, but that will be cheaper than a lawsuit against you.
There are a couple of ways to export to .dif formats that work in Torque. And all are legal ...with clear EULA's.
You have Quark (free)... but a pain in the butt for users to use. A book is comming out that will have a section on how to make buildings with Quark. "3D Programming All in One" the April 16,2004 thread shows the TOC.
Cartography Shop ($65)...expoter for 3.1 (some things dropped out on export). He is working on CS5 that will export directly into Torque...but will not be out til the end of the year sometime.
GameSpace Torque bundle ($299)...The gameSpace Torque bundle ships with the DTS exporter from Dark Industries and Ted Southard's .map exporter. The DTS exporter is also available as a free download for gameSpace and trueSpace 6.5+ from both the Caligari and Garage Games websites if you already own either app.
What really confuses me about the whole Worldcraft/Hammer EULA subject is that GG emplyees tell you to use Quark. But in the newly released docs they have a section on Worldcraft. Configuring Worldcraft for Torque and the exporting of files to Torque. Worldcraft is now Hammer. I think this is causing alot of the confusion about using Hammer for your projects.
#38
07/04/2005 (4:41 pm)
It would be cool if Valve did formalize it as OK! 
#39
07/04/2005 (5:07 pm)
This is why I am waiting for Constructor or if it takes too long Cartography Shop to make difs for a torque game. I don't like the interface of Quark. I know it works, but, I find it's interface distracting. Interface is why I will keep using Photoshop instead of other programs with messy interfaces. Give me a neutral gray background and buttons that are easy to find but not standing out in any way. That big compass thing just ruins Quark for me. How am I supposed to block that out? It disrupts the composition of the scene for me. Still... it is a kick ass program in every other way. 
Torque Owner Mitovo
You said:
Yeah, but again in the context of general, non-commercial use.. which was my thinking, though I didn't verbalize it. Or is that what you were pointing out there?
As for Cartography Shop: Very nifty program. I really took to it and even purchased a license.. but at the moment, I'm finding it more than a bit inconvenient to use, what with the Carve and Hollow functions buggy as they are in the 4.1 build.
With no ETA or at least a plan for when they will be fixed (I asked), I'm actually learning to work with QuARK and, while I still find it over-complicates some of the more basic operations, I'm beginning to get the way it "thinks". It does have some nice tools (that mirroring ability is quite nice, for example). At this point, I could see me using QuARK for the more complicated structures that require alot of mirroring, stair creation and such things that have to be done manually in CS.. However, for more simple objects... it's CS all the way.