You can in some cases. A very complex script is effectively its own little "from scratch" program - just on top of a game. Most scripts might be quite simple, and patch fixes to scripts might usually be very simple, but there's no clear distinction which places "actual programming" as something worthy of copyright, and scripting not.lefthandblack said:
Sure. I guess the real problem here is the lack of support for a combination of changes to the same file. You can't simply release your path name change alone for people using a patch affecting the same file - since one would over-write the other. That means that either everyone needs to change the path manually, or you're forced to merge both the patch changes and yours into one mod.
That's a bugger, but it doesn't affect the copyright issues. Assuming Wesp had added a huge number of complex changes to a certain script, you'd be in clear violation of copyright by copying+changing+re-releasing it. The fact that it's the only reasonable solution you have, and the only way you can allow users to use both changes at once, does not make it legal (it does mean modders refusing such combination are that much more annoying, of course).
As it happens, individual changes Wesp has made might be quite simple/obvious/the only possible fix. If anything, that's what makes it ok to copy them. That he's using Troika's commands as a base doesn't make a difference - such base commands could be used either for simple changes, or to radically alter the game in ingenious ways. If he'd done the latter, he'd have every right to object to your copying it.
Again, the fact that using another modder's script as a base might be the only reasonable way to let users use both changes, doesn't change the lagality of the situation. It simply means that there's no legal/easy way to allow people to use your changes. You can argue that modders who refuse permission for changes under these circumstances are arseholes. You can't argue that it's ok to copy+redistribute their work without permission on this basis - unless the changes they made were obvious/trivial.
You can't reasonably claim copyright on a single line of a script. You can reasonably claim copyright over a non-trivial 200 line script you write yourself. The issue is the complexity/originality/non-triviality of the script (/alterations) - not whether they have a direct/indirect effect on the game.
With individual very simple/obvious changes, it probably isn't. Wesp can claim that he's worked hard to put all the changes together, but not really that any individual aspect of those changes is an original work. Copying all his changes at once is rather more suspect though.
Again, no - the reason (if any) is that the script is an obvious/trivial change from a Troika script, so can't be considered Wesp's original work. If his alterations were much more complex/original, then it wouldn't matter that they used Troika's commands/functions as component parts - the result would still be his original work, which you couldn't alter+reproduce without his permission (even if it were the only reasonable way to make a change).
.
")
