I agree with @William_Imm. Piracy is a problem, that is a FACT. Fighting it with increasingly strict DRM policies is not going to help it in the slighest, and that is another FACT. Once goods are priced reasonably, convincing the vast majority of the people to pay for them shouldn't a problem. The few remaining people who still want to pirate them should be punished, and they could be punished with a clean conscience.
@Boaster And they removed it, right? I believe the fan work is a nice attachment to the game itself, it makes the mod more popular and the awareness of such content rises up. As they take money for the game, not for the mod itself (people would buy a game without a mod anyway, since it's free). Would it really make a difference if they just linked to the portal where such mods are available? Maybe they just could show that "the mod X was created by Y and Z and here's their website". I always thought that fanwork focuses on spreading it across community, not making money out of it. The mod itself is free, they just put it on their servers. Sure, they should ask for it first, but if you want money from a thing that is free then, well, I don't understand. I don't like the idea of threatening people with lawsuits without even trying to find a solution, maybe you could make make the gog team promote your site with mods or something like that. I wonder if it's you who all of the sudden clicked disagree on some of my posts :P
You don't really understand Lords of Magic: Special Edition (LOMSE) like I do.
In fact, when they (GoG) release a patched version of the game (when all copies of the game are unpatched), it does nothing but create problems for people who play the game in multiplayer. LOMSE is such a buggy game when it comes to multiplayer anyway, they do no good by selling a patched game for which they have no rights to sell it anyway. In fact, there is NO official patch for that game, yet they've applied the released BETA patch which has bugs included into it.
GoG has no rights to sell LOMSE, because no one even knows who owns the IP (intellectual property). Last I heard, was it was bought by some company in eastern Europe.
I've talked with a few creators of LOMSE and they don't even know who has it. Then again, they're more concerned with other things.
I doubt GoG's legitimacy. Anyone who is an individual thinker would too.
Did you hear what I said before? One example is not enough. A person with a brain can figure out that you need more proof to prove that something wild is true.
That's my example. Go find your own if you want another one. I am not obligated, nor compelled, to give another example other than from my own experience. Do to your own due diligence.
I'm just going to say that I need more examples if @Boaster wants to prove that what he said in his first post - let's bring it up again:
The people of GoG.com are thieves. Largely, a lot of the games they are selling without legitimate contracts.
And he gave ONE example, about a game that I don't care about, that apparently 'he and A64' worked on a mod for it, and that was apparently enough to say that they are thieves. But look at the email sent back. They sound very nice about it, and are willing to make a new version, without the supposed stolen content. And, from what I can tell, Boaster never replied back.
If you want to regain my trust, @Boaster, take the high road and talk with GOG/CD Projekt about the mod, instead of whining about it on a completely unrelated forum and claiming they are thieves.
No DRM. No bullshit 'online registration'. No Steam (I don't use it, why the hell should I have to use Steam to play a game or install something I legally own?).
If I was really pushing, no CD required to play. I always hated putting the CD in to play the game, destroys the amount of time it lasts. I have no interest in pirating the game, nor does the honest man. Speaking to EA, Apple iTunes and other repressive industries, most people want the real deal, why ruin the integrity of the game and yourselves with your totalitarian control over wealth?
@Ward Protection is up to a publisher, but I believe that something can be negotiated. If the protection will be just CD Key, then ok. I don't see anything that would be more appropriate for a game which is half-new. I can only hope that publishers will understand it.
I very much like Paradox Interactive's stance on DRM. There's a code to install the game, but you don't need the disc to play the game (or, at least you didn't back before I started using Steam). Instead they have taken the route of only offering access to extra parts (special support, their own mod forums, etc) on their forums to members who also registered their game code on the site (the basic rooms are still public, of course). So they reward the honest customers instead of punishing them with bothersome DRM. It is a bit sad that they have to in the first place, but this is how it is, I guess.
Which leads to Boaster's form for Lords of Magic, and has the full email chain of Boaster and GOG. However, I don't really like how Boaster ended the message: he said that (basically) he's going to get legal on them, but GOG.com followed obediently and removed the offending content. And this is over free content. And the actual creator (@Ascension64) was not the one that emailed GOG.com (I would prefer it to be).
If GOG removed the mod but not the game then they must have the rights to it somehow... I understand your position Boaster but wouldn't it be an honor to have Your patch in the official GOG release? You just had to ask them to mention you and your partner and they probably would.
I think @Boaster's trying to hide evidence, because the link's now dead. But, through the magic of Google, you can see the chain in all it's 'glory':
From: Dan San Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:52 PM To: Oleg Klapovsky Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Agent Oleg of GoG.com,
There is no derivative work for which I need authorization because, once again you fail to understand, no modification has been made to the PROGRAM (the executable). No modification made to the executable/program. Additionally, you fail to recognize the difference in property versus labor. You have my bill, which is not on the basis of property, but for labor. Additionally as a further example, which is likely a waste of my time and fruitless. Say you are a webmaster. You, you meant as the ambiguous someone other than me, create a website for a company. As the webmaster, you do not own the website, the company which hired you does. The company uses your creation. The creation of the website is a product of YOUR labor. If they do not pay you for your labor, which crosses a series of ethical lines, then they are stealing from YOU when they are obligated to pay YOU for YOUR labor. So once again, this is not a matter of property rights, ownership, or leasing of ownership. This is a matter of inalienable rights of being compensated for my labor (of love) for which I am entitled to by my creator God. You, you as in GoG.com and it's agents, have profited from my labor by selling copies of LOMSE, fraudulent copies at that, which contained the fruits of my labor.
If you have failed to understand or make sense of my claim, I would advise you to forward this to your legal department for their determination and settlement of the claim. Do not construe this as legal advice.
You, you as in GoG.com and its agents, have a record of my Bill and it was sent and received. I have explained as best I can.
I reserve the right to collect settlement for the claim through a notary public, through which the claim may ultimately be collected by the IRS.
Dan San of the Secured Party.
From: Oleg Klapovsky Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 5:07 AM To: Dan San Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Dear Dan,
As mentioned previously, in order to accurately assess your claim, please provide any documentation which evidences your authorization to create this derivative work. Absent such documentation, we are unable and unwilling to compensate you for an unauthorized file that you may have created.
We have removed the patch and appreciate you calling this to our attention. At this time, we consider this matter closed.
Best regards, _______________________________
Oleg Klapovsky Head of Business Development gog.com
www.gog.com www.twitter.com/gogcom
e-mail: oklapovsky@gog.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
??: Dan San ????: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:28:07 -0600 ????: Oleg Klapovsky ????: Re: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Oleg, agent of GoG.com,
While you would appreciate my response to your question, I'm afraid answering such a question without compensation is above my pay grade.
Who is your contact? How might I contact him or her? I would really like to know this. It would both confirm your legitimacy and then mine. Otherwise, I cannot trust you're operating in good faith in your dealings in Lords of Magic. Because I know something you don't know, and your contact is likely bogus. I know more about Lords of Magic, both the game and the rights owner, than anyone is likely to. I've spoken with a developer of LOM and LOMSE, whom I mentioned previously.
As stated previously, COPIES of LOMSE which contain stolen works is... you guessed it, STEALING. Stealing from 3 people at once. Whether or not my contribution to the LOMSE community was derivative, GoG.com is guilty of stealing both my labor and infringing upon the copyright and EULA. It was admitted that one agent of GoG.com tried to find a patch for the game. You cannot patch the game without being a End-user, can you? Or would you argue that you have to use the "Install" or "Setup" program first?
GoG.com breached EULA, as stated in previous emails, and have trampled upon copyright by repackaging the game at a profit.
Also as previously stated, you're not selling original retail CDs. If you were, you would be selling legitimate copies of the game. And those legitimate copies would not include my works, which are a product of my labor.
If you haven't guessed by now, I did NOT bill anyone for any physical product, because that would be breach of EULA. However, I am billing GoG.com and it's agents for my labor, which can be proven by the modifications and you or agents of GoG.com having sold illegitimate copies is proof of this act. The fact that my work was stolen, without my permission, are both acts of dishonor. However, I will not have my labor stolen. I labored out of love to improve a game for a community without cost, as a gift to the community. When I found out my modifications to the game were being used in commerce, I responded immediately. Once again, the fact that you used my works in a patch for a game is, in a sense, honoring me as you indirectly and unofficially put me into the credits because you sold the game including my works. But it was done so without my consent.
Anyway, my labor: you have my bill.
Dan San of the Secured Party.
P.S. using my real name incurs a penalty, as my name is Common Law Copyrighted. Please discontinue use of it, you do not have my permission to use it. Refer to me as Dan, or the Secured Party.
From: Oleg Klapovsky Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:24 AM To: Dan San Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Dear Daniel,
I can't disclose our licensing agreement to you because it is confidential information. If you have any doubts we have the rights I've mentioned feel free to contact the rights holder for the confirmation. Please let me kindly stress that we are cooperating with over 40 partners (publishers, developers) and released close to 350 games, so we are quite familiar with licensing matters and how to distribute legally titles which are been legally abused (piracy, etc) otherwise.
At the same time I'd really appreciate if you could answer on the question from my previous e-mail. Just in case you missed it, let me quote it - "Were the modifications (basically, derivative work) you performed agreed with the rights holder? If yes ? can you please drop me this confirmation? "
Thanks, Oleg
Best regards, _______________________________
Oleg Klapovsky Head of Business Development gog.com
www.gog.com www.twitter.com/gogcom
e-mail: oklapovsky@gog.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
??: Dan San ????: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:57:58 -0600 ????: Oleg Klapovsky ????: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Oleg, agent of GoG.com,
Please furnish your licensing agreement that I may observe validity in this case.
Dan San of the Secured Party
From: Oleg Klapovsky Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:50 AM To: Dan San Cc: PiotrSadzinski Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Dear Daniel,
GOG is a legal entity and in no way we can be counted as an end-user, that's why we are not acting under EULA. We have a licensing agreement with the company that owns all the rights for the product and IP "Lords of Magic: Special Edition". Within these rights we can sub-license this title to end users via digital download, re-master them for modern operating systems compatibility, create ancillary products on it, etc. So I must kindly notice that your claim regarding GOG breaking commercial copyrights has no valid ground.
I've passed this matter to our Legal team and the rights holders of Lords of Magic: SE. They are checking everything right now. There is only one thing I wanted to clarify. Were the modifications (basically, derivative work) you performed agreed with the rights holder? If yes ? can you please drop me this confirmation? This will really help our Legal to evaluate this case.
Thanks, Oleg
Best regards, _______________________________
Oleg Klapovsky Head of Business Development gog.com
www.gog.com www.twitter.com/gogcom
e-mail: oklapovsky@gog.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Dan San <> Date: May 11, 2011 12:25:07 AM GMT+02:00 To: "GOG.com Support" Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Agent Firek of GoG.com,
The End User License Agreement specifically says the "Program", proper noun, capital P. My contributions to the game lie within the MPQ files, not the EXE. Ergo, my modifications to the game do not fall under the EULA.
"3. Responsibilities of End User. A. Subject to the grant of license hereinabove, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program, or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program without the prior consent, in writing, of Sierra." (Underlined for emphasis).
I am not in breach of EULA. Further more I cite specifically that Sierra no longer exists, except in name only.
Additionally, I would wager that GoG.com, whether a licensed seller or not, is in breach of commercial copyright infringement as they are selling electronic copies of the game and not the physical of the game. As cited in the EULA:
Readme.txt END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT 3. C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to: (ii) exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose including, but not limited to, use at a cyber café, computer gaming center or any other location-based site. Sierra may offer a separate Site License Agreement to permit you to make the Program available for commercial use; contact Sierra for details; (iii) use or allow third parties to use the Editor and the New Materials created thereby for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of New Materials on a stand alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware through any and all distribution channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution without the express written consent of Sierra; and
Upon your proof of claim that you have expressed written consent or Sierra, I won't challenge GoG.com's ability to sell the game. However, as a seller, you are in breach of EULA by exploiting the program by electronic distribution without express written consent.
While I have made NO modification to "LOMSE.exe," the Program referenced above, I have made modifications to separate and independent files within the MPQ files.
Additionally, I did not seek to enrich myself through commercial fraud by selling an electronic-only copy of the game, nor have I contracted myself with any users of my material to demand payment for my work. However, if someone is profiting from my labor (of love for the game), then just compensation should be met. To have profited from someone else's work is fraud, or theft. In either case, someone would have to have little or no shame to willingly and knowingly commit such acts. And if done so unknowingly, it is within one's best interest to make an effort to create an equitable remedy for the injured party.
While I am delighted to hear that GoG.com has responded to my outrage by discontinuing to sell a bogus COPY of the game, I am still thoroughly miffed to know first hand that LOMSE enthusiasts have been sold a bogus copy and WITH work STOLEN from ME.
On a tangent, I have previously spoken with one of the creators of LOMSE, Jeff Fiske (you'll find he's in the credits and works for Tilted Mill Entertainment presently), and he was both surprised and impressed I have taken the steps to improve one of his labors of love. But I digress.
BILL
I hereby present GoG.com with a bill for the commercial use of my work/product of my labor, without permission, compensation or consideration, in the amount of $35 per product sold containing said modifications to document 'gs\dlg\infopan.gs'.
Agents or principals of GoG.com have 7 days time to respond, and make and present payment.
Notice to agents is notice to principals, and notice to principals is notice to agents.
With kind regards,
Dan San of the Secured Party aka Mantera, aka Boaster
From: GOG.com Support Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:33 AM To: Dan San Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
As specified in the game's End-User License Agreement, modifying the game in any way can only be done with prior written consent of the publisher: "3. Responsibilities of End User. A. Subject to the grant of license hereinabove, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program, or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program without the prior consent, in writing, of Sierra."
In cases when we cannot verify who the author of third-party modifications is, we always assume that any such content found by us was made with the publisher's consent.
I have asked our producer to remove this patch from our installer and this will be done first thing tomorrow, since you do not want it to be used by us and since its creation was a violation of the EULA.
Regards, Firek
GOG.com Support
From: GOG.com Support Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:33 AM To: Dan San Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
As specified in the game's End-User License Agreement, modifying the game in any way can only be done with prior written consent of the publisher: "3. Responsibilities of End User. A. Subject to the grant of license hereinabove, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program, or remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program without the prior consent, in writing, of Sierra."
In cases when we cannot verify who the author of third-party modifications is, we always assume that any such content found by us was made with the publisher's consent.
I have asked our producer to remove this patch from our installer and this will be done first thing tomorrow, since you do not want it to be used by us and since its creation was a violation of the EULA.
Regards, Firek
GOG.com Support
Agent of GoG.com,
I disagree that modifications of any kind belong to the publisher. That which belongs to the publisher, belongs to the publisher, no doubt. However, I labored in creating/modifying the game for myself and a community. These new creations and modifications are not at all supported by the publisher.
To follow the same code of logic, that is to say that your labor belongs to your employer and would therefore not need to pay you. Why would they be required to pay YOU for what is THEIRS?
My labor has been used without my permission (stolen) and without consideration (compensation). The GoG.com website is profiting from selling an unofficially, unsupported, copy of LOMSE which uses my work. When Ascension64 made the Unofficial 302 patch, he asked me if he could use my Information panel that I created for my mods for the game. I gave him permission.
Ascension64's labor and my ("Mantera's") labor are being used without consideration or permission.
Just a question to throw out here: "Do you know how long it took me to create the extended unit information panel?" I can tell you, literally dozens of hours of time spent, especially when I had to learn the inner workings of the game from knowing basically nothing about it.
For using my work without compensation or permission, I will present GoG.com with a Bill which includes every copy of the game sold using my labor without my permission. This Bill will be presented electronically in three days time.
Sincerely,
Dan San of the Secured Party aka Mantera, aka Boaster
-------------------------------------------------- From: "GOG.com Support" Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:54 PM To: "Dan San" Subject: Re: Lords of Magic: Special Edition||8X75HBNZUR
Hello,
I apologize for the late reply. As far as I could backtrack this case, a person from our production team found this patch on some forum when looking up a non-crucial problem in LoM:SE. This was some time ago, but as far as I can tell the archive didn't have any indication (readme file etc.) that it was made by a third party. Our production team must have assumed that it was a hotfix and, after testing it, we included it in our installer.
I'm very sorry that we didn't ask either of you for permission to use it, unfortunately at the time we didn't know the patch belonged for someone. Even though it's technically illegal for a third party to modify a game's content (and, to my knowledge, fan-made modifications technically belong of the game's publisher), we always approach authors of third-party modifications for permission if we want to include their work in our releases, if we can identify and contact those authors. A few times we had to refrain from adding some content because its author didn't like the idea.
We can, of course, remove this patch from our release of LoM:SE, if that is your wish.
Regards,
Firek
GOG.com Support
Name: Dan San TrackId: LB4F9W42F2 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) Problem: -- choose one -- something else Date: 2011-04-18 19:39:09 America/Montreal
Agent of GOG.com, My name is Dan, and I am upset to find out that GoG is selling a copy of LOMSE that has the stolen work of both Petery K. Wong and the work of myself, Dan -aka- Mantera. Ergo, the fact that you are selling a copy of LOMSE that uses MY work and HIS without compensation to either/both of us means that GOG is now in direct conflict with either one of us. Ergo, having stolen my work I now have the grounds to enter a lawsuit against GOG.com and I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that my creation is being sold both without my consent or without compensation. The game goes for Petery. I suggest an agent of GOG or a principal agent contact me immediately to negotiate compensation for having stolen my work. Sincerely and without prejudice UCC 1-308, Daniel Sanderson Picture Attached.
* This is primarily @Ascension64's work, isn't it? Shouldn't he be the one emailing GOG.com? * Why is he charging $35 over free content, when the game sells for around $10? That does not make a lot of sense... * GOG sounds nice about it, so I think @Boaster is the one that is handling it more poorly. * They removed the stuff - so why is he complaining about it?
Not all modders can be invited to integrate the team like the Counter Strike guys were... And modders know they won't get profit from their work... It's as Boaster said love for the game... They may get recognition that may be useful for a future games of their own, though. I also support a GOG release btw. And a Steam one too. And a Beamdog too....
A CD key you have to enter when you install the game would be fine to me and I like the idea you can access special forums or some special downloadable content if you register your CD key on the forums.
On the other hand, I don't understand when games force you to be connected to play single player or any other "Big Brother" stuff like the DRMs. It's like everyone gets punished because some people do pirate games... I think this just gets the situation worst as some people, who would have liked to buy an original copy of a game, won't because of the DRM. Either they will forget about the game, either they'll look for a DRM-free copy (so most of the time, a non-official one...)
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's zero chance that the rights holders for BG are going to let the game be sold DRM-free. Between EA and Atari, it's just not going to happen.
I don't think EA would have a word on the matter. They have given Beamdog permission to work on the IE and alter it, but BG:EE will ship with a proprietary version of it called IEE, to which EA/BioWare will have no rights. Atari (as the publisher) and WotC (as the owner of the IP) are the parties involved in the decision. Your point remains intact: there are no chances BG:EE is released with no DRM. Trent has already confirmed that in this very thread, after all.
Speaking of IEE - after release of BGEE and BG2EE, do you want to make it free (as in freedom) software at some point? It would really benefit the GemRB project if they get source code to the Infinty Engine, even if it's a modified version.
@William_Imm - it would greatly benefit the entire modding community, as a matter of fact. However, if they used it for IWD:EE and PST:EE too, it may be a handful of years before they could even consider making the source code freely available.
Well, yes, it's true that the full source code might not be available due to non-free WotC rule content, but even a release of most of the the IEE code would greatly benefit the modders.
And, this is my opinion, but Beam/Overhaul should release the code as soon as possible.
@William_Imm, @powerfulally Its better to just ignore disagrees. I understand that they can sometimes be annoying, but in the end its pointless to get bothered by them.
Comments
In fact, when they (GoG) release a patched version of the game (when all copies of the game are unpatched), it does nothing but create problems for people who play the game in multiplayer. LOMSE is such a buggy game when it comes to multiplayer anyway, they do no good by selling a patched game for which they have no rights to sell it anyway. In fact, there is NO official patch for that game, yet they've applied the released BETA patch which has bugs included into it.
GoG has no rights to sell LOMSE, because no one even knows who owns the IP (intellectual property). Last I heard, was it was bought by some company in eastern Europe.
I've talked with a few creators of LOMSE and they don't even know who has it. Then again, they're more concerned with other things.
I doubt GoG's legitimacy. Anyone who is an individual thinker would too.
Did you hear what I said before? One example is not enough. A person with a brain can figure out that you need more proof to prove that something wild is true.
Dial down the legitimacy of GOG discussion. No need for tossing insults around.
I'm just going to say that I need more examples if @Boaster wants to prove that what he said in his first post - let's bring it up again: And he gave ONE example, about a game that I don't care about, that apparently 'he and A64' worked on a mod for it, and that was apparently enough to say that they are thieves. But look at the email sent back. They sound very nice about it, and are willing to make a new version, without the supposed stolen content. And, from what I can tell, Boaster never replied back.
If you want to regain my trust, @Boaster, take the high road and talk with GOG/CD Projekt about the mod, instead of whining about it on a completely unrelated forum and claiming they are thieves.
(ooh I'm going to get so much hate mail)
If I was really pushing, no CD required to play. I always hated putting the CD in to play the game, destroys the amount of time it lasts. I have no interest in pirating the game, nor does the honest man. Speaking to EA, Apple iTunes and other repressive industries, most people want the real deal, why ruin the integrity of the game and yourselves with your totalitarian control over wealth?
http://impz.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=LOM&thread=1985&page=1#10029
Which leads to Boaster's form for Lords of Magic, and has the full email chain of Boaster and GOG. However, I don't really like how Boaster ended the message: he said that (basically) he's going to get legal on them, but GOG.com followed obediently and removed the offending content. And this is over free content. And the actual creator (@Ascension64) was not the one that emailed GOG.com (I would prefer it to be).
Really, @Boaster, just take this the calm way.
* This is primarily @Ascension64's work, isn't it? Shouldn't he be the one emailing GOG.com?
* Why is he charging $35 over free content, when the game sells for around $10? That does not make a lot of sense...
* GOG sounds nice about it, so I think @Boaster is the one that is handling it more poorly.
* They removed the stuff - so why is he complaining about it?
I think that says it all for him.
I get your point, and I also agree that GOG handled the situation in a reasonable fashion but please just let it rest.
I still highly support getting this game onto GOG.com.
I also support a GOG release btw. And a Steam one too. And a Beamdog too....
On the other hand, I don't understand when games force you to be connected to play single player or any other "Big Brother" stuff like the DRMs. It's like everyone gets punished because some people do pirate games... I think this just gets the situation worst as some people, who would have liked to buy an original copy of a game, won't because of the DRM. Either they will forget about the game, either they'll look for a DRM-free copy (so most of the time, a non-official one...)
=D
Tales of the Sword Coast FTW!
And, this is my opinion, but Beam/Overhaul should release the code as soon as possible.