The Skin Patch Debate

There is a new technology being developed but its eventual available form will be heavily dependent on the input of thousands of users such as you.

Each year, thousands of skins are created and released. Skins take many many hours to create. But often times, once released, they are never updated. As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used. The proposed answer: Skin patching.

Please read this next part carefully: What Skin patching does is allow third parties to submit updates to an existing skin. But these updates do not contain any parts from the original skins. Instead, they only contain the pieces that have been updated. Or in other words, patches are completely seperate files in themselves. The actual "patching" takes place in software. It would download the original skin and then the updates would be provided as additional sub-styles. If the user applies one of those sub-styles, the program the original skin and then includes the updates when it applies.

For example, let's say someone created a really nice WindowBlinds skin in 2001. But this skin doesn't support Windows XP Start bars, doesn't support the task panel (shellstyle), doesn't support the slider control nor does it support the logon/logoff dialog skinning.

Five different users could submit "patches" to this skin.

Patch 1 would just have the task panel (shellstyle).

Patch 2 would just be the logon/logoff dialog skinning

Patch 3 would have the have the XP Start bar

Patch 4 would have the slider control

Patch 5 would be another rendition of the task panel and it would have the XP Start bar and the logon/logoff skinning.

On a site like WinCustomize (or any other site that supported this technology), when the user chose to download the skin, it would bring up a dialog asking which patches (if any) a user would like to also download.
Once downloaded, when the user went to apply the skin it would bring up a dialog asking which patches they would like to apply. The updates would be displayed to user by widget (so patch 5 contains 3 widgets whereas the others are 1 widget each) to choose which pieces to use.

In this way, older skins could be updated by fans and the original effort to create the skin would be rewarded by keeping the skin fresh and new over the long term.

So where is the debate? How much say should the skin author have? WinCustomize is known for being very protective of skin author rights. But there is the conflict in wanting skin authors work to be kept useful and worthwhile over the long run. Obviously any skin patch that used the original author's graphics would need express written consent. But what about skin patches that don't use any of the graphics from the original skin? I.e. a Shellstyle wouldn't need graphics from the original skin and neither would an XP Start bar. Additionally, what policies should be by default?

Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose. This way, the thousands of existing skins can gain a second life and it is Stardock's view that the vast majority of MIA skin authors would prefer that. Moderators would still reject any skin patch that used artwork from the original skin without express written consent however.

What's your view?