|
Frankly I would suggest that all officially hosted mods must be freely distributed in source form, cannot be monetised, and must be freely available to make derivatives of, so long as the work is attributed. I really think that allowing or encouraging people to close everything for the sake of making a few pennies on adfly revenue is kinda silly, and encourages the wrong atmosphere. If everyone can crib and copy from everyone else it'd probably result in a much better set of mods in the end.
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I think the last time this came up, I suggested the following: I think this is the way to go. Force open-sauce and make sure you retain authority and the power to delete the thread/curse entry for mods that violate your agreement. Remember it's your game! Edit: I agree with the above post: allowing members of the community to fork mods is better than allowing members of the community to monetise mods. It'd be much easier for everyone if someone could just fix up the b9 pack without worrying about mod drama.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
I think there are plenty of people who will make cool mods for this game without getting any kind of financial compensation or "honor" or whatever. The basis for any modding should be that it is for free and nobody gets to own any of it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Also make sure to put in  GIANT ANGRY RED TEXT that modders are liable for any and all damages caused by their coding,I emphasize the GIANT ANGRY RED TEXT because there are lots of lazy and stupid people out there that will just skim through legal agreements.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:Also make sure to put in That seems like a bit much.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
Germstore posted:That seems like a bit much.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Robzilla posted:You overestimate people's reading comprehension. I mean the liability for any and all damages part.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:Also make sure to put in Damages? What kind of damage?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Met posted:Damages? What kind of damage? Software rich combustion.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Explain?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
idiots mostly. Say for example you are a youtube megastar and you have a massive series going on and you install a mod and it corrupts your save irrepairably. Your unreasonable fans abandon you and you lose out on that sweet youtube advertising empire. Then, probably because you're an idiot, you come crying to squad and/or litigating.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:idiots mostly.  Does this need a rule? Why should modders give two shits if some player lost their save? Why would they need to be liable for that, no matter who the player is? Make backups. Don't even address it in any sort of rule for modders.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Met posted:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:Also make sure to put in No, the modders shouldn't be liable, neither should squad. Mod licences should just have "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" clauses.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Robzilla posted:You need to go play Minecraft back when Foresty had the exploding bees code. Googled real quick. Here's some melodramatic  .quote:Long ago, Notch made Minecraft, and everything was good. It was fun, and everyone was happy. Some players characters died and thus modders are liable for any and all damages caused by their coding ?Get over it? Splode posted:No, the modders shouldn't be liable, neither should squad. Mod licences should just have "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" clauses. Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
However, including any sort of piggyback spyware or malware should be zero loving tolerance.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Mods cannot be  No copyright infringement bullshit for rehosting mods.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:Mods cannot be I don't .... I don't understand that gif? The sentence is clear enough but ... what the hell does "filez" mean?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
=warezz=illegaly distributed software=pirated poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
double nine posted:I don't .... I don't understand that gif? The sentence is clear enough but ... what the hell does "filez" mean? it doesn't contain any illegal / copyrighted (not copyrighted by the author) material.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
double nine posted:I don't .... I don't understand that gif? The sentence is clear enough but ... what the hell does "filez" mean? Filez is SA shorthand for software piracy. So, mods cannot be software pirated, if people rehost your mod it isn't a crime.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Filez is SA shorthand for software piracy. Gotcha. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Not sure why you feel it's so dramatic It's bog standard catch all clause you get along with use at your own risk at the other end of things, hopefully it means no one points the finger squarely at squad if some jerk piggybacks spyware on his stuff or somehow manages to gently caress over the mod database. also USE AT YOUR OWN RISK can be angry red text but stuff like,  you have the right to known as the creator of your work can be in happy green textedit : how do I put this plainly, the mod user accepts that they use the mod at their own risk second the mod maker must understand that they may not upload any malicious code coldpudding fucked around with this message at 16:44 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:Not sure why you feel it's so dramatic It's bog standard catch all clause you get along with use at your own risk at the other end of things, hopefully it means no one points the finger squarely at squad if some jerk piggybacks spyware on his stuff or somehow manages to gently caress over the mod database. Did you mean to say "players are liable" because you said "modders are liable?" If I were to write a mod I sure as hell would not release it under an agreement that would create liability for me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Players are fully responsible for all damages caused to modders, including but not limited to butthurt, burns, and whine stains. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
coldpudding posted:Not sure why you feel it's so dramatic It's bog standard catch all clause you get along with use at your own risk at the other end of things, hopefully it means no one points the finger squarely at squad if some jerk piggybacks spyware on his stuff or somehow manages to gently caress over the mod database. That's the nice thing about OSI licenses: most of them disclaim any warranty of the code being any good, and they also require that you give proper credit to the creator. Squad should definitely leverage the fact that thousands of other programmers want a license like that and just say "use an OSI-approved license" (maybe with a couple of suggested licenses like MIT and GPL). That should make the legalese a bit easier.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That's the nice thing about OSI licenses: most of them disclaim any warranty of the code being any good, and they also require that you give proper credit to the creator. Squad should definitely leverage the fact that thousands of other programmers want a license like that and just say "use an OSI-approved license" (maybe with a couple of suggested licenses like MIT and GPL). That should make the legalese a bit easier. Further stipulate (even though it should be unnecessary) that the license must allow forks/derivative works/incorporation into other mods. Just to really stick it to the rear end in a top hat mod makers.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Giving a choice over license might not even be necessary. Just say anything produced for KSP explicitly uses the MIT License and stop worrying about licensing issues entirely. You make any mod for KSP, its MIT licensed from the get go, you don't have a say in the matter. The "MY CODE!!! YOU DON'T HAVE PERMISSION!!!!" types will just have to deal or go elsewhere. Sauer fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Mods with additional parts generally have new art assets. Depending on the license, a mod maker could be required to include the original 3d modeler and texture maps in addition to the exported Unity files. Playing Devil's advocate here because of the way the GPL defines "source" files. If you do allow GPL licensed mods you should probably get a lawyer's opinion on how to ensure the mod maker is the "distributor" in the license terms and not Squad or Curse. And what implications a GPL'd mod linking against the closed source KSP would mean  ... maybe you just shouldn't allow the GPL.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Was there an issue with a mod maker putting in game donations in their mod? That's ridiculous. I support anything that keeps a bunch of irrational entitled fucks from holding mods hostage and creating a toxic mod community over pennies, as with Minecraft. I think DSauer's recommendations are good ones.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Copy the MIT license, call it the Kerman license. All mods released for KSP are Kerman licensed by default.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:Mods with additional parts generally have new art assets. Depending on the license, a mod maker could be required to include the original 3d modeler and texture maps in addition to the exported Unity files. And yeah honestly screw the GPL. The moment you GPL something everything derived from it is also GPL'd without you having a choice in the matter. It is a licensed designed to enforce copyleft. And technically the KSP assemblies we reference in our own code would have to also be GPL to make it work. Its nice that the GPL does force the sharing of code upstream, but that's not really relevant for KSP. How many mod forks are there that are being developed concurrently with their parent Mod? MIT/BSD is just great. Its basically a "Do whatever the hell you want" license with some warranty. It doesn't force sharing code modifications but given KSP mods are only functional in KSP, its not like we have to worry about some corporation fixing bugs in the code branch they use and then sitting on the changes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Was there an issue with a mod maker putting in game donations in their mod? That's ridiculous. I support anything that keeps a bunch of irrational entitled fucks from holding mods hostage and creating a toxic mod community over pennies, as with Minecraft. I think DSauer's recommendations are good ones. There’s a PayPal button in the toolbar plugin, which happens to be a dependency for a lot of other mods.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
DSauer posted:And yeah honestly screw the GPL. The moment you GPL something everything derived from it is also GPL'd without you having a choice in the matter. It is a licensed designed to enforce copyleft. And technically the KSP assemblies we reference in our own code would have to also be GPL to make it work. Its nice that the GPL does force the sharing of code upstream, but that's not really relevant for KSP. How many mod forks are there that are being developed concurrently with their parent Mod? GPL is a perfectly acceptable choice for a mod (for instance, you want to use a GPL library in your mod), and I don't think it would cause KSP to be GPLed either. It's not like emacs on Windows requires Windows runtimes to be GPL. Also, if GPL can't be used for this reason, it's the modder's problem, not Squad's. In any case, if you want to host the mod on official sites, you'd have to allow sharing the code upstream, since your fork had to be open source to be posted on the official site. GPL doesn't really do anything extra there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
BMS posted:That is crazy. You can successfully get that entire thing into orbit in one go? Wow, I'm impressed. Although I have to ask, if it wouldn't be easier to just send it up in parts, and assemble it in orbit. I'm still working on getting the kinks out of reliable interplanetary travel to places other than Duna though, so please don't take that as a criticism, I'm far from anything resembling an expert on this. (I find new things in this game pretty much every day that reinforces that too...haha) Lifting the empty mass (145 tonnes) was really easy thanks to the NASA boosters. Those are ridiculously powerful. So yeah, those liquid boosters and three of the main boosters were all I had to drop to achieve orbit with that. I've lifted 90 tonnes into orbit before, and that was a bitch and a half because that was when the Mainsail was the best we had. I did think of using orbital construction, but that would mean I couldn't spiderweb struts around it without getting yet another mod. And it would also mean using docking ports as structural, load-bearing, parts. Which is never a good idea as they tend to get crushed when a very heavy weight is applied. They may have been fine on Kerbin, but Eve's higher gravity would have probably caused a rapid unplanned disassembly. As for your question, my very first asteroid was a class E that was bound to impact Kerbin. Hence all my asteroid moving ships being hilariously overpowered because I'm used to moving E class asteroids around. And impacts are frequent, but completely insignificant. If you want to see what happens, you'll have to attach something to it and focus on that as it enters the atmosphere, because otherwise they're just deleted as soon as they hit 30-ish KM. For moving them, I generally use four LV-Ns and loooooong burns. Puller designs can be better because joints flex in KSP so the pendulum rocket fallacy doesn't apply. But make sure your engines are far enough away from the rock to actually work. Either build wide or just a ways away. My Asteroid Relocator has 8 LV-Ns, four facing either way and wide enough that I had to juggle parts around a bit to actually place them on the ship in the VAB. I can switch between puller and pusher with action groups.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:GPL is a perfectly acceptable choice for a mod (for instance, you want to use a GPL library in your mod), and I don't think it would cause KSP to be GPLed either. It's not like emacs on Windows requires Windows runtimes to be GPL. Also, if GPL can't be used for this reason, it's the modder's problem, not Squad's. You're right, I'm over thinking it. Let mod author pick an OSI license or enforce a single "Kerman" license and stop worrying about licensing issues. Its pretty silly really for a video game but folks take this stuff a little seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
It's probably not worth it to have a Kerman license, even if it's just a rename of a more common license. It's better to stick to well known licenses than try to be cute.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:It's probably not worth it to have a Kerman license, even if it's just a rename of a more common license. It's better to stick to well known licenses than try to be cute. I agree. Not everything has to start with a K around here.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Busy weekend so I'm late to the discussion. What's been said so far is good but you might also want to explicitly include the right for Squad to 'opt in' anything they feel should be part of the actual official release: partially, wholly or using ideas/images from the mod. No compensation required and maybe toss them a bone about accreditation.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Is there any way to check what a ship's action groups (pressing the number keys, etc) will do?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:07
|
|
