Having looked at the various rules, I think you may be misunderstanding things a bit. Whilst you do need to provide the source code, you are free to use any license that allows the viewing of source code. In particular, you could use, say, a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that other people can only download and share your code in its entirety as long as they credit you, and they cannot create any derivative works (i.e. nab pieces of the code for themselves), or use it commercially. Essentially, as Ted mentioned in one of his threads, the source code publishing is a protective measure. Even if someone publishes a completely bogus source code along with a virus, it is much easier for people to notice that said source code is not doing anything resembling what the plugin says it will do, than for people to spend a lot of time working out what just gave them the virus. People are not going to go to all the effort of coding a mod and then adding a virus to it - they will either just bung some random code/gibberish in, or they will go to a game which doesn't require code-publishing and have a lot more success with it. Also, a few other points, Do you have any evidence for the first claim? Also, I suspect that you are fairly unusual in the above respect. As far as I can tell, most KSP modders do it because they want to improve the game and improve the community's enjoyment of the game. Making the code readable means that other people can look at it and go "ooh, that's and interesting bit of code, I bet you could fiddle with it a bit and get [insert cool KSP improvement]." They can then go to the original code-writer and go "Hey, I think you could get [such-and-such] from this, can I nab this bit of code for it?" The original developer can refuse, but if they don't, the community benefits. There is a strong argument that readable-source code actually helps speed up innovation, so your claim needs evidence. Not if their license doesn't say you can you won't.
