• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,587 Excellent

About taniwha

  • Rank
    Construction Gingerbeer
  1. @DrexW: exporting of what, in particular? AFAIK, the only thing not working currently is skinned meshes and bones.
  2. Things have changed since the days of 0.25, but I can assure you that back then, legs very much were a lot of work. They look to be more work now.
  3. No, whether or not KSP can be considered to be the system is the core of the argument. Regardless, this argument has become little more than flogging a dead horse. You are not convinced by my arguments. I am not convinced by yours. Enough arguments either way have been presented such that others can make their own decisions. You license your mods as you see fit. I will license mine as I see fit. Others will license theirs as they see fit. You have made your recommendations, you have done what you can. I do not expect to be replying to either you or Boris-Barboris any further.
  4. You do have it backwards. The only entity distributing anything proprietary is Take-Two. No modder is attempting to distribute a proprietary program linked against free libraries. That's... That's not how the law works. "Your honour, I was confident that I was allowed to..." That is not the point. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will have to face the consequences. That should go without saying. However, I am confident that I am not wrong and thus am not worried. (sorry about the delay, but the timing was bad (family obligations) and I needed time to consider my reply). Again, full quote, please, however, I happen to remember the gist of the context. This does NOT affect the owner of the sub-program, nor does it affect anybody using the sub-program. It affects only those attempting to distribute the main program where the main program requires the GPL sub-program. In this particular case, it would affect only Take-Two, but because KSP does not in any way depend on our mods, KSP is not linked against our mods (other than via an agnostic dll loading system), and Take-Two is not distributing our mods, I would argue that even Take-Two is unaffected. The GPL is a potential problem for system integrators and distributors, not for users. That is the point of the GPL. I consider your stated problem to be innocent of existing until proven guilty of existing. Thus I will behave as if it does not exist.
  5. Actually, it changes everything: it proves you have things backwards. But thank you.
  6. Regular programs cannot run without an operating system. KSP mods cannot run without KSP. Thus the relation between KSP mods and KSP is very similar to the relation between regular programs and the operating system on which they run. Indeed, in absolute terms, it can be argued KSP is not an operating system (but it is undeniable that KSP is a system, even in absolute terms), but in terms relative to a KSP mod, KSP is very much like an operating system. System libraries are any libraries reasonably expected to be present in any instance of the overall system. KSP's libraries are guaranteed[1] to be present, and thus count as system libraries with respect to KSP. KSP is fully functional without even a single mod installed[2]. Thus it does not depend, in any way or by any means, on mods. Mods are entirely dependent on KSP in order to be operational. KSP provides the equivalent of system calls and data structures upon which mods depend. Thus, from the perspective of the mods, KSP is the system. Now, whether this argument would stand in a court of law is unknown, but I am confident that it would at least receive very serious consideration. Also, whether this is sufficient is also unclear, but again, I am confident that it is. If you yourself are not confident, go ahead and adjust your license as you see fit, assuming you are able to, that is your right. It is in our (those of us who are confident) right to not change our licenses. [1] If the libraries not present, KSP will not operate. [2] Some may disagree, but KSP is fully functional to Squad's specification. Again, you have it backwards. And next time, quote the full question and answer, not just the little bit that might support you. Better yet, edit your post with the full quote. Expecting us to dig through the FAQ looking for your snippet is quite unreasonable when the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
  7. No, it does not, for the reasons I stated above. And to be more clear: linking with KSP's dlls is not for the purpose of adding a little functionality to our mods (if this was the case, I would not be arguing with you), but rather to provide the environment under which our mods operate. This is why KSP can be classed as the system. The problem with Eclipse and GPL plugins for Eclipse is the license conflict meant that those wishing to distribute Eclipse (in particular, the Linux distributions (Debian, Red Hat, and the others)) could not also distribute the plugins without infringing on the GPL. The authors of those GPL plugins were under no obligation to do anything, even if they used third-party GPL code. No it's not. Stop pulling new definitions out of thin air. There is no pulling of definitions out of thin air. My assertion is based on an understanding of how software in general and KSP in particular operate as a system. I have shown my reasoning multiple times, including once again in this post.
  8. The problem is, nobody is distributing any GPL licensed code under a license that is incompatible with the GPL. KSPs license does not cover our code.
  9. Even if you are correct that KSP cannot be counted as the system (and I am very confident that you are not correct), there is still no crime (copyright violation is not a criminal act), nor is there any infringement because modders do not bundle mods with KSP. Only Take-Two can bundle anything with KSP, and thus it is only Take-Two that can infringe on the copyright of the GPL code, even third-party: mods are separate entities even though they rely on KSP to be functional. As I said earlier, you were confused by the Eclipse problem.
  10. There is no implication that the mod can be built without KSP, nor is there any implication that the user would be able to get the source to KSP. The difference between gcc vs (say) linux, and a mod vs KSP is that in the case of gcc, there are many operating systems from which to choose, but for a mod, there is only KSP. And back in the day, building gcc for a new operating system was a very non-trivial task (I know because I spent some time trying to port gcc to the i860 in big-endian mode (don't remember the exact OS, some unix variant)). This means that should a competitor to KSP show up, users would be free to port any GPL mod to that competitor and distribute those changes. Thus, KSP is the system, it's just that there is currently only one system from which we can choose.
  11. There are very few mods that care (beyond knowing which asset bundle to load) what the underlying operating system is, so for all intents and purposes, KSP is the system.
  12. Yeah, one of the things I hate about this forum software. And the user will receive a zip with the source, or a link to the github repository, or whatnot. However, only the source to the mod is required. Modders would not be required to give the source to KSP as KSP does not form a part of the mod in the same way Photoshop and its dlls do not form a part of any GPL plugin written for Photoshop. Of course, those plugins may not be distributed with Photoshop, but that's hardly a problem, and nobody would expect the plugin's author to provide the source for Photoshop. One thing that IS required, however, is complete build scripts (many mods fail here), which is one reason I use make and Makefiles to get from git repository to distributable zip for all my mods (other than Kethane, but it's not GPL anyway, not originally mine either, but I still use make to install it). Actually, everything required to BUILD the licensed "program" (the mod) such that it can be run on the "system" (KSP).
  13. Your text is not readable, do not colorize your text. Not everyone uses the default theme.
  14. KSP is the "operating system". Regardless, I doubt anybody will bother putting in an exception clause. I know that I will not.
  15. This is no different to GPL programs running on a closed operating system (windows, solaris, etc (is any closed OS but windows still alive?). There are GPL programs that run only on windows, and the GPL FAQ mentions this, acknowledges the legitimacy, but frowns on it. So, once again, a mountain out of a molehill.