King Arthur

Members
  • Content Count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About King Arthur

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If people are already deleting MiniAVC.dll (I'm one of them, though I also know what I'm doing and thus wouldn't bother you. :V) then it stands to reason they would also just delete this hypothetical new DLL also and you would be back at square one. I second Nertea's proposal of adding this as a new feature to .version files and plugins that read those files (MiniAVC/AVC), it accomodates your desire for directory structure checks without adding more bloat to the /GameData directory.
  2. I delete unnecessary bloat DLLs like MiniAVC because I want my /GameData directory to be reasonably clean and I can do the required upkeep myself, so I don't find the idea of looking out for another such DLL all that appealing.
  3. Took a while to figure out where the upvote thing was, but now it has one more upvote. :V This mod is a lifesaver, I really do appreciate your continued development of it.
  4. As I've always understood it, "climb" is the vertical climb stage of launch while "turn" is the gravity turn stage of launch. I could be wrong for all I know, though. :V
  5. Mojang owned Bukkit at that point in time according to what you linked, so yes Mojang got served (and would have gotten served even more had they not axed Bukkit). I see no problem of the referenced event, a license was broken and the infringing works were killed and the offending parties asked to cease or face further legal consequnces. So yes, file a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus. Go for it. If Kopernicus is in violation of licenses, whether their own or those whose code they reuse, they should be served.
  6. Duplication of effort. To rephrase what Nertea already brought up, why not directly contribute to the master branch if you're interested in working on the bleeding edge and the "never be fully stable"? You said yourself that you would "send bugs upstream" in your original post, if I remember correctly, implying your code would be written primarily separately from the master branch. Why not just work together with the original devs in the first place? At least with regards to Scatterer, I'm of the understanding it is being actively developed and maintained (I don't actually follow Scatterer's developments as I don't use it myself, so I could be wrong). Even if the master branch is stale (eg: Planetshine), your fork could have been presented like how prestja did with his fork. Most, if not all, of the mod devs here are just hobbyists who do what they do in their free time, I've always gotten the impression the modding community here hates work duplication because it is inefficient and wastes precious time that could have been spent on something else. Consider how, for example, Blue Dog and Tantares offload Soviet and American rocketry parts to each other because otherwise it would be duplicated effort, and working together on collaborative projects such as Restock and Community Resource Pack where they can each contribute their specialties. You are absolutely within your right to fork a mod if the license permits it, and nobody will stop you in your endeavour. If a mod dev asks you to stop in violation of their own license, you have a right to just ignore their demands and continue. However, the community appreciates mod devs being considerate of each other, so a mod that eschews such considerations will receive some backlash regardless of whether you are legally correct; even moreso in a high-stress time like right now where the dust from 1.8's release hasn't settled yet. Kopernicus is LGPLv3 and includes as well as links against a MIT library (ModularFlightIntegrator). It's a problem. Also, reading material: http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/ tl;dr If someone gets mad, they can make your code go away and it won't come back. It doesn't even cost more than a few hundred dollars. Yes, it applies to code you link against to, making it even worse (they are wrong on that and there is fairly recent legal precedent). So a license infraction results in the work getting axed? Sounds perfectly fine to me, working as intended. A GPL licensed work getting used and redistributed in a closed-source product should result in copyright strikes and takedowns unless correction measures are taken by the offending party. Hell, this is the entire point behind the GPL; to ensure all GPL licensed works remain permanently accessible by anyone and everyone under threat of legalese. Mojang dun goofed, and they got served for it; all is well. So to your query of issuing a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus? Go for it. Granted I'm not sure on what legal grounds you specifically have to be issuing copyright strikes against them, but I say go for it (or ask someone who has the legal basis to do so). Make a gigantic fuss, that's how problems get fixed. In the immortal words of Hachiman from Oregairu: A problem isn't a problem until someone makes it a problem.
  7. Consider how positively this 1.8 recompile of Planetshine was received (which you're aware of already): The mod was forked because a swift update didn't seem forthcoming, Valerian's earlier post notwithstanding. What prestja and you did are fundamentally the same, but what was different was the execution. Prestja's fork is presented in such a way that it is in support of the original mod, rather than a wholly separate fork. Courtesy and consideration was paid to both Valerian and Papa_Joe by making it clear that they have the right of way should they decide to follow up on further developments, and incompatibilities between the branches were kept to a minimum (if any) so both the devs and end-users aren't unnecessarily hassled. Personally, I feel the claims of license misuse are overblown. KSP modding has been around for 8 years, of which I've witnessed ~6 years on and off and I can't recall any significant instances where license misuse was a problem. Most of it is common sense anyway, with attribution, share-alike, and non-commercial being the primary things everyone is concerned about which is covered in some form or another by basically any GPL/MIT/Apache/Creative Commons license. Actual cases of license misuse and the problems it created within the KSP community likely need to be cited if this so-called problem really does need addressing. Simply talking about it doesn't do much when the community at large does not actually see any negative effects.
  8. Forking and releasing a mod that has been stale for merely 10 days is fine if the license permits it, but the community at large may or may not appreciate it depending on how it's executed. Most people around here who do re-releases like that usually do it as an interim measure in direct support of the original mod, rather than a full-blown fork. To reiterate, the only rule you actually infringed was the lack of a license visible on your forum post. If you chose to continue developing your forks, noone will have stopped you provided you were in compliance with licenses. As for Chromium, first of all you're comparing things that shouldn't be compared. What you should be comparing are KHTML, WebKit (which was forked from KHTML), and Blink (which was forked from WebKit). All three rendering engines are seeing continued development as far as I know, so judging which is "better" will depend on the eyes of the beholder. Also consider Linux branches like Ubuntu and Android, whose relevant developments are fed back upstream to things such as the Linux kernel for the entire Linux ecosystem's benefit.
  9. Any mod release must be accompanied by a license named in the forum post, this has been the case for as long as I can remember and most people can accomodate this whether their mod is original or a fork. As for "hostility", I presume my suggestion to not fork Planetshine was among them. I brought that up because the original dev for Planetshine had mentioned interest in continuing support himself once 1.8 landed. It is simple courtesy to not fork mods willy-nilly, especially one that hasn't been abandoned or discontinued. Usually a fork arises to address abandonment/discontinuation (eg: Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Next from Kerbal Joint Reinforcement) or because the fork incorporates significant design or policy changes (eg: DiRT forked from Texture Replacer). Obviously the permissions and blessings from any mod devs involved will supercede courtesy, and you absolutely do not need any permissions if the license already permits it, but showing courtesy goes a long way towards maintaining a cohesive community.
  10. Planetshine had its original dev, Valerian, show up earlier saying that he intends on releasing an update for 1.8, so I would hold off on you forking that for now to save everyone unnecessary confusion.
  11. So I have a feeling this is something I've always wanted when I fly shuttles with offset thrust vectors and other such things, but the description in the OP is kind of convoluted so I would like to confirm: If I have "Control Point: Pitched" active and I set Pitch Angle to, say, 10 degrees, does that mean I am flying with a control point that has a 10 degrees pitch up offset? If the basic gist of this mod is "user-configurable control point pitch offset", then that sounds great.
  12. I am quite aware what I need to do to pick out stuff I want from Restock, no need to be snarky about it. It is really old that the slightest of disagreements evokes the white knights as if a great cardinal sin was committed. Seen it happen time and time again everywhere. Restock doesn't need you to defend its honor or whatever it is you think I've infringed. :V
  13. Given that the stock Aerodynamic Nose Cone fits both the Mk3 Cockpit and rocket noses, at least as far as I can tell anyway (and I use this nose cone a lot, it's my favorite one for almost everything), I'm not convinced that Restock has to make a compromise that stock never had to deal with.
  14. I voiced most of my concerns/disagreements over in the Restock thread, if you'd like to take a look. I don't want to detract too much from discussing Tantares here, though I suppose it's alright since you're personally involved in the discussions. I have never insulted Beale's work nor do I have a problem with his or Restock/Nertea's solar panels, please do not put words in my mouth. I have intended to be courteous and respectful to Beale during my discussion with him here, if this has not been the case then I ask a moderator to point out any problems so I may address them. I inquired about keeping the old stock-style panels as a variant because I thought players, including myself, would appreciate having a choice in running Restock or not while maintaining a consistent overall style, and on the assumption that it would not be too much of a hassle for Beale to implement as he winds down his development work. One could even roleplay the stock-style panels as "older" panels or something, for the especially creative storytellers! I've had stuff radially attached to a stock HECS2 end up floating in midair when the same craft was subsequently loaded with the Restock HECS2. The Aerodynamic Nose Cone also has a very clearly different mesh and collider. I certainly appreciate that Restock went to great lengths to try and be identical to stock, but the fact of the matter is that it's "almost" the same as stock rather than an exact 1-to-1 match. In a game like, say, Skyrim where meshes have nothing to do with gameplay I wouldn't really care, but I do care in a game like KSP where the physics and other elements of gameplay involve the mesh and colliders.