[1.12.x] Editor Extensions Redux released (with SelectRoot merge. StripSymmetry & NoOffsetLimits)

[Lorgar]

Ok have taken it down when results vary that much for other people.

Just wanted to share a version that worked for me to help in the meantime.

[linuxgurugamer]

Editor Extensions is now available for KSP 1.3.1

Version 3.3.14:

• updated internal offsets for KSP 1.3.1

[Snark]

Some thoughts on licensing, and users distributing modified copies, since it's relevant to what just happened here.  In spoiler section because it's not directly relevant to the point of this mod, just discussing licensing issues thereof.

Spoiler

7 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

PLEASE take this down.

This mod is very sensitive to internal changes in the game, more needs to be done than just the version number check

7 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

This dll is having some people report bugs to Squad.

Yes, that's unfortunate-- sorry you had this kerfuffle.  However, FWIW, it's worth bearing in mind that since the mod is licensed MIT, which is very permissive, it means that not only are people within their legal rights to post modified content (as Lorgar did here), but essentially by choosing that license you're explicitly telling the community that it's fine to redistribute modified copies.  So if someone does do that, they're not even being a jerk-- they're just doing what you told them it's fine for them to do.

This is an unfortunate fact of life, and is a significant factor in Why We Can't Have Nice Things.  It's a fundamental contradiction between, on the one hand, wanting to let software be free and let people do whatever they want with it, and on the other hand, being able to have "curated content" where there's an authorized caretaker who can make sure nothing bad happens.  Can't have both, alas.

For example, I ran into exactly this problem with my own mods.  I originally licensed them all MIT, because "I want people to use it freely" and I figured that was being nice.  Until the day that someone did exactly what just happened to you, here:  they posted a modified version of my most popular mod, because they just couldn't wait for an update, and wanted to "help people", and thought they were doing the world a favor.

The result?  To prevent a recurrence, I reluctantly decided to re-license most of my mods to the much more draconian CC-BY-NC-ND, which is only one step removed from "all rights reserved" and explicitly forbids distributing modified copies.  I felt that I was forced to.

Yes, that sucked for my users, and there were folks who tried to convince me otherwise.    But I stuck with it, because unfortunately the choice was between "draconian license" (which sucks for my users) and "permissive license" (which sucks for me).  And "sucks for me" simply isn't an option, because if I did that, I would quickly start to hate modding and would stop doing so and then my users would really lose.

Was I happy about it?  No, I hated to do it.  But it was one of those "can't eat your cake and have it, too" scenarios.

The whole sordid story is laid out here, for the curious:

...but what it boils down to is that either you have to put a restrictive license on, or else you just have to be willing to live with the fact that people are going to do what just happened here, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Not that I'm telling you to change the license.  Wouldn't dream of telling anyone what to do with their mod.    Just a cautionary tale that "this is what's going to happen," and you can do with that as you will.

 

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, Snark said:

Some thoughts on licensing, and users distributing modified copies, since it's relevant to what just happened here.  In spoiler section because it's not directly relevant to the point of this mod, just discussing licensing issues thereof.

  Reveal hidden contents

Yes, that's unfortunate-- sorry you had this kerfuffle.  However, FWIW, it's worth bearing in mind that since the mod is licensed MIT, which is very permissive, it means that not only are people within their legal rights to post modified content (as Lorgar did here), but essentially by choosing that license you're explicitly telling the community that it's fine to redistribute modified copies.  So if someone does do that, they're not even being a jerk-- they're just doing what you told them it's fine for them to do.

This is an unfortunate fact of life, and is a significant factor in Why We Can't Have Nice Things.  It's a fundamental contradiction between, on the one hand, wanting to let software be free and let people do whatever they want with it, and on the other hand, being able to have "curated content" where there's an authorized caretaker who can make sure nothing bad happens.  Can't have both, alas.

For example, I ran into exactly this problem with my own mods.  I originally licensed them all MIT, because "I want people to use it freely" and I figured that was being nice.  Until the day that someone did exactly what just happened to you, here:  they posted a modified version of my most popular mod, because they just couldn't wait for an update, and wanted to "help people", and thought they were doing the world a favor.

The result?  To prevent a recurrence, I reluctantly decided to re-license most of my mods to the much more draconian CC-BY-NC-ND, which is only one step removed from "all rights reserved" and explicitly forbids distributing modified copies.  I felt that I was forced to.

Yes, that sucked for my users, and there were folks who tried to convince me otherwise.    But I stuck with it, because unfortunately the choice was between "draconian license" (which sucks for my users) and "permissive license" (which sucks for me).  And "sucks for me" simply isn't an option, because if I did that, I would quickly start to hate modding and would stop doing so and then my users would really lose.

Was I happy about it?  No, I hated to do it.  But it was one of those "can't eat your cake and have it, too" scenarios.

The whole sordid story is laid out here, for the curious:

...but what it boils down to is that either you have to put a restrictive license on, or else you just have to be willing to live with the fact that people are going to do what just happened here, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Not that I'm telling you to change the license.  Wouldn't dream of telling anyone what to do with their mod.    Just a cautionary tale that "this is what's going to happen," and you can do with that as you will.

 

I appreciate the comments, and don’t disagree with them.

Unfortunately, in this and many of my other mods, I can’t change the license.  I have to abide by the original license of the mod from the original author.

So it’s either a case of abandoning the mod, or dealing with it.  Luckily, this is the first time it’s happened to me.

I dislike the ND licenses because if the author goes away, the mod dies, unless the author put in some sort of clause opening up the license if he is gone; see what @stupid_chris has with Real Chutes.

[Snark]

14 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Unfortunately, in this and many of my other mods, I can’t change the license.  I have to abide by the original license of the mod from the original author.

I don't believe that's the case.  It is the case for strong-copyleft licenses like GPL, but MIT isn't copyleft.  It doesn't say anything about how you license or do anything with derived content.  It's really just one step removed from "public domain"-- in practical terms, about the only difference between MIT and public domain is that with MIT, anyone who uses it needs to give credit to the original author.

So, the original Editor Extensions is MIT licensed with the original author.  But I believe, legally speaking, you're in the clear to release this mod with whatever license you like... as long as you give credit to the original that you're using, and provide a link to it, and the fact that the original has that license.  Because if someone doesn't like what you're doing, they have the same freedom to go and use the original source material that you have.

Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an "authority" on licenses-- that's just my reading of how they work, here.

14 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I dislike the ND licenses because if the author goes away, the mod dies, unless the author put in some sort of clause opening up the license if he is gone

Yep, a.k.a. a "time-bomb license".  Nothing wrong with that, as long as the author is willing to live with the complexity of, 1. including the appropriate language in the license, and 2. making sure to "maintain a presence" (however that's defined).  In the case of my own mods, I wasn't willing to do that, so I didn't include any time-bomb clause.  But there's nothing wrong with the idea, and if someone wants to do that with their mods because they're less selfish and more public-spirited than I am, more power to 'em. 

[Wyzard]

1 minute ago, Snark said:

I don't believe that's the case.  It is the case for strong-copyleft licenses like GPL, but MIT isn't copyleft.  It doesn't say anything about how you license or do anything with derived content.  It's really just one step removed from "public domain"-- in practical terms, about the only difference between MIT and public domain is that with MIT, anyone who uses it needs to give credit to the original author.

So, the original Editor Extensions is MIT licensed with the original author.  But I believe, legally speaking, you're in the clear to release this mod with whatever license you like... as long as you give credit to the original that you're using, and provide a link to it, and the fact that the original has that license.

This idea is supported by the fact that BSD-licensed code is included in Linux (where it's redistributed under the GPL license) and in commercial products like Windows and macOS (where it's redistributed under a restrictive no-derivatives sort of license).  This StackExechange question has a more-detailed explanation.

But I think changing EER to a no-derivatives license, just to prevent someone from updating it incorrectly for a new KSP version, would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The permissive license is what allowed linuxgurugamer to pick up maintenance of it, which is why we're able to use it now, and if linuxgurugamer were to leave the KSP community for some reason, the same permissive license would allow someone else to pick it up instead.  That's more valuable than preventing a buggy unofficial update now and then.

[Snark]

32 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

But I think changing EER to a no-derivatives license, just to prevent someone from updating it incorrectly for a new KSP version, would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  The permissive license is what allowed linuxgurugamer to pick up maintenance of it, which is why we're able to use it now, and if linuxgurugamer were to leave the KSP community for some reason, the same permissive license would allow someone else to pick it up instead.  That's more valuable than preventing a buggy unofficial update now and then.

Well, there are options.  One could use a time-bomb clause, as has been suggested.   Or even if there weren't a time-bomb clause, the original Editor Extensions is out there and licensed MIT, which means that if EER went away, someone else could pick up the original and update it, as linuxgurugamer has done here.  (Yes, that means they'd have to duplicate all the work that LGG has done, which is not ideal.  Not saying it's perfect, just that the option is there.)

Certainly there's no argument that a permissive license has benefits to the community.  The issue is when a license causes problems for the author.   Better to have a license that risks Bad Thing if the author goes away, than to have a license that causes the author to go away.

So whatever license a mod has, what really matters is not whether the community likes it, but rather whether the author can live with it.  It's up to the author.  In my case, I wasn't willing to live with the hassle, so I went draconian.  Hated to do it, but I know myself well enough to understand that if I didn't do that, I was only one incident away from ragequitting modding entirely, which would make both me and my users sad.  Someone less brittle, who has more tolerance for shenanigans than I do, would make a very different choice. 

In any case, I'll drop this discussion here, now-- really don't want to derail the discussion of LGG's excellent mod with an off-topic discussion of mod licenses in general.

[NotAnAimbot]

Ignore reply, I found out why it didn't work.

Edited October 8, 2017 by NotAnAimbot

[Azimech]

I'm unable to select the receiving end of both struts and fuel lines, when using offset Rotate does work on both ends. Is this a bug or something I'm missing?

KSP 1.3.1, EEX 3.3.14.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Azimech

[mindseyemodels]

so how would I rotate symmetry axis? I want to be able to radially attach things onto the corners of my ship but cant because it is a triangular ship in the sph so the symmetry is treated like that of a rocket then again tr-3b or "project blackstar" is a very strange craft compared to conventional spacecraft

 

[Poodmund]

@linuxgurugamer, when I am entering text into a text field in the Editor scene, either in the Vessel Name input or in the Part Search input, the hot keys for this mod are still activated. Is there anyway to detect when these text field inputs are active and disable the hotkeys temporarily so that they are not triggered when the user is typing into these fields?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Poodmund said:

@linuxgurugamer, when I am entering text into a text field in the Editor scene, either in the Vessel Name input or in the Part Search input, the hot keys for this mod are still activated. Is there anyway to detect when these text field inputs are active and disable the hotkeys temporarily so that they are not triggered when the user is typing into these fields?

Add it as an issue on Github, it's not a simple fix, I'll try to get to it soon

[Poodmund]

3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Add it as an issue on Github, it's not a simple fix, I'll try to get to it soon

I appreciate it may be quite a complex issue as we are dealing with Unity here... anyway, done and done.

[jlcarneiro]

On 16/10/2017 at 12:48 PM, Azimech said:

I'm unable to select the receiving end of both struts and fuel lines, when using offset Rotate does work on both ends. Is this a bug or something I'm missing?

KSP 1.3.1, EEX 3.3.14.

Same here. Including versions. May it be a known incompatibility with another mod?

[Azimech]

1 hour ago, jlcarneiro said:

Same here. Including versions. May it be a known incompatibility with another mod?

I'll do a test when I've got the time. My modlist is tiny anyway. 

[linuxgurugamer]

I doubt there is an incompatibility.  Don't forget that the ability to manipulate both ends of a strut are new.

I'll look into it.

[linuxgurugamer]

OK, it's a problem with the No Offset Limits code.  If you disable the No Offset Limits in the EEX settings, it will work.

I am working on a fix

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 3.3.15:

• Added check for compound part in NoOffsetLimits, will not work on compound parts

[linuxgurugamer]

There is a problem with this release, causing an exception and preventing offsets from working

I have it fixed, just need to do some testing with this and another fix to eliminate the issue of typing in the editor boxes (ie:  disable hotkeys)

[linuxgurugamer]

new release, 3.3.16

• Removed compound part check, was not working
• Hotkeys no longer trigger while text input field has focus

[Poodmund]

Just spitballing here Linux, but would it be at all conceivable that a Rectangular Array function could be possible in the Editor scenes when adding parts? The Rotational Symmetry tool is just a polar array around the part's origin at the set radius of the collider mesh's distance... could you specify a rectangular array to do something similar (even if its just limited to one row) so that you could place down like multiple parts down in a line with equal distances between them?

This would be useful for situations like placing down lines of Solar Panels, equidistant lights down a vessel etc.

Let it be known I have no idea how this could be implemented as its not something like changing an existing behaviour but introducing a brand new one.  

[linuxgurugamer]

3 hours ago, Poodmund said:

Just spitballing here Linux, but would it be at all conceivable that a Rectangular Array function could be possible in the Editor scenes when adding parts? The Rotational Symmetry tool is just a polar array around the part's origin at the set radius of the collider mesh's distance... could you specify a rectangular array to do something similar (even if its just limited to one row) so that you could place down like multiple parts down in a line with equal distances between them?

This would be useful for situations like placing down lines of Solar Panels, equidistant lights down a vessel etc.

Let it be known I have no idea how this could be implemented as its not something like changing an existing behaviour but introducing a brand new one.  

And you are free to write that code.  :-)

Not going to be done by me, sorry

EEX only modifies existing behaviour, it doesn't add new behaviour.

[HeliosPh0enix]

Is the latest version compatible with 1.3.0?  Not all of the mods I use work in 1.3.1 so I haven't updated yet.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 11/22/2017 at 11:42 PM, HeliosPh0enix said:

Is the latest version compatible with 1.3.0?  Not all of the mods I use work in 1.3.1 so I haven't updated yet.

No, you need the version specific for 1.3.0

[DrPastah]

How do I make symmetry reset itself after each part automatically? It's annoying when I accidentally add 8 or 20 of a part because I didn't pay attention to symmetry.