Jump to content

Plug In's and Licenseing


RayneCloud

Recommended Posts

We've had some issues with Plug-In's and code theft as of late, and here is our official stance on the subject...

A "Work" is defined in two parts,

Part One: An original work of code, texture, or modeling.

Part Two: A derived work of code, texture, or modeling.

In the case of Part One, a license must accompany the work as well as the Source Code, in both the forum post and in the download file.

In the case of Part Two, the above Part One definition is held in the same. Any works that are derived MUST at all times attribute the original work, and MUST abide that works License. Failure to do so will see removal of the offending derived work, as well as possible punitive action against the user who failed to follow these definitions.

Thee above rules-set is non-negotiable and will be enforced.

-Damion Rayne

Authorizing Moderator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are original content creators required to license their work? Would it not be simpler (and just as effective) to say "honor any given licenses"?

Ultimately, it's up to the person licensing their work to distribute it where they see fit. For some, it's a separate license file. Some projects include the license directly in the source files, since those are often used individually in derived works. I've also seen some people releasing their work in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are original content creators required to license their work? Would it not be simpler (and just as effective) to say "honor any given licenses"?

Ultimately, it's up to the person licensing their work to distribute it where they see fit. For some, it's a separate license file. Some projects include the license directly in the source files, since those are often used individually in derived works. I've also seen some people releasing their work in the public domain.

Non-negotiable and will be enforced. Put up a license, or don't put up your mod, we will be enforcing this all next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Squad's position on the whole modding scene in a official stance and how do they want licencing to be done? If that is a unknown, this whole effort (while in good faith) will fail. We need something that keeps everyone in a somewhat more sound legal standing and not just go pick a licence out of the internet that you don't fully understand and use it otherwise you wont be able to post your mod here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. So all plugins are required to have source posted

then this happens! Anyways, this was posted a while back, relevant now:"Though if you plan to use a significant amount of some plugin's code you may need author's permission". How significant was this "stealing"

either choose plugin source or "protected" plugins.

Edited by Damion Rayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you guys are making more out of this then there actually is. If you want your mods posted on these forums, you have to A: Put the source somewhere, in the zip or an extra file what ever. (This is NOT NEW) 2. Post a license, either your own (somewhere in the zip or an extra file) or a copy of the original authors license. This is thee only official stance you're going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to supply full license text, or a clear reference (like "CC BY-SA, see creativecommons.org for more information") would suffice?

And -- yes, I see that you've removed a link to WTFPL from the post above. Does it mean that this one is not considered to be a 'license'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to supply full license text, or a clear reference (like "CC BY-SA, see creativecommons.org for more information") would suffice?

And -- yes, I see that you've removed a link to WTFPL from the post above. Does it mean that this one is not considered to be a 'license'?

Why are you guys making this so blasted difficult? No, I do not consider WTFPL a "License" I consider it garbage, and to answer the second question...

A reference or a full text is fine.

Example: "This plugin contains code used from MuMech, reference MuMech License, Used with Permission"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you guys are making more out of this then there actually is. If you want your mods posted on these forums, you have to A: Put the source somewhere, in the zip or an extra file what ever. (This is NOT NEW) 2. Post a license, either your own (somewhere in the zip or an extra file) or a copy of the original authors license. This is thee only official stance you're going to get.

This seems to have caused this new rule in the first place (thus the backlash). It would be simpler to enforce it for those that wish to release the source (those that do plugins) and assume CC BY-NC-SA for everyone else. Also grandfathering of current not updated mods should not be held accountable and removed unless they are actively updating.

Do I need to supply full license text, or a clear reference (like "CC BY-SA, see creativecommons.org for more information") would suffice?

And -- yes, I see that you've removed a link to WTFPL from the post above. Does it mean that this one is not considered to be a 'license'?

WTFPL is still a licence (it is used in Debian and is considered a licence. It is a very simple one.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you guys making this so blasted difficult? No, I do not consider WTFPL a "License" I consider it garbage, and to answer the second question...

A reference or a full text is fine.

Example: "This plugin contains code used from MuMech, reference MuMech License, Used with Permission"

Okay, but it being "garbage" isn't for the cm to decide, its for the person posting content. Otherwise it becomes a slippery slope of xy aren't licenses, but z is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reference or a full text is fine.
Thanks for an explanation.

I was just wondering whether my previous releases comply with this rule. It turns out they do.

Well, it may be... but keep in mind that releasing under this one violates [thread=15254]Rules Addendum 25JUL2012[/thread] -- and may result in the post being suspended ;). Edited by Tosh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for an explanation.

I was just wondering whether my previous releases comply with this rule. It turns out they do.

Well, it may be... but keep in mind that releasing under this one violates [thread=15254]Rules Addendum 25JUL2012[/thread] -- and may result in the post being suspended ;).

Well in the end it is a licence and would be allowed. They do not dictate what licence you can use as the creator chooses it. If they do dictate what licence you can and can not use then we would have MUCH LARGER problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rule like this serves no purpose. It should be up to the content creator to decide whether or not to put a license on their work. If they don't then you can simply assume that the software is public domain. If they do, then users should abide by that license when using the software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rule like this serves no purpose. It should be up to the content creator to decide whether or not to put a license on their work. If they don't then you can simply assume that the software is public domain. If they do, then users should abide by that license when using the software.

While I agree that in the real world of software development it should be up to the content creator, this isn't the real world of software development. Rules like this are needed to prevent people forgetting to licence their work and then becoming frustrated when someone uses it without their permission.

This rule does far more good than harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that in the real world of software development it should be up to the content creator, this isn't the real world of software development. Rules like this are needed to prevent people forgetting to licence their work and then becoming frustrated when someone uses it without their permission.

This rule does far more good than harm.

But outright preventing mods from being posted here because someone who is too young to understand it all does not help anyone either. It isn't that hard to say that if people do not put up a licence that they will loose certain rights in regards of protecting their work.

The other problem is that we do not have a official stance on what rights Squad gives out in regards to mod creation (as in can anyone create and then sell a mod or take a model already created and use it for their mod).

This whole thing seems thrown together suddenly and not really thought through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whole point of this forum is to support our younger members.

admittedly little jimmy's cfg edit of the unsized parts isn't really worth much, is there really a point to ban him because he didn't even know what a license was, and was just trying out modding for the first time.

(also, its licensing, not licenseing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The block on a mod being posted is only until the modder gets their act together and adds a licence. As soon as they do that then they can re-post their mod. From then on, we can protect their work more effectively.

And that is what this is all about: it is about protecting people who are enthusiastic and talented, but either naive or absent-minded. It is about making it much harder for thieves and rip-off merchants to say "oh, but this was released into the Public Domain with no licence!" and get away with it.

(Requiring that modders add their source project to a mod has two important benefits. The first - and most important - is so the code can be vetted by the community for exploits or malware. The second benefit is so modders can learn from each other, which is the best and quickest way to promote and disseminate expertise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But outright preventing mods from being posted here because someone who is too young to understand it all does not help anyone either. It isn't that hard to say that if people do not put up a licence that they will loose certain rights in regards of protecting their work.

The other problem is that we do not have a official stance on what rights Squad gives out in regards to mod creation (as in can anyone create and then sell a mod or take a model already created and use it for their mod).

This whole thing seems thrown together suddenly and not really thought through.

That's only your opinion jord, only your opinion. As for the example you're using, we wont be banning people and we will be helping people understand this ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The block on a mod being posted is only until the modder gets their act together and adds a licence. As soon as they do that then they can re-post their mod. From then on, we can protect their work more effectively.

And that is what this is all about: it is about protecting people who are enthusiastic and talented, but either naive or absent-minded. It is about making it much harder for thieves and rip-off merchants to say "oh, but this was released into the Public Domain with no licence!" and get away with it.

(Requiring that modders add their source project to a mod has two important benefits. The first - and most important - is so the code can be vetted by the community for exploits or malware. The second benefit is so modders can learn from each other, which is the best and quickest way to promote and disseminate expertise.)

In the end there are people who do not understand and of this (and probably will not for years) and there are mods that simply are not updated anymore but still work.

These new rules should be enforced on new mods and mods that are being constantly updated. The rest should be grandfathered and assumed to be some sort of licence that protects the creator. That would include locking their thread with a notice to have it unlocked to have a licence lined up.

In the end this problem will still continue and will be a problem off the site. Yes it is nice to have people who know how to pick a correct licence out but lets be honest here, most likely the average user age on this forum is quite low and there needs to be materials for them to make a decision. Hopefully we don't need to go into DMCA Takedown Notices and explaining that horrible mess to people who could care less but that is also something that might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having this rule is better than not having this rule, despite the problems. ALL systems to protect modders copyright have issues, except the one that won't happen - a non-moddable KSP. These rules are the best balance that can be achieved.

As for plugins out there that are orphaned, in all likelihood they will become unworkable before too many more releases. And if the modder is inactive and can't be bothered to update for releases, are they going to be too bothered about a licence-related block? But new, active modders who aren't up to speed are going to be grateful to Squad for proactively helping to protect their rights. And if a mod is not being supported, then how many people are downloading it?

And I agree - nothing can be done about off-site copyright violatgion. But does that give Squad permission to allow it on site? No. It does not.

It's a matter of balance: create the least inconvenience, versus doing the least good. Sometimes it's a good idea to cause a small amount of inconvenience in order to prevent harm.

In the end, these are the rules. They won't change. Everybody now understands them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a point of further clarification, the following is REALLY simple...

Is your work yours and yours only? Then put in a readme, or on the forums a "license" and that can literally be something as simple as "I give permission to use this in derived works." Or you can look for a license of some sort related to software and just copy it.

Is your work not your own? Does it contain code or work from someone else? Then give credit to all the authors and their licenses, this is not that hard and we've had this rule for months, we're just now enforcing it, and we can enforce it. We don't have the time to handle little "copyright" infringement claims and deep investigations into "so and so stole my code!." As for why the WTF license was removed, it was mainly because of the cursing which is against the rules here.

Anyway, the forum staff have been told to answer any questions and help anyone understand this.

-DR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...