Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[swjr-swis]

2 minutes ago, DefiantZombie said:

Reverse engineering is legal if the intent is to create inter-operable software and/or hardware.

Citation please. Just to make sure you're not 'stating false information', of course.

[DefiantZombie]

1 minute ago, swjr-swis said:

Citation please. Just to make sure you're not 'stating false information', of course.

https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq

[swjr-swis]

9 minutes ago, DefiantZombie said:

https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq

Not a citation, but hey, let's do your work for you, shall we:

 

Quote

The following factors are relevant to whether you are entitled to a reverse engineering, research or security exception. However, meeting any or all of these factors will not necessarily protect your work.

Quote

In Sum, If My Research Involves Reverse Engineering, What Can I Do To Limit My Legal Risk? ^

• • Consult a lawyer   

That very last phrase, or variations thereof, is mentioned half a dozen times in the article you linked. And even then, they only venture to go as far as 'limit the legal risk'. There is very good reason they use that particular phrase: even when you follow every suggestion as explained, you still run a legal risk doing so, and all you can do at most is limit it, not 'remove' it. Because - well, lawyers, and legal language, and court interpretations.

[KSK]

26 minutes ago, DefiantZombie said:

Please do your research on Copyright and DMCA before stating false information. Reverse engineering is legal if the intent is to create inter-operable software and/or hardware.

Please feel free to point me at the sections of the DMCA you believe to be relevant. And yes, I'm aware that under certain circumstances and for certain purposes, reverse engineering of software is not deemed to be copyright infringing. I'm much less certain whether that is just a default position in law that can be overridden by contract, because, in the UK at least, quite often IP law will do exactly that - it'll set out a default set of rules that only apply if there isn't a conflicting contractual obligation in place.

Interestingly, I found that link you posted too and I found this section in it:

Blizzard v. BnetD5: BnetD was an open source program that let gamers play popular Blizzard titles like World of Warcraft on servers other than Blizzard's Battle.net service, thereby offering players more options. BnetD programmers agreed to Blizzard’s EULA and Battle.net’s TOU before reverse engineering the game to create BnetD. The EULA and TOU expressly prohibited reverse engineering and hosting of Blizzard games on other servers. The Eighth Circuit held that these mass-market click-through licenses were enforceable contracts and that the programmers violated several parts of Blizzard's EULA, including the section on reverse engineering. Even though reverse engineering is a fair use under federal copyright law, the programmers waived their fair use rights through the EULA. 

Now I don't know enough about US law to tell you how binding that decision will be on other Court decisions, but I think you'll agree that that last sentence is at least relevant to our discussion?

Edited February 24, 2018 by KSK

[DefiantZombie]

15 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Not a citation, but hey, let's do your work for you, shall we:

 

That very last phrase, or variations thereof, is mentioned half a dozen times in the article you linked. And even then, they only venture to go as far as 'limit the legal risk'. There is very good reason they use that particular phrase: even when you follow every suggestion as explained, you still run a legal risk doing so, and all you can do at most is limit it, not 'remove' it. Because - well, lawyers, and legal language, and court interpretations.

Thanks for showing me where the attitude of the forum community is at. I should've never posted in a public space. Lesson learned. The court cases cited in that article give a clear picture. I'm already exhausted from having this discussion in several other places over the years. Feel free to disregard everything I've said. This will be my last post about this issue anyway.

Yes, limiting legal risk is the responsibility of the user. I never stated anything about removing risk. I stated it was allowed (i.e. by the court cases I've read verbatim). As much flak as I've given Squad over the years, I stand with whatever statement they make. Even if it's a copy/pasta requirement from the publisher. IMHO the EULA gives us everything we need to know.

I had hoped that by posting information based on research (not doing the research for others) that it would help slow the parrot effect. Apparently I was wrong. Not making that mistake again.

13 minutes ago, KSK said:

Please feel free to point me at the sections of the DMCA you believe to be relevant. And yes, I'm aware that under certain circumstances and for certain purposes, reverse engineering of software is not deemed to be copyright infringing. I'm much less certain whether that is just a default position in law that can be overridden by contractual obligations, because, in the UK at least, quite often IP law will do exactly that - it'll set out a default set of rules that only apply if there isn't a conflicting contractual obligation in place.

Interestingly, I found that link you posted too and I found this section in it:

Blizzard v. BnetD5: BnetD was an open source program that let gamers play popular Blizzard titles like World of Warcraft on servers other than Blizzard's Battle.net service, thereby offering players more options. BnetD programmers agreed to Blizzard’s EULA and Battle.net’s TOU before reverse engineering the game to create BnetD. The EULA and TOU expressly prohibited reverse engineering and hosting of Blizzard games on other servers. The Eighth Circuit held that these mass-market click-through licenses were enforceable contracts and that the programmers violated several parts of Blizzard's EULA, including the section on reverse engineering. Even though reverse engineering is a fair use under federal copyright law, the programmers waived their fair use rights through the EULA. 

Now I don't know enough about US court structure to tell you how binding that decision will be on other Court decisions, but I think you'll agree that that last sentence is at least relevant to our discussion?

Apologies for coming off rough to you. I have no good excuse (no excuses are good). My understanding of the BnetD case is that they circumvented protections in Blizzard's software. The "click-through" statement is 50/50 based on what court case you read. There are others that say it is not enforceable.

As far as I can tell copyright of mod authors is not at risk. Licensing of mods to the end user is not at risk. Modding of KSP is not at risk. If mod authors are concerned with the UGC clause as it is worded, then they need to read it and understand what the words mean, not pick and choose sections that feature legalese (all the words matter). I believe it is completely possible to release mods for KSP that avoid the UGC clause. A/V content creators have more to think about.

What mod makers need to be worried about is being too loud. A poor community response will result in a Bethesda style change to the EULA.

Feel free to DM me about this, but I stand with Squad and the EULA. It's both clear and vague enough to cover mod makers.

[KSK]

On 22 February 2018 at 10:44 PM, Just Jim said:

OK... so I doubt it's ever going to happen, but is this saying Take-Two can publish Emiko Station, and leave me out of the equation completely?

@Just Jim - that's my reading of it, yes. The part that gets me really riled up though is where they don't even appear to be obliged to credit you as the author. 

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, DefiantZombie said:

Thanks for showing me where the attitude of the forum community is at.

Please don't blame the community for anything that comes out of my keyboard - I type only for myself.

[Daishi]

Thanks @DefiantZombie, and everyone else for parsing this legalese nonsense for me.

Until a Squad rep confirms that I will continue to retain all rights to my work going forward, consider my projects frozen. I will not release something I've been working on for over a year, just for T2 to slap this "all current licenses are void" on my work and then incorporate it into their IP without any thanks or compensation on my part.

KSP as a whole was built from the work of modders. Its the only reason it is as successful as it is. Removing the rights of the content creators that only want to make the game better, is no way to garner respect from the community that are about to buy your new DLC, Squad.

 

 

[RaiderMan]

dear take 2, and dear squad..

these updated terms and conditions are very alarming on many levels.

I will summarize the prevailing thoughts of the community here for you... T2/squad..if you do slap an 'all current licenses are void' on the community's hard work and efforts..you will not only alienate the community..you will LOSE most if not all of your player base.

gamers as a whole are tired of being done over by the gaming companies. so far you and squad have been very good to us.

please do not break our trust and faith.

sincerely, one person out of a vast community of ksp gamers.

[Ultimate Steve]

20 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

dear take 2, and dear squad..

these updated terms and conditions are very alarming on many levels.

I will summarize the prevailing thoughts of the community here for you... T2/squad..if you do slap an 'all current licenses are void' on the community's hard work and efforts..you will not only alienate the community..you will LOSE most if not all of your player base.

gamers as a whole are tired of being done over by the gaming companies. so far you and squad have been very good to us.

please do not break our trust and faith.

sincerely, one person out of a vast community of ksp gamers.

Seconded. If I am right (and I hope I am wrong), stories written on the forum also would be owned by TT once the update drops. Many people here have spent years on stories, and although TT would probably not seize them and publish them without consent, they theoretically could, and I don't agree with that.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I'm just going to put some words down.

People are worried.  I (not being a lawyer, or even really any good at reading legalese, let alone foreign legalese) can't say to what degree that worry is justified.  KSP is my first foray into 3rd party content creation for a game, and I'm not familiar enough with standard practice etc to make any educated statements.  I know many of the terminology used makes it into plenty of other software EULAs.  But, I think there's two aspects to each main query.  What does the legal phrasing actually mean?  And how will this be expected to play out for KSP?  And those are not necessarily the same thing.   Many games reserve rights to do things that people are worried about, but never do so, because them claiming they can, doesn't actually over-ride other rights.  etc etc.

So, the main areas of contention I think are;

Community Art. Say, someone creates a story based on Jeb et al flying to the Mun.  Who owns that? Who controls the ownership of that? And can Take 2 (assuming EULA agreement, aka content created after the change, or by a user who has accepted the change) republish?  If they can (I'm assuming yes) are they required to give credit?  (I think it's worth noting that unless T2 replace everyone involved with corporate drones from the corporate robot factory, this seems unlikely to happen, the existing KSP staff have always been pretty good at giving credit where credit is due).  The same issue exists with such things as youtube/twitch streaming.  Doubly so for monetized versions. (I'm already dubious as to those, but there are some).

Mods:Code content:  Much of this is under existing licenses, and I'm fairly sure that as it's written under VC# or Mono, and uses the KSP API, that it is NOT in danger of wholesale abduction.  It was not "created using the Software" in any interpretation.  It should be treated the same as the existing ToS/EULA.  It does extend KSP, and essentially uses the KSP code, but I think the API implies acceptance to this activity, as does all the prior communications with KSP staff (Using that term to include Squad and Take 2).  But that's just my reading of things.  It would be worth chasing that down and getting an answer.

Mods: Parts: This is a bone of contention.  Typically parts created in a modder's 3D system of choice are imported into Unity then exported using Squad software, the KSPPartsTools, which is a set of scripts imported into Unity.  This means, without clarification, that all Parts in mods are potentially viewed as content created by the software.  And so subject to the clause that states Take 2 essentially have the license.  As I mentioned before, this could interact badly with mods that have existing licenses (all of them), but doubly so any mod that was built on earlier mods that inherited the older mod's license.

Quote

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including, but not limited to, a gameplay map, scenario, screenshot, car design, character, item, or video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions. You hereby waive and agree never to assert any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution with respect to Licensor's and other players' use and enjoyment of such assets in connection with the Software and related goods and services under applicable law. This license grant to Licensor, and terms above regarding any applicable moral rights, will survive any termination of this Agreement.

A quick statement about "The Software may allow you to create content" and how far reaching that will be treated would go a long way here.  If it's missions created with the mission creator, I think that's expected and presumably accepted.  And I think that's the sort of thing it's aimed at.  That and screenshots etc.  But if the intention is to target things created using Part Tools, then it opens a can of worms.  IMHO.  

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[Benjamin Kerman]

To prenote this: I am not a lawyer. All advice I give is based on common sense and my own, flawed understanding. Please correct me if/when i make errors. 

That out of the way: 

I read through the new terms several times. As I understand it, legal documents are written to be taken literally and to close any and all loopholes circumventing the intended effect of the document. 

Now, I don't believe in the good faith of any company until they've earned it. I don't trust TTI. I trust SQUAD, because they are open and generally, based on those of them on the forums, relatively nice. I trust the Factorio developers, because they are also very active within their own communities. 

As I see it, as companies get bigger and bigger, they loose touch with their base unless they make an effort to maintain that connection. A TTI representitive has not made a forum account that I've seen, and they've owned KSP for quite some time now. This leads me to believe that they will not be making any sort of an effort in the future to connect with us as players of their game. 

I believe that a license determines the communtiy for their game. Admittedly, I have not read the terms for KSP by SQUAD. I do understand,  based on my interactions in this community, that many things directly prohibited by TTI's new license were allowed and encouraged by SQUAD. The addition of a new, blanket license for all games owned by TTI, of which many are nothing like KSP, hurts the community that has formed around the original license. 

Based on this conclusion: 

TTI doesn't care about the playerbase. Their legal documents state (remember the definition above of a 'legal document') that they have the rights to any and all things posted on their websites and online services. Based on this information, I conclude that they will NOT give two damns (or even one, for that matter!) when one of their representatives comes onto this forum (if they do at all!), and sees a nice mod called Near Future, TAC Life support, BARIS, BD Armory, ect. ect. Do you think they will say 'Oh look! I see an ARR licence and 3k, 4k, 10k lines of code and 300 commits to their git repository! Looks like they spent a lot of time on this, we shouldn't take it...'

No. They're going to say, 'Oh look, someone already did our work! Here we go, profits!' 

So, this being said. There are several thing that I see that we, as a collected, resistant community can do. 

1) Freeze all mods in Addon Development and Releases. This means removing all download links and replacing them with messages saying 'Removed cause I don't agree with what TTI includes in their terms for this specific communtiy.' 

2) Leave mods be, but if TTI sends you a C&D letter and releases a DLC that looks strikingly similar in idea to your, now illegal, mod, you can stick a finger on your hand up at them and say 'I used publicly available data from before your license, to which this new license does not apply.' In other words, download the 1.3.1 API and continue development of mods without agreeing to this license. This means only releasing on GitHub or Spacedock with no post on the forums with links to them, as that would "grant the Company an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use any submissions you submit to the Company of any nature whatsoever, whether through a posting on a Company website, email to the Company, mail, or any other means and without any obligation to account, credit, or make any payment to you for any use thereof." (From their 'Legal Notice') 

3) Go undercover. (External communication, guards against infiltration by employees of TTI, ect. ect.) (I do not condone this, but it is what comes to mind)

Thanks for reading, and if it so happens, however unlikely, that a TTI employee or affiliate, reads this, please consider what I've said above, and all the other posts in this thread. 

TL;DR: Community is formed by license, blanket license bad, at this point we have no indication that TTI cares about the community, there may be ways around this or resistance. 

[Fobok]

I'm not a mod developer, just a player who enjoys using them. (In fact, I really physically wouldn't be able to play without some of them, like MechJeb or TCA.)

My hope is that the language around custom content was written to cover missions made in the new mission creator, perhaps using something like Steam Workshop, and not the mods we currently use. I don't have much faith in that, though.

[JPLRepo]

10 hours ago, Poodmund said:

This response unfortunately does not answer any of the queries and questions raised in this thread, all that has been said here is, "Oh, well it happens for these other games so why should you worry?". Well, seeing as, under strict policy set by SQUAD, we license all of our mods... however, this new EULA could be interpreted to say that any mods that any of us make from 6th March waive their right to be licensed under the selected license for Take Two and that Take Two can operate with the source of any of our mods released as an open license internally, claim rights to the source code and can monetize it afterwards send a cease and desist claim to the original modder.

This EULA change seems like it has been applied with VERY generic terms without much consideration as to how they affect the preexisting KSP ethos and community.

As part of the Modding community, we NEED very definitive clarification of this and I would suggest as much as it would be horrendous for another GTA V scenario to occur where the modding community are alienated from the game that they love.

@RoverDude & @JPLRepo I am sorry for singling both of you out but you obviously are caught between two parties being contracted for SQUAD and being independent mod authors. Could either of you shed any light on this situation, if you are allowed to outside of any NDA areas?

No I can't comment on this; but have passed on all the concerns to the Comms and Legal Teams who hopefully can provide you with a clearer response next week when their offices are open.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

No I can't comment on this; but have passed on all the concerns to the Comms and Legal Teams who hopefully can provide you with a clearer response next week when their offices are open.

Yeah, I would also recommend against Squad staff making statements until they've been cleared by whatever counts as a legal team.  Making a statement as a staff member holds a fair chunk of mass, and as such can set precedent.  AKA, "But SQUAD said blah blah".  And if it's precedent not wanted by head office, then that's both a nasty situation for the license situation to be in and some significantly warm water for the staff involved.

So, what JPLRepo said is as much as they should say until they get an answer from legal, which I doubt will involve calling for clarification on the weekend.  At the moment, we should just be looking for possible unforeseen ramifications of different interpretations.  Clarification from Squad/Take2 won't happen until at least Monday GMT-?.  Possibly just a quick statement Monday, followed by more depth in a few days.

I for one will continue on as if nothing changed.  The terms mentioned appear frequently all over the place, and while they can technically mean there's some aspect of license withheld by the game developers, it's pretty rare for nefariousness to occur.  (also, at least they're not EA)

[Derb]

3 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

A quick statement about "The Software may allow you to create content" and how far reaching that will be treated would go a long way here.  If it's missions created with the mission creator, I think that's expected and presumably accepted.  And I think that's the sort of thing it's aimed at.  That and screenshots etc.  But if the intention is to target things created using Part Tools, then it opens a can of worms.

If we assume Part Tools falls under the new EULA, it makes no difference for parts creators, unless they are using stock resources exclusively to create their content (re-texturing a stock part with a different stock texture). If T2 can't claim your content just because it can be used in KSP, they still can't take it if it can be used in PartTools+KSP, as you created the models, textures, etc. outside the software under the EULA. Using PartTools and KSP alone, you could not replicate a parts pack. PartTools didn't create the models, textures. The models and textures are the creator's intellectual property which is compatible with PartTools+KSP.

[sarbian]

On 2/24/2018 at 10:35 PM, Poodmund said:

This response unfortunately does not answer any of the queries and questions raised in this thread, all that has been said here is, "Oh, well it happens for these other games so why should you worry?". Well, seeing as, under strict policy set by SQUAD, we license all of our mods... however, this new EULA could be interpreted to say that any mods that any of us make from 6th March waive their right to be licensed under the selected license for Take Two and that Take Two can operate with the source of any of our mods released as an open license internally, claim rights to the source code and can monetize it afterwards send a cease and desist claim to the original modder.

That's the usual forum legalese that lawyers created to make sure not one will attack for serving the content of a post you wrote from their server, which is required to display it to all the forum users...

You do not submit your mod content or code in anyway when you post a link to it on the forum. It's the kind of of legal BS you find everywhere. 

That said a comment from their team would be nice to make things clearer.

 

As for the part about "reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, display, perform, prepare derivative works based on, or otherwise modify the Software, in whole or in part"  it is nothing new, was already in the Addon Posting Rules for years and is nothing out of the ordinary... 

Edited March 2, 2018 by sarbian

[Poodmund]

40 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

No I can't comment on this; but have passed on all the concerns to the Comms and Legal Teams who hopefully can provide you with a clearer response next week when their offices are open.

Thank you very much, this is exactly the kind of response/action I feel a lot of people were hoping for, just a little more clarity on the situation. 

I appreciate and respect the fact that you cannot comment on this issue.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

17 minutes ago, Derb said:

If we assume Part Tools falls under the new EULA, it makes no difference for parts creators, unless they are using stock resources exclusively to create their content (re-texturing a stock part with a different stock texture). If T2 can't claim your content just because it can be used in KSP, they still can't take it if it can be used in PartTools+KSP, as you created the models, textures, etc. outside the software under the EULA. Using PartTools and KSP alone, you could not replicate a parts pack. PartTools didn't create the models, textures. The models and textures are the creator's intellectual property which is compatible with PartTools+KSP.

Yes and no.  Hopefully that's the way it will be treated.  But all parts (unless someone's using asset bundles and some cleverness) are essentially created by PartTools.  Sure, they utilise content created outside part tools, but part tools is an integral part of all parts.  I agree it's a grey area, which is why all the questions.

I think the intent as far as content created with the mission maker, but that's just a matter of degrees.  How much spreadsheet work and number juggling will go into some people's missions?  I know KSP players. Some of those missions (not all) will have massive chunks of research behind them.  But I think we're all in agreement that the resultant missions are created using the software.  And thus subject to the clause.  The difference between that and the Part Tools is significant, yes, but it's still just a variation in scale, not totally different

[severedsolo]

Broadly I agree with Sarbian. As the mods are not hosted on the forums, I don't think it would count as a submission.

I also understand that even if it does count, at this point in time the chances of any of this actually being enforced are slim to none. Things change though, and one day it might be, and I'll be over a barrel because I've accepted the TOS.

Therefore, until some clarification is forthcoming from Squad/TakeTwo I will have to take some steps to protect my intellectual property.

Specifically:

• 1) All my mods will be re-released under an ARR license. This license will explicitly allow normal players to do what they like with my mods, but will explicitly forbid any Squad/TakeTwo Interaction staff from modifying or re-distributing my mods.
• 2) If no statement confirming that I will not be granting a license to use my work as TakeTwo/Squad see fit is forthcoming then I will be removing them from the forum on 5th March.

[Derb]

1 hour ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Yes and no.  Hopefully that's the way it will be treated.  But all parts (unless someone's using asset bundles and some cleverness) are essentially created by PartTools.  Sure, they utilise content created outside part tools, but part tools is an integral part of all parts.  I agree it's a grey area, which is why all the questions.

I think the intent as far as content created with the mission maker, but that's just a matter of degrees.  How much spreadsheet work and number juggling will go into some people's missions?  I know KSP players. Some of those missions (not all) will have massive chunks of research behind them.  But I think we're all in agreement that the resultant missions are created using the software.  And thus subject to the clause.  The difference between that and the Part Tools is significant, yes, but it's still just a variation in scale, not totally different

"part tools is an integral part of all parts" - Isn't KSP also integral to all parts and all mods? Think about it that way.

I think the key point is that content outside KSP and PartTools is necessary to create many parts packs - without this outside content (the modder's intellectual property), the parts pack would not be possible. Mission creation relies entirely on KSP/Mission Creator - the point here is that any player could create any given mission with just KSP, no outside IP is needed, or that's the theory behind the EULA anyway.

To say that PartTools "created" a parts mod makes as much sense to me as saying KSP created a mod because it rendered the parts in-game or made mod code usable. Any component of a mod that cannot be created by KSP, PartTools, and Mission Editor alone is the creator's IP.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Derb

[Guest]

Calm down folks.

I work in software. I detest legalese and EULAs and licensing ballyhoo and such. But unfortunately in the legal-economic system we have, it's not possible to do without them, or to do with flowers-and-ponies-and-rainbows versions.

Thing with licenses like that in products like KSP is, they're never intended to be consistently or strictly enforced. Never.

The purpose is that if the license owner gets into a dispute with someone over the IP, there will be a clause in the license they can use to beat them over the head. Who to hammer legally is a business decision, not a legal decision. And if TT thinks modding and Twitch and KerbalX and what have you are good for the product, then they're going to keep supporting that regardless of what the license says.

The license itself AFAICT is practically boilerplate. It has zero bearing on what TT's intentions are in re KSP. They're not idiots though and I have no reason to disbelieve their assertion that they understand the importance of the modding scene to KSP and will continue to support it.

[Poodmund]

Although I tend to agree with your assertations Brikoleur, you're asking for the mod developers to potentially operated and continue without any security and protection of their intellectual property and go forward on a 'good-faith' assumption in an industry that is renowned for violating 'good-faith' agreements when it comes to the publisher/developers against the user base and vice-versa (I also appreciate that a small minority of users push these organisations to take action so its a very much give and take situation).

Edited February 25, 2018 by Poodmund

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour ago, Derb said:

 

To say that PartTools "created" a parts mod makes as much sense to me as saying KSP created a mod because it rendered the parts in-game or made mod code usable. Any component of a mod that cannot be created by KSP, PartTools, and Mission Editor alone is the creator's IP.

Part tools is the system for exporting parts into also usable format. In a very real way, all parts are created using part tools.  N very much the same way the missions will be created in the mission creator.  There's intellectual property before it gets to part tools, but there could be construed to be intellectual property before ideas get to the mission creator.  

Ithink you misunderstood the role ksp part tools takes.  it doesn't read parts, it creates them from assorted resources.