KSP's API is NOT compatible with the GPL. Here's a guide to help if you are in violation.

[xEvilReeperx]

1 hour ago, RandyTheDev said:

If you are doing it without a copy of KSP then I'd be inclined to say yes! The GPL says nothing about end users being able to generate, install, run and modify mods with the help of proprietary software, it specifically says that you must provide the source code to do so

You've misunderstood my point: KSP's source code is not required to do any of these things, so I don't have any obligation to offer it.

[RandyTheDev]

46 minutes ago, xEvilReeperx said:

You've misunderstood my point: KSP's source code is not required to do any of these things, so I don't have any obligation to offer it.

You do have an obligation because it is written in the terms of the license. Whether or not you can do it anyway by getting the user to buy/assuming they have bought a copy of KSP is irrelevant. Even if you were an authorised reseller of KSP and you provided a copy of KSP along with your source code it still would not change anything, because the GPL requires that you convey the source code of your dependencies, not just the dependencies themselves, under the GPL license.

Specifically:

Quote

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License.

 

Unless you can convey a GPL-licensed copy of KSP's source code, (or the source code for a GPL KSP clone with an identical API), a user intending to redistribute/modify your mod cannot meet the terms of the terms of the license.

Edited March 27, 2018 by RandyTheDev

[Nils277]

Really wanted to stay out of this mess but...well

With your reasoning all other mods (even the ones with parts only) would also be violating the GPL. Every part file (the *.mu ones) needs the PartTools to be created. Like the "assembly_csharp" the parttools are precompiled and closed source and you need them to create the .mu files. Like you need Visual Studio (or others) and the "assembly_csharp" as tools to create the plugin. Note that the GPL does not differentiate between source code and other things. Your reasoning would be like saying that every project and code that is created with/for e.g. MATLAB Simulink cannot be licensed with the GPL because they need MATLAB Simulink to run. This would also apply to any program written in Visual Studio that uses special functions only available to VS. These programs can still be licensed under the GPL although VS is also not licensed under the GPL. In the case of KSP  the "assembly_csharp" is merely a tool (enhancing the instruction set) like the compiler is a tool to create the dll and the parttools are a tool to create and modify the models. 

To cite the GPL:

Quote

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.

TLDR; The "assembly_csharp" has to be considered a general-purpose tool in the contect of KSP modding, just like the PartTools. Nobody can expect that a modification or addon specifically written for a program can be generated or used without said program. The "assembly_csharp" is merely used as a tool to compile the work.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Nils277

[Boris-Barboris]

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

TLDR; The "assembly_csharp" has to be considered a general-purpose tool in the contect of KSP modding, just like the PartTools.

In no way assembly_csharp.dll is a general-purpose tool. If there was a special clause in GPL that said that corresponding source also exclude platforms for plugins, this thread would not exist.

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

Note that the GPL does not differentiate between source code and other things.

It does diffirentiate beteween executable work and non-executable work. Models are not executable. "Corresponding Source" is only for executable  work. (fixed)

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

created with/for e.g. MATLAB Simulink cannot be licensed with the GPL

"...compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it." GPL is okay with that. GPL is also ok with visual studio as well, because it's just an interface to compilers, and is not strictly required to build the library, and the compilers are specified as an exception.

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

In the case of KSP  the "assembly_csharp" is merely a tool (enhancing the instruction set) like the compiler is a tool to create the dll

If GPL contained a wording like "or anything that you can stretch and twist your way of thinking to call a compiler", that would be ok. Game dll is not a compiler.

assembly_csharp is a library the plugin depends on, it's as simple as that. And GPL is well-known to disallow linking to non-free libraries and then distributing it. It's no news.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Boris-Barboris
misleading

[goldenpsp]

2 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:

It does diffirentiate beteween executable work and non-executable work. Models are not executable. "Corresponding Source" is only for executable work.

Is a DLL considered executable work?  I cannot find anything that spells that out one way or the other.  a DLL is just a library and cannot be "executed" on its own as a program.

[Boris-Barboris]

8 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Is a DLL considered executable work?  I cannot find anything that spells that out one way or the other.  a DLL is just a library and cannot be "executed" on its own as a program.

I don't know exactly too, but probably not.
However, I just noticed, that Corresponding Source is needed for non-executable work as well, if it's distributed in object form. Here is the exact quote:

"The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities..."

I guess I missed the absense of "executable" in that part.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Boris-Barboris

[RandyTheDev]

2 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:

I don't know exactly too, but probably not.
However, I just noticed, that Corresponding Source is needed for non-executable work as well, if it's distributed in object form. Here is the exact quote:

"The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities..."

I guess I missed the absense of "executable" in that part.

The modified version of KSP is also considered to be a combined work (according to the FSF), which would also need its source code to be conveyed. This actually isn't something I don't necessarily believe in, and it is legally untested. However, I think that it is better to err on the side of caution. It's also irrelevant to the main argument (my bad I guess ), as you correctly stated, the Corresponding Source is required for any distributed binary, not just executable ones. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by RandyTheDev

[Lisias]

Being a long (about 25 years) free software user and enthusiast (and perhaps developer, I did my share of contribution), I can affirm to the best of my knowledge that *NO*, there's no problem on using GPLed mods on KSP, *as long you don't distribute your mod with GPL incompatible code*.

The GPL is crystal clear about this: it only covers *COPY* and *DISTRIBUTION*, and *DO NOT* imposes restrictions about *USE*. So, if it's legal to download the GPL'ed mod, you can use it anyway you want no matter what.

What you can't do is to *(re)distribute* GPL code (in the original form, or altered and/or embedded in your own) together GPL-incompatible code (what KSP surely is). So, if you pack your copy of KSP with a GPL'ed mod, you are in GPL violation - but frankly, this would be the lesser of your violations. :-)

What a GPL'ed mod must care is about what is being distributed together. CKAN is a perfect solution, IMHO - every single GPL'ed mod can be downloaded individually, without caring about the licenses its dependencies use.

About DLLs, there's a doctrine saying that *DYNAMIC LINKING* (and not only static linking) is also covered by GPL. So, I can't bundle non GPL DLLs with my GPL code (or vice versa) for distribution. But, and again, the end users *CAN* download both separately and link them in their machine. What they're not allowed to do is to repack and redistribute the thing together in the same bundle (but surely they can do it in separate bundles, if the original licensing terms allows redistribution).

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a no issue here in KSP. I'm not an enthusiast of using GPL code with proprietary code (by practical reasons, I don't think this would be unethical or something), but people here in KSP did it right.

The excessive use of emphasis was to.. well... emphasize key concepts needed to understand the matter. Again, I do not mean to be rude.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
and more typos. yeah, I do it a lot.

[RandyTheDev]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

The GPL is crystal clear about this: it only covers *COPY* and *DISTRIBUTION*, and *DO NOT* imposes restrictions about *USE*. So, if it's legal to download the GPL'ed mod, you can use it anyway you want no matter what.

While this is true, by incorrectly licensing your mod under the GPL you falsely imply that the user has permission to distribute binary versions of the mod (or modified versions) under the terms of the GPL. This is not possible, as there is no way for them to acquire the "corresponding source" that they are required to convey to anyone they distribute their version of the mod to. They may also be under the false impression that they can freely incorporate the code of other GPL-licensed software products into their version of the mod, and distribute a binary version of the combined work. They could then be sued by the other developer for incorporating their GPL-licensed software in a GPL-incompatible software product.

Edited March 28, 2018 by RandyTheDev

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, RandyTheDev said:

While this is true, by incorrectly licensing your mod under the GPL you falsely imply that the user has permission to distribute binary versions of the mod (or modified versions) under the terms of the GPL.

The end-user *have* the right to redistribute binary versions of the mod, as long he provides a way to obtain the source code too. We can bundle the source code together the binary code - but we also do not, see the .deb and .rpm package systems where source and binary are packaged separately.

If the end-user recompiles your mod with some alterations, he *can* redistribute his version in binary form, as long he respects the GPL (and adopt the GPL for licensing his fork, of course).

What he should not do is to pretend he's the original copyright holder of the original work - and GPL clearly states that you must mark your new code as changed from the original.

[EDIT: This really don't address the quoted question, but it's a preamble to my answer that does, see below]
 

Quote

This is not possible, as there is no way for them to acquire the "corresponding source" that they are required to convey to anyone they distribute their version of the mod to.

If the user receives a "GPL protected work" without source and without a way to download such source [or that is in GPL violation for any other reason], then the GPL is null and void at the source at the first place, and the GPL claiming is false - the code is not protected by GPL. Point.

Of course, GPL will bite the end-user here. But any other license would do the same. If someone violates KSP licensing terms and provide a link to download it ["licensed" under the MIT], then this unfortunate (and uninformed at best) end-user would be in the same dangerous waters.

It's not a GPL issue, it's a licensing issue.

 

Quote

They may also be under the false impression that they can freely incorporate the code of other GPL-licensed software products into their version of the mod, and distribute a binary version of the combined work. They could then be sued by the other developer for incorporating their GPL-licensed software in a GPL-incompatible software product.

Again, as long the original work is *correctly* licensed under the GPL, and the derivative work is also licensed under the GPL, this is a no issue.

If by any reason part of your mod is not compatible with the GPL, all you need to do is to create a dependency so such material can be downloaded separately (and tell CKAN about). And that's it. CKAN's guidelines explains this.

Your concerning about the GPL licensing terms is, really, a concerning about licensing terms. *EVERY* mod author should be concerned about licensing issues while authoring. A mod author can be sued by violating *ANY* licensing terms (including Squad's and TTI's), not just GPL.

So, GPL is not incompatible with KSP modding. GPL is just trickier to be used on KSP modding when bundling and/or incorporating other people's work. Don't bundle such material and you are safe. But if you need to incorporate such material, read the licensing terms and fully comply with them (no matter the license used!).

I would agree with you if you states that GPL is not the best alternative for KSP modding - what in my opinion, it really is not. But that doesn't makes GPL mods incompatible with KSP. 
 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Lisias
yeah. typos. sorry. and some clarifications.

[Lisias]

On 3/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, Lisias said:

So, GPL is not incompatible with KSP modding. GPL is just trickier to be used on KSP modding when bundling and/or incorporating other people's work. Don't bundle such material and you are safe. But if you need to incorporate such material, read the licensing terms and fully comply with them (no matter the license used!).

What was not exactly clear in my argument is that it's the author responsibility to be sure he's using copyrighted material correctly - in other terms, it's over the current author's shoulders the task to verify if the work he's using/bundling is *correctly* licensed under any terms the original author is claiming.

It's not a GPL issue, you *must* do it to any other copyrighted material on any other licensing terms. There's no license in the world that would save your sorry... back... :-) if you inadvertently incorporate copyright violating material with yours. Any other licensing terms would be void and null in such situations too.

What makes GPL tricky is that GPL creates a few more situations where such violations would occur. And since such violations are tricky to check, GPL itself became tricky to use. By avoiding these tricky situations, you avoid the extra, particular issues that GPL incurs. CKAN does it.

So *my* claim is that GPL is not the best option for KSP modding - but it's still a valid option. 

But *this* concerning (using copyright violating material inadvertently) is an issue with *every single* license out there. It's not GPL specific, it just happens that GPL decided to make this clear in the licensing terms while others choose to leave it implicit (as everybody is subject to the Copyright Act anyway).

Edited March 30, 2018 by Lisias
yeah. typos.

[RandyTheDev]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

as long he respects the GPL (and adopt the GPL for licensing his fork, of course)

What I am trying to say is that it is impossible for a user to respect the GPL if they intend to distribute a binary form of your mod or a derivative.

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

The end-user *have* the right to redistribute binary versions of the mod, as long he provides a way to obtain the source code too.

Almost, but not quite. The GPL requires redistributors to convey all of the corresponding source of the binary, not just the source code for the binary alone. The corresponding source of any GPL-licensed work is defined as the following:

Quote

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

My understanding is that this means a redistributor would need the capability to convey the source code for:

• Assembly-Csharp.dll to compile, and/or modify the mod
• Kerbal Space Program to run the object code

This requirement to convey more than just the mod's source code is what makes me believe that KSP mods are effectively incompatible with being licensed under the GPL.

[Dutchbook]

33 minutes ago, RandyTheDev said:

This requirement to convey more than just the mod's source code is what makes me believe that KSP mods are effectively incompatible with being licensed under the GPL.

And if you would have read the GPL, or my post earlier. you would have known that YOUR DEFINITION of "corresponding source" and "source code" is completely irrelevant, since it is not the same as the one that the GPL has. Therefore, the entirety of your argument goes out of the window,

[RandyTheDev]

3 minutes ago, Dutchbook said:

And if you would have read the GPL, or my post earlier. you would have known that YOUR DEFINITION of "corresponding source" and "source code" is completely irrelevant, since it is not the same as the one that the GPL has. Therefore, the entirety of your argument goes out of the window,

It's literally a direct quote from the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Section 1, Paragraph 4.

Edited March 28, 2018 by RandyTheDev

[Dutchbook]

Bravo, you've literally proven that you have no interest in both reading the posts of your fellow users', nor the GPL itself

Translation of the GPL

 

At this point, I'm just holding tight and hoping your toxic arsonistic tendencies won't burn the entire house down.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Dutchbook

[RandyTheDev]

Just now, Dutchbook said:

Bravo, you've literally proven that you have no interest in both reading the posts of your fellow users', nor the GPL itself

Translation of the GPL

At this point, I'm just holding tight and hoping your arsonistic tendencies won't burn the house down.

1

Your translation of the GPL isn't worth the paper it was written on.

Quote

The “Corresponding Source” for anything other than in .cfg, .mu and .dds form means the .cfg, .mu and .dds that is needed to create, install and modify the mod. [snip irrelevant text for my mod]

You can't just snip the text that was irrelevant to your extremely narrowly-scoped example and then claim I've somehow not read/misinterpreted the GPL. You're being deliberately obtuse and misleading. The bit you snipped is only irrelevant because you chose the one type of mod that has no object code or executable component whatsoever. That's not the case for the vast majority of KSP mods. They do need to worry about the bits you snipped out.

Quote

"Source code": The license calls it "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Okay, since I made it and published it as a .cfg, .mu and .dds. It is the .cfg, .mu, .dds.
“Object code”: What my work is called when someone has saved it as another file type, like converted the .cfg to .txt, or my .dds to .jpeg

1

Your interpretation of what source code/object code is, is so laughably wrong it's difficult to correct you without appearing to condescend. As the license states, source-code is a file type that is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a DLL, this would be something like C# source files (.cs), for a texture, it would actually be something like a Photoshop PSD, or the native format of whatever editor was used to create it. It has nothing to do with the format you published it as, and everything to do with how easy it would be for someone to continue the work you released. Object code is defined as literally any form of the work that is not source code. Since we are talking about software, this is typically a compiled version of the source code, and results in a DLL, LIB or EXE file. While it's technically possible to edit these by hand, for all intents and purposes, it's not remotely practical. So in the context of KSP mods, this means that if you publish a DLL, you have only published the object form of your work, not the source form. I'd actually argue that .dds files do not qualify as source code, since they are generally only an output format.

To Simplify to a gross level but without losing nearly as much of the original intent than you removed:

Source form: The type of files you edit while developing a mod/any piece of software.

Object form: The type of files you exported once you were done and were ready to release, which were generated from a source form at some point (not necessarily by you).

Quote

Title 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

The users of the mod are allowed to upload the mod themselves. They can put it in a .zip, a .rar or anything else, as long as they copy the mod 1:1 and incude the license. They may also ask money for the mod, and provide their own warranty against payment if they please.

No. Conveying Verbatim copies specifically only applies to redistributing the work in its source form. The moment you convey work in its object form you must also convey the corresponding source.

Quote

You may upload my mod in any other format but .cfg, .dds and .mu, as long as you follow the Titles 4 and 5, and as long as you offer to translate the files back into .cfg, .dds and .mu, or as long as you include the original mod with your product.

 

Everything you said in this sentence is wrong. As long as they only convey the work in source form, there is no requirement to provide the corresponding source. This can be any source, not just the formats you distributed your mod in. For example, they can add C# source code to add extra capabilities to your part. If they compile that into a DLL, they are now responsible to convey the corresponding source which includes the actual C# source code, as well as all of your source form files. There is no requirement to translate the files back into .cfg, .dds, or .mu, in-fact, they are more than allowed to translate your original work into different source-form files, and they will still count as source form files! The only requirement is that you provide a means to convey your source form files to a user. To correct one of your earlier examples, it is perfectly fine to change a .cfg file into a .txt file and vice-versa, as they are both perfectly acceptable formats for specifying a part config. Including the original mod with your product does nothing to assist with GPL compliance, all that matters is that all corresponding source is available to any licensee who requests it.

Quote

If you ask money for the mod or modified mod, stricter rules apply

This is simply untrue, at no point does the GPL restrict a licensee's ability to make money by using/redistributing the work. I have no idea where you pulled this nonsense from, but I imagine it's a very similar place to the rest of it.

Quote

The original mod must come in an easily readable format, with installation instructions, and with no special hoops to go through to get to it.

Like I said, there is no requirement to distribute the original mod, only one to convey the corresponding source. If you modify the source form of the original mod, you only need to distribute the modified version of the source form. Not the modified version in addition to the original.

I hope you actually try to understand my counter-arguments, rather than your usual schtick of throwing uninspired insults.

[Dutchbook]

You should call your parents, and ask them to practice this with you before going to bed tonight:

 

[RandyTheDev]

Looks like my hope was misplaced! The irony that a law professor is throwing petty insults is not lost on me. Here's an article on how to argue: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue

You might find it helpful for your job.

In the future, try to keep any of your arguments near the pointy end of the pyramid!

[artwhaley]

That said...  when the pink box is true, you're not going to get any satisfaction out of winning the higher levels. 

On 3/22/2018 at 5:11 AM, RandyTheDev said:

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, RandyTheDev said:

My understanding is that this means a redistributor would need the capability to convey the source code for:

• Assembly-Csharp.dll to compile, and/or modify the mod
• Kerbal Space Program to run the object code

This requirement to convey more than just the mod's source code is what makes me believe that KSP mods are effectively incompatible with being licensed under the GPL.

Oh, I see. 

To the best of my knowledge (and this reasoning is field proven, see the linux kernel practices about blobs in device drivers), I can assure you that the mod author just need to provide the source to rebuild HIS WORK, not any pre-existant work on the user's machine.

I grant you that there's a line of thinking defending that dynamic linking and static linking should be handled equally - but even in this case, if both linkings happen on the end-user machine, it's still a non issue.

I remember, in a long past, some serious discussions about the ethics of allowing proprietary code being linked (statically or dynamically) to GPL'ed code in the end-user's machine, but such discussions were fruitless. Above the GPL, there's the Copyright Act, and in the Copyright Act is stated that the user has the right to to whatever he wants on his machine (what includes reverse engineering and binary code tweaking) as long he doesn't redistribute this work. GPL can't prevent a user from linking a GPL'ed DLL with a proprietary executable by that very reason - it would be void and null such a clausule. See the U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 

A further reasoning is that a DLL is just the Realization of an Interface (API), not a complete work. And since until the moment, APIs are not copyrightable (this can change, however...), GPL doesn't have a reason to forbid a GPL code to realize such API.

I have the feeling that using LGPL would be a better choice. But again, for this exact concerning of yours, it's a non issue. Honest. Binary (proprietary) BLOBs would not be allowed on the Linux Kernel if you were right.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Lisias
eternal typos of the Englishless mind.

[RandyTheDev]

52 minutes ago, artwhaley said:

That said...  when the pink box is true, you're not going to get any satisfaction out of winning the higher levels. 

The moment you resort to insults is the moment you concede the point. It’s basically saying you don’t have anything more constructive to add to the conversation but you still disagree because you’re either too stubborn to either back down publicly (understandable imho) or worse, you believe that you are infallible.

[Lisias]

As a matter of fact, @RandyTheDev, I just remembered a discussion I had with some GPL developers long, long time ago about this exact issue. They were the guys from the Conectiva Brazilian distribution, and I was defending a point of view exactly like yours.

Well, they were kind enough (but not exactly "kind" =P) on explaining me every single detail of the law (Brazilian and US) that would prevent such a practice.

At that time, I had some difficulties on accepting that (I was very young), but nowadays I see how they were right.

It's really a non issue.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Lisias
typo!!!

[RandyTheDev]

19 minutes ago, Lisias said:

As a matter of fact, @RandyTheDev, I just remembered a discussion I have with some GPL developers about this exact issue. It was the guys from the Conectiva Brazilian distribution, and I was defending a point of view exactly like yours.

Well, they were kind enough (but not exactly "kind" =P) on explaining me every single detail of the law (Brazilian and US) that would prevent such a practice.

At that time, I had some difficulties on accepting that (I was very young), but nowadays I see how they were right.

It's really a non issue.

I’m trying to avoid getting into the intricacies of which bits of the GPL are legally enforceable in a court of law or not, that opens up a whole other bag of worms! 

I’d much rather focus on respecting the GPL’s original intent

As for the difference between KSP and Linux, when you write a Linux app, your code isn’t really that reliant on Linux. It would be relatively simple to get it working with a different OS like Windows or FreeBSD. Linux isn’t even required to compile the software for Linux!

KSP mods on the other hand, are entirely dependent on Kerbal Space Program being present.

[Lisias]

3 minutes ago, RandyTheDev said:

I’d much rather focus on respecting the GPL’s original intent

That was *exactly* my argument at that time, and in another argument I had in a similar forum in the recent past. :-)

I loose (epically) the first battle, and I had a bitter sweet half victory in the other - I shoot what revealed itself a mirage, but hit a skeleton on the cupboard. =P

But as I was said both times, the Copyright Act has prevalence over the GPL, and if the GPL even tries to counter-measure the Copyright Act itself, the GPL became non compliant to the Law itself. And that is something that nobody wants.

 

Quote

KSP mods on the other hand, are entirely dependent on Kerbal Space Program being present.

That's the catch! KSP mods are dependent of something that *realizes* an API. Currently, there's no free software realizing such API - but, and I hope I'm not crossing any lines here on the forum, such loopholes were reverted in the past into GPL's side: the whole UNIX SysV API had only proprietary implementations until FreeBSD and GNU came to action.

FreeBSD got stuck on a long and bloody legal battle that was won by the FreeBSD Foundation, however that battle created a void (as the FreeBSD Foundation could not release anything until the verdict) that was filled by Linux (at that time, on the very old 0.99 version!), that by itself was only viable because the GNU Foundation was implementing the remaining of the stack - the Linux Kernel is licensed under the GPL 2.0 (and it's still under the 2.0, as far as I know) exactly and just because GCC were licensed itself under the GPL 2.0! :-)

And when the tuple Linux Kernel + Gnu Tool Chain gained the World, there was TONS and TONS of Unix source code to be recompiled on them.

It's wise not to further discuss this point here - we must remember that KSP is proprietary, and frankly I don't have absolutely any reserves on paying for and using proprietary software, and really wants to stay around to play. :-)

(and that's the reason I have the feeling that LGPL would be a better choice for us, end-users).

[weissel]

On 27/03/2018 at 3:42 PM, RandyTheDev said:

The modified version of KSP is also considered to be a combined work (according to the FSF). 

Quote from the FSF needed, naming KSP and mods explicitly. Otherwise it is just your interpretation. 

On 26/03/2018 at 3:12 AM, RandyTheDev said:

It's more like a judge telling someone they can rob a bank, only for the person to be arrested & charged with armed robbery when they rob the bank.

[…] What's the point of giving them a license that they cannot comply with? 

You can do whatever you like if you break no laws, licenses and contracts. This includes robbing a bank. Of course you might have to own the bank and all the money therein first … or it might have to be a movie set and actors.

And of course you can comply with the GPL, for example the same way you can comply with an ARR. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. 

On 28/03/2018 at 2:17 PM, RandyTheDev said:

While this is true, by incorrectly licensing your mod under the GPL you falsely imply that the user has permission to distribute binary versions of the mod (or modified versions) under the terms of the GPL. 

How do you license anything “incorrectly”? How does that even work?

And where, except in your mind, is the user not allowed to distribute binary versions if they fulfill the terms of the GPL?

23 hours ago, RandyTheDev said:

What I am trying to say is that it is impossible for a user to respect the GPL if they intend to distribute a binary form of your mod or a derivative.

In your mind, yes. So … how again do they distribute a binary form of a mod or derivative and respect the ARR license?

19 hours ago, RandyTheDev said:

In the future, try to keep any of your arguments near the pointy end of the pyramid!

Well, you are not any higher than the contradiction level yourself, yet you think you are on the peak.

Which law school did you visit again?

13 hours ago, RandyTheDev said:

I’d much rather focus on respecting the GPL’s original intent

As for the difference between KSP and Linux, when you write a Linux app, your code isn’t really that reliant on Linux. […]

KSP mods on the other hand, are entirely dependent on Kerbal Space Program being present.

Moving goalposts a lot lately?  The discussion is about the written text of a license and the interpretation thereof.

But well, the original intent was to increase free (speech, not beer) software. Writing GPL mods actually furthers that goal.  

As to KSP vs Linux: you can write GPL code for Symbian (what Nokia used to use, back when). Or any other strange, different, one-of-a-kind niche system. How about the Dreamcast, for example? So your point was?

 

And what if you ran, say, a GPLed Atari 2600 program — on an emulator (closed source), within a virtual machine on a virtual computer (say, like Amazon’s cloud computing servers)?

Which parts would you have to package if you wanted to pass on the Atari 2600 program (which you got under the GPL and modified yourself) in binary form?  The emulator? The virtual machine the emulator runs on?  Inquiring minds want to know!