Mod licensing and "etiquette"

[Lisias]

8 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

You're referring to things like section 10 of the GPLv3?  I think you're misunderstanding slightly.  The copyright holder isn't bound by those terms.

Yes, he is. Otherwise, the GPL is null and void and then, it's A.R.R. and nobody should use it as it is unlicensed work unless an additional license is given.

And, if by any reason, such author used any GPL licensed material on his work, he will be in legal troubles as he will be using unlicensed copyrighted material - as GPL had became null and void itself.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Lisias
some more information.

[Wyzard]

36 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Yes, he is. Otherwise, the GPL is null and void

See this question in the GPL FAQ, and the one after it.  "Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL?" The answer from the FSF is no.  And although you can't add restrictions to the GPL itself, you can release your work under a modified license that consists of the GPL terms plus your additional terms.

Anyway, this isn't really the place for a GPL debate.  What matters, and the point that others are getting at, is that it's disruptive to "adopt" someone's mod while they're still maintaining it, because it creates confusion about which version people should use.  If I release AwesomeRocketParts and then you re-release it as AwesomeRocketParts Continued and start doing your own development on it, most people will assume that the original AwesomeRocketParts is abandoned and they'll switch to using yours instead.  If I haven't actually abandoned my mod, and you've "continued" it without asking, that looks like a hostile attempt to steal my userbase away from me.

On the other hand, if you just want to take the mod in a different direction, you could release your own version with a name that makes it clear that it's a fork, not a takeover.  I don't really see a problem with that — though it's still a good idea to coordinate with the original maintainer if possible, because maybe they'd be willing to incorporate your changes, so there's no need for a fork at all.

[Lisias]

41 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

See this question in the GPL FAQ, and the one after it.  "Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL?" The answer from the FSF is no.  And although you can't add restrictions to the GPL itself, you can release your work under a modified license that consists of the GPL terms plus your additional terms.

A license is a contract, and so, bounds both sides. Once the guy license the thing to me, he is bounded by the license as much as me to the licensed work. So… he cannot revoke my rights, as the GPL says clearly.

He cannot "violate the GPL" on their own copy of the work, and this is what that FAQ is saying. But once I download the work under the GPL, the original author can not change the terms of the GPL. And so, he is bound to the license.

You are misunderstanding DOUBLE LICENSE with ADDITIONAL TERMS. The GPL does not allows additional terms, but allow you to license your work using alternate terms (i.e., a second license). If the guy choose the GPL, that's it. In the same FAQ you linked, you will find:

Quote

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

SO… Essentially, you can't revoke my rights to the work as long I comply with the GPL terms. The GPL is asking me to ask permission to fork the thing? No. So, you can't enforce this to me.

Again, from the very same FAQ:

Quote

Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?

Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. GPLv2 states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

GPLv3 states:

No other additional conditions [beyond those listed in section 7] are permitted in your terms; therefore, no other conditions can be present on any work that uses this License.

The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.

The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates the problem.

And that's settle the matter.

By all angles, there's not a single chance that one could license his work under the GPL and then ask for permission to fork the work.

That's final. I don't see any possible line of arguing that would change this;

Edited November 25, 2018 by Lisias
MOAR FAQ.

[Wyzard]

2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

A license is a contract, and so, bounds both sides.

It may be (that's actually not as clear-cut as you might think), but even so, the contract agreed by the parties can be "GPL terms plus additional custom terms".

Again, this isn't really the place for a GPL debate.  It's been discussed plenty in other places, and the issue of additional restrictions on the GPL is only tangentially related to KSP mod licensing.  (It came from the question of whether a modder can include a license term that says you can't fork without permission, but AFAIK nobody actually does that; it's just hypothetical.)

[linuxgurugamer]

12 minutes ago, Lisias said:

By all angles, there's not a single chance that one could license his work under the GPL and then ask for permission to fork the work

No one is saying that permission is required or needed.

What @Wyzard said was:

53 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

  I don't really see a problem with that — though it's still a good idea to coordinate with the original maintainer if possible, because maybe they'd be willing to incorporate your changes, so there's no need for a fork at all.

Again, asking permission is not required or needed.  However, it is courteous to ask.  The courtesy does multiple things:

1. Lets the original author know that a fork is being contemplated
2. Allows the new person  to find out if the software is still being worked on
3. Gives the original author a good feeling that somebody cares enough to contact him

 

I know that there are some people out there who feel that there is no need to be courteous.  They feel that if the license allows, they can do anything they want.  Legally, they are correct.  Morally, it's a grey area.  And courtesy is the oil that lets society continue to work.

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Wyzard said:

What matters, and the point that others are getting at, is that it's disruptive to "adopt" someone's mod while they're still maintaining it, because it creates confusion about which version people should use.  If I release AwesomeRocketParts and then you re-release it as AwesomeRocketParts Continued and start doing your own development on it, most people will assume that the original AwesomeRocketParts is abandoned and they'll switch to using yours instead.  If I haven't actually abandoned my mod, and you've "continued" it without asking, that looks like a hostile attempt to steal my userbase away from me.

Now I see. This is a trademark issue, not a copyright one.

The confusion about the added "Continued" on the tittle is legit - misrepresentation is immoral to say the least. By all means (and some licenses make that clear), you are demanded to make it clear you are not the original author, and must mark your changes as such.

However…. Exactly how much you must make that clear is somewhat open to be debated, at least around here. Using the original name followed by "something" is already an stablished practice here on the Forum, and for years. I think you are right on this concerning, but I don't know how to solve it in a way that would satisfy you and at the same time would be fair to everybody else that is doing this for years already.

One could try to withhold the distribution of the fork on the Trademark grounds. But then the guy would pinpoint the Forum where such practice is already common.

However, keep one thing in mind: it's not your userbase, they don't belong to you. Your userbase is there because they have a problem that your work is solving. If they decide that another fork is a better solution for their problem, you can't stop them and trying to do so is as much immoral as the misrepresentation on Free Software eyes (essentially, it's the central difference between Free Software and Open Source). Misrepresentation is the problem, not your userbase deciding they want to use the other fork.

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Morally, it's a grey area.  And courtesy is the oil that lets society continue to work.

I don't agree with both sentences. Morally, the permission was already granted when the author choose the license. And a Society that need to be "oiled" by unnecessary (and without legal grounds) "courtesy" is an imoral one.

The Law should be for everybody. And that should be enough.

[snip]

Edited November 25, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Wyzard]

7 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I think you are right on this concerning, nut I dont know how to solve it in a way that would satisfy you and at the same time would be fair to everybody else that is doing this for years already.

I think the solution is what others have been saying already: don't "Continued" someone else's mod unless you've either asked them and gotten the OK, or made enough effort to contact the maintainer, without success, that it's reasonable to conclude that the maintainer is truly gone and the mod is abandoned.

I doubt it's actually a trademark issue from a legal standpoint, since nobody puts "™️" in their mod titles to claim trademark on the name.  That's why it's OK to do the "continued" thing on an abandoned mod.  It's just immoral to misrepresent yourself as the new maintainer of a mod if the old maintainer is still around and active.

[Lisias]

6 minutes ago, Wyzard said:

I think the solution is what others have been saying already: don't "Continued" someone else's mod unless you've either asked them and gotten the OK, or made enough effort to contact the maintainer, without success, that it's reasonable to conclude that the maintainer is truly gone and the mod is abandoned.

I see your point. I just don't know how to solve it (ab)using the Copyrights and Licenses without getting into a worse mess.

Misrepresentation is an issue. There's no argument of mine on it.

But once people decide to use anything else, whoever is maintaining this anything else is not the maintainer? As long it's perfectly clear it's a fork from someone else but the Original Author, I fail to see a problem (assuming, of course, a License allowing it).

What I think it can be done is kind a list of ENDORSED forks. This you can do. And I think it would solve the problem.

[Benjamin Kerman]

…which still involves contacting the original creator. You've just contradicted your entire statement that it's the letter and not the spirit of the law that matters. 

[Snark]

Okay, people.  Things have gotten heated here, and we've needed to go in and do some cleaning up.

There are two problems that are happening here that are derailing the thread and turning it into a catfight:

1. People are talking at cross-purposes (i.e. "disagreeing" with something that the other side didn't actually say).
2. People on opposite sides of an "etiquette" debate are each claiming some "moral high ground" and accusing the other side of being somehow unethical or immoral.

Problem #1 is simply an annoyance, because as long as it sticks around, the conversation will merely be an annoying circular complaint-fest that won't produce anything productive.  However, though that wastes the time of everyone concerned, it's not as serious as problem #2.

Because problem #2 involves finger-pointing, name-calling, and claiming moral superiority over another forum member.  And that is not okay.

To everyone on all sides of this discussion, it is very important to understand something:

• You do not occupy a moral "high ground".
• You have no grounds for asserting that your personal "morals" are better than anyone else's.
• You do not speak for "the community".  You speak for yourself, and nobody else.  Please do not presume to speak for "the community" when talking down to others.

Honestly.  I'm agog that I should have to tell folks these self-evidently obvious things.

This is the KSP modding community, people.   Given that basically every mod-- and every published fork of a mod-- is the result of a public-spirited, selfless person who is doing unpaid volunteer work to try to help people, it's no surprise that this is a very "collegial" community where people generally are nice and friendly and want to help others.

That doesn't mean that everyone always agrees.  And sure, sometimes in the hurly-burly of mods getting released and forked and re-released, sometimes people can do things that can irritate or annoy others-- but do remember that virtually everybody is trying to help people, and virtually everybody means well.

And people who are trying to help and who mean well do not deserve to get yelled at or talked down to.  Even if they're "wrong".

In this forum, we treat each other with respect, and that includes people with whom we strongly disagree.

Everyone clear on that?

 

Okay.  On to the actual topic of the thread at hand.  I mentioned that there are two problems here, and I'll address them one by one.

 

Problem #1:  Talking at cross-purposes.  "Legal" versus "moral".

I've seen two categories of assertions in this thread:

• Assertions about what's legal.
• Assertions about what's "polite" or "proper".

Those two things are completely different things.  They occupy different conceptual universes.  One is about fact; the other's about opinion.

The talking-at-cross-purposes thing here is that people keep conflating the two.  Person A will make a legal statement, and then Person B tries to disagree based on "moral" grounds.  Or vice versa.

That's just a recipe for confusion and wasted effort.  If I say my favorite color is blue, and you try to argue with me based on the legal definition of what "blue" is (or what "color" is)... well, we're not going to get anywhere.

Please.  If someone makes a legal argument that you disagree with, then respond to them in legal terms-- don't try to drag "etiquette" into it.  And if someone states an opinion about "etiquette" or "morals" or the like... don't try to make a legal response.  It's apples and oranges.

 

Problem #2:  Trying to claim the "moral high ground".

Different people have different opinions about what constitutes "proper etiquette" or "good morals".

And your passionately held personal opinion about this is perfectly valid.

And the other guy, who vehemently disagrees with you and has a passionate and diametrically opposed viewpoint?  His personal opinion is also perfectly valid.

And you don't speak for anyone other than yourself.

For example:  Someone wants to fork a mod.  Should they contact the original author?  Is that a "moral obligation"?

There is no objective answer to that question.

There is also no commonly agreed-upon standard.

Here:  I'll lay out for you two completely different viewpoints of How Things Are.  They're diametrically opposed to each other:

• The "author-centric" view:  It's only decent and proper to contact the original author of a mod before forking it.  Even if the license allows you to, you're being a jerk if you don't ask for permission first, because <various good reasons>.
• The "license-centric" view:  There's nothing but the license.  The license is, itself, the etiquette.  If the author has chosen a license that says you're allowed to fork it, then that's the author literally telling you "please, go ahead, fork it"-- they've already given their permission in advance, so there's no need to ask further.  It's as if someone leaves out a plate of cookies with a sign saying "please take one":  you're welcome to take a cookie, and you're not being rude if you don't go track down the cookie-maker to ask if it's really okay.

The moral-high-ground arguments I'm seeing in this thread mostly seem to be author-centrists and license-centrists getting enraged at each other, because each one thinks they're "in the right" and that the other side is advocating for immoral, rude, uncivilized behavior.

Please.  Knock it off.  These are both valid viewpoints, and they are both valid ways of looking at the world.  And neither one is some sort of "commonly agreed-upon community standard" in the KSP forum, either.  They're not.  There's no universal truth, there.

So, bearing that in mind, what's okay or not okay, here?

• It's okay to say "I prefer <my way>, because <reasons>."
• It's okay to say "I disagree with <your way>, because <reasons>."
• It's not okay to question someone else's motives, or to say that people who disagree with you are being rude or immoral.

And please don't make any claims about there being an "agreed-upon standard" for the KSP modding community.  There isn't one.  There are hundreds (if not thousands) of modders, and they don't all think the same way.  Your viewpoint isn't a universal opinion.  It may not even be the majority opinion, even if you think it is.  And even if it were a majority opinion, that wouldn't make it any more "valid" than other minority opinions.

 

So.... to summarize all this:

• Please reply to legal assertions with legal arguments.  And please recognize opinions as such, and reply to them with opinions.  Don't try to mix and match.  It doesn't work.
• Please don't accuse other people's views as being somehow morally inferior to your own.  They're not.

We all clear on this?

Okay.  This thread will be unlocked, and can stay open as long as folks can keep it reasonably civil, without sneering or finger-pointing.  Seriously, we're all trying to help folks, here.  Right?  Which means we're all on the same side.  Right?  So maybe try to keep it friendly, folks?  Please?

Thank you for your understanding.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Snark
Unlocked. Play nice, please?

[linuxgurugamer]

I have no problem with the legal issues.  I was only commenting with regards to the etiquette.  

Apparently some people feel, as @Snark says, that they don't feel any need to contact an author, even if the author is still active.

That, IMHO, is just plain being rude.  Legal, yes, polite, apparently not.

I, however, will continue to try to contact any mod author before taking over a mod.

Obviously I'm spraying water into the wind over here, therefore I am going to refrain from commenting here unless something very significant happens.

 

[Lisias]

I have a problem with the legal issue. It can lead you to Court.  

Now that we had cool down (me included), let me explain some things that would prevent a lot of trouble in everybody's lives: everybody are entitle to have an opinion, but you are not free from the legal consequences when acting based on such opinions.

I detected a very concerning issue when re-reading this thread with a cool head: people here are misunderstanding Authorship with Ownership, and this can lead to some legal issues and even money losses on the worst case.

When you create something, you are the Author and the (only) Owner of that thing. This is simple, I think that everybody understands that.

However, things start to get hairy when you decide you need to use other people's Works. Usually, people don't just give their hard work for free, just because. It's usual that people would want something in exchange.

Some wants money.

But some others want access to your work in exchange: "I let you use my copyrighted material in your copyrighted material as long you let me do the same you acknowlegde my work and/or doesn't misrepresent me" It's the Open Source way. Free Software goes one step ahead: "I let you use my copyrighted material in your copyrighted material as long EVERYBODY ELSE can do the same with yours."

So you say yes, you accept the terms and merge other people's works into your work. Every time you accept a merge from someone (or by any other means), you are merging copyrighted material into your own. Every single line of code has an Author, and most of them retains ownership when licensing you to use such material.

Right now, you are still the Author of your work, but you are not the only Owner anymore. Your work has many owners, each of them owning the bits of code/assets they wrote and licensed to you. So, now, you are bounded to the license you used when accepted such contributions.

You can only license what you own. So, yes, you can relicense your lines of code and other assets are long you are the Author and had not waived the ownership, or had received ownership of such material.

But you can't do the same for things you don't own, and now your Work has parts that you don't own - and you are legally bounded to the license you used when accepted them. And this is when bullets start to fly. Or lawsuits.

When you, by any means and reasoning (no matter how well intended or how beautiful the World would be if everybody else would do the same), break the promises you made when accepted other people's copyrighted material on your Work, such people became not exactly happy with you. They allowed you to use their work under certain conditions, and now you are breaking your vow to such conditions. You now are in license infringement, and are liable under the Law. And your opinions worth very little now.

If you don't want to play Open Source, don't accept contributions from Open Source people. If you don't want to play Free Software, don't accept contributions from Free Software people.

But once you accept them, play nice by the rules you agreed to be bounded to (knowingly or not).

GPL, CC and some others just don't allow you to add further restrictions to the work. You can ask, but you can't demand. And if you can't demand, you can't enforce. So it's pointless to harass people for such demands - and in some licenses, it can be even (legally) dangerous to you.

In the end, if you don't have a legal ground to ask for something, insisting on it is plain harassment.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Lisias
"My God… It's full of typos…" - and I had to fix some statements

[Lisias]

Besides not being exactly about "etiquette", it's about licensing.

I had came to my attention a situation in which a GitHub repository could be on copyright infringement due a hypothetical unreleased code that could had been merged.

This is to clarify that, as long pull request itself is not forged (if this is possible) and the committer is the author of the material (and he's not committing himself unlicensed material), at least on GitHub, such commits are licensed under the same license as the repository receiving the Pull Request.

Does my project need an additional contributor agreement?

Probably not. For the vast majority of open source projects, an open source license implicitly serves as both the inbound (from contributors) and outbound (to other contributors and users) license. If your project is on GitHub, the GitHub Terms of Service make “inbound=outbound” the explicit default.

Source.

 

[linuxgurugamer]

Just an fyi, Meiru had released  v2 as code, and its trivial to recompiled it.

[Lisias]

41 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Just an fyi, Meiru had released  v2 as code, and its trivial to recompiled it.

Understood. But you raised a really important issue - so I thought it would be a good idea to publish what I found about.

When I decided to remerge things, I didn't had thought about this - it was motivated sorely to make the code review easier, it's hard to detect small errors and typos on a huge tarball of code.

But, frankly, now I would do it ii had not done it before, as it enhances traceability. It's now easier to follow up the merges and pinpoint the source of the commits.

— POST — EDIT --

In time… What do you mean as "code' ? He published the source code? How? Where? The Add-On is GPL, so if he published the thing in any form, it's also GPL - unless he deleted the license terms and mentions, what renders his own code as ARR and the rest as unlicensed (i.e. in copyright infringement). Unless, of course, he only published his code (as a git patch, for example).

Edited November 29, 2018 by Lisias
Hit "save" soo soon

[linuxgurugamer]

26 minutes ago, Lisias said:

In time… What do you mean as "code' ? He published the source code? How? Where? The Add-On is GPL, so if he published the thing in any form, it's also GPL - unless he deleted the license terms and mentions, what renders his own code as ARR and the rest as unlicensed (i.e. in copyright infringement). Unless, of course, he only published his code (as a git patch, for example).

Actually, no.  I sent a message to the FSF about this, because I wanted to release his v2.  The problem is that he released compiled code, but didn't release the source code, therefore the source was not necessarily under the license.  I'll paste it here:

Quote

If R***** is distributing copies of software licensed under GPLv3
without offering the corresponding source code in one of the ways the
GPL requires, then Rudolf would be in violation of the terms of the GPL.

The copyright holder of the software in question is the only entity with
the legal power to enforce the terms of the license. They should act to
get Rudolf back into compliance. In essence, the copyright holder said
"I hold the rights to this, but you may modify and share it if you abide
by the terms of my copyright license (in this case the GPL)". If Rudolf
doesn't follow these terms they would be violating the rights of the
copyright holder in this regard. Getting Rudolf back into compliance
should be the goal.

Rudolf's actions don't excuse or enable anyone else to deal with the
work in a different way. If you find a way to further distribute the
software in accordance with GPL, you may do so. But if Rudolf added code
that isn't under the GPL it should be removed or relicensed to the GPL;
you aren't automatically granted rights to it.

 

[Lisias]

6 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Actually, no.  I sent a message to the FSF about this, because I wanted to release his v2.  The problem is that he released compiled code, but didn't release the source code,

So he broke the GPL terms, rendering the GPL "null and void", and then the whole shebang is ARR. Including third-party material.

Do not redistribute that tarball. Don't even post the link. 

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

So he broke the GPL terms, rendering the GPL "null and void", and then the whole shebang is ARR. Including third-party material.

Do not redistribute that tarball. Don't even post the link. 

I'm not, was just confirming that you hadn't done the same thing.

[Murdabenne]

9 hours ago, Lisias said:

I'm restraining myself to creating a new thread because I'm just fixing KJR, not exactly adopting it.

I don't know what's going to happen from now, it's up to ferram to decide.

There is precedent for doing this. Assuming the license allows KSP-APIeX, just make KSP-APIEx "Further Extended" or somesuch. Once upon a time, I asked @linuxgurugamer  for an "Adoption Guide" - basically a  how-to for how he manages things when he adopts (temporary?) maintenance of a mod.   You might want to search his posts or ask him for a link.  He has a system that quite obviously works well and makes a manageable workload. 

[Lisias]

13 hours ago, Murdabenne said:

There is precedent for doing this. [...] asked @linuxgurugamer  for an "Adoption Guide" - basically a  how-to for how he manages things when he adopts (temporary?) maintenance of a mod.[...]

It works fine to LGG mainly because he became one of the busiest maintainers in History. And, frankly, had not he stepped forward for this, a lot of add-ons would be stalled and forgotten - I'm seeing a proportionally low quantity of maintainers nowadays, these guys are awfully overloaded!

However, this time we have at least another two at least equally competent guys also in conditions to adopt KJR besides me, and both of them had done a lot if heavy lifting too. Should we have, so, three different threads with each one deviating to his own way? Should all of them be on CKAN?

Hard to tell - I opted to make CKANed only the mods those Official Maintainer's explicitly transfered the rights to me exactly to prevent messing up the mainstream: I make only the very few naming changes to make clear the mod is under New Management, but nothing changes in practical ways: it's perfectly possible to receive an update on CKAN and just realized the new management when reporting a bug!

Now try to imagine all the three of us (that I have notice) doing the same and behold Apocalypse Now (Kerman's Cut).

Edited December 8, 2018 by Lisias
Tyops, tyops, tyops evyrwehre!

[Murdabenne]

Ah, now I see.  Well, perhaps the htree forks could be coordinated between the three authors into a sinle repository on Github?  Collaboration is possible - thats how CKAN managed to get a lot done when I was assisting with them a couple of years ago.  I wish I had the knowledge of the toolset and development environment, so I could jump in and help.  But that is still a few months off while I try to teach myself development with C#/Net and then Unity.

 

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

It works fine to LGG mainly because he became one of the busiest maintainers in History. And, frankly, had not he stepped for this, a lot of add-ons would be stalled and forgotten - I'm seeing a proportially low quantity of maintainers nowadays, these guys are awfully overloaded!

However, this time we have at least another two at least equally competent guys also in conditions to adopt KJR besided me, and both of them had done a lot if heavy lifting too. Should we have, do, three different threads with each one deviating to his own way? Should all of them be on CKAN?

Hard to tell - I opted to make CKANed only the mods those Official Maintainer's explicitly transfered the rights to me exactly to prevent messing up the mainstream: I make only the very few naming changes to make clear the mod is under New Management, but nothing changes in practical ways: it's perfectly possible to receive an update on CKAN and just realized the new management when reporting a bug!

Now try to imagine all the three of us (that I have notice) doing the same and behold Apocalypse now (Kerbal Cut).

Following up on this:

All my mods are in CKAN.  No exceptions. Period.

Those mods whose authors I've been able to contact have had the SpaceDock entry opened for me, and in those cases I use the original CKAN entry, just updating it for my new version.

All other mods have their name & CKAN id changed to reflect it is an adoption/revival, etc.  For example, KW Rocketry Continued (now called KW Rocketry Rebalanced).  There may be some exceptions, but in general, I only use the original CKAN entry if it's an "approved" adoption; ie:  mod author knows, and gives permission.

11 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Hard to tell - I opted to make CKANed only the mods those Official Maintainer's explicitly transfered the rights to me exactly to prevent messing up the mainstream

Just curious, after seeing all  your messages in the other thread, how did you get the "Official Maintainer's" to transfer the rights?  Did you ask permission?

[Lisias]

53 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Just curious, after seeing all  your messages in the other thread, how did you get the "Official Maintainer's" to transfer the rights?  Did you ask permission?

One time I was asked, another I asked and a third I saw an opening and applied for it.

[ In all the three, I already had an Unofficial fork with some bugs fixed and even features being tested and aparently working fine ]

 

59 minutes ago, Murdabenne said:

Collaboration is possible - thats how CKAN managed to get a lot done when I was assisting with them a couple of years ago. 

That's not what we are seeing here already?

Coordinated cooperation, however, needs common interests. No one works for free on things he/she/it is not interested somehow. 

I want a bugless, easily maintainable KSP installment. And that's all what I want. Who wants the same, can work with me. Who wants something else, can work with someone else.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Lisias
adding some notes (in "[]" and italics)

[Vanamonde]

Some posts have been moved here from an unrelated thread. 

[Murdabenne]

Thanks for the move!