[1.8.1-1] [PLEASE FORK ME] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

[sturmhauke]

Dropping an unsupported recompile in a thread might be allowed by the license, but personally I feel it's rather irresponsible. If you're going to release your work in public like that, you should be willing to handle support requests and release bug fixes for a while at least. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, DasSkelett said:

There is a big difference between just recompiling the mod (only changing the version lock) and uploading the zipped binaries, and properly forking it, with own repository, own README, own forum thread to give support, changing the mod name (be it only adding "Continued") so users don't accidentally ask for support on the original thread, spending time properly testing it, doing actual development work...

The one recompilation you are probably speaking of was of the first type (at least initially), same with the recompilation that is currently passed around. And uploading binaries of LGPL-licensed source code without offering the source code for download IS violating this license, and it's definitely NOT the idea behind the license. On the contrary, it's there to prevent exactly that.

My issue is not with the fact that version was taken down, because it was indeed doing the Wrong Thing, but with it being a subtle error that was absolutely savaged by everyone, including people supposed to prevent that sort of thing. Instead of gently pointing out the Right Thing (fixing the problems would be trivial), people just dogpiled on the poor guy, and pretty much ensured he won't try that again, which is exactly what we (well, I at least) don't want. I suspect even if it was done properly, the guy would've been harassed, hence my statement. People involved sure didn't seem to be outraged about easily fixed rule or licensing transgressions, but at the very fact someone attempted an unauthorized fork. Who says he wouldn't have taken up support requests or patched bugs to the best of his ability, if it wasn't for the hostility? In fact, I got similar flak for simply stating a recompile is possible and some basic steps towards it (though since that didn't violate any actual rules, it wasn't removed). 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Guest

[Cubivore]

1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

But rather than do that, a number of people in this thread are trying to impose their demands on the makers of this mod. 

With all due respect, this has not seemed to be the case from what I can tell. And in my case, I was suggesting that perhaps one of the authors of a planet pack that relies on Kopernicus could take over the mod since their hard work is currently not being enjoyed by people on 1.9; I was absolutely NOT suggesting that Thomas P. had to update it, but I did not feel it was an argument worth having and so edited my post out.

Without meaning to sound confrontational, I feel that a lot of the tension in this thread has been caused by you not necessarily communicating well with the people posting here. The way you were framing things seemed to suggest that the mod being updated was only up to the current author and that nobody else could have any say, up to and including making a fork themselves, and that any alternatives to that would be shot down.

[Snark]

46 minutes ago, Cubivore said:

The way you were framing things seemed to suggest that the mod being updated was only up to the current author and that nobody else could have any say

And that is indeed true, for this fork of it, being maintained by this author & helpers.

47 minutes ago, Cubivore said:

up to and including making a fork themselves, and that any alternatives to that would be shot down.

Nonsense-- that's the exact opposite of what he said.  Quite clearly stated (and since reiterated, just 2 hours and a few posts above this one, so I'm honestly puzzled how this would be susceptible to misinterpretation at this point), he did in fact say,

16 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Or, if you consider it essential, make your own alternative to it.

Kopernicus is-- and always has been-- licensed GNU Lesser General Public License.  That's an open license that permits forking, and nobody-- including Vanamonde-- is saying anything otherwise.

Anyone who wants to fork it, always has been able to.

Of course, to do that, and to put in the work to keep it up to date with KSP and ensure that it's reliably tested and won't break the saves of the many tens of thousands of people who use it, is a colossal job.  To do that would be a major, major time investment-- and largely thankless, which is why @Thomas P. and his helpers have been heroes of the community to keep it going, lo these many years.

I would assume that the massive hassle of such an undertaking would be why nobody else has stepped up to do it, as long as Thomas P. & co. were doing so.

Of course, nothing says that someone who wants to fork Kopernicus actually has to put in that level of effort.  Someone could always fork it, do some minimal work to stick on a band-aid or two to keep it more or less running, and push it out the door with minimal testing, minimal upkeep, and maximal risk to the saves of anyone who uses it-- as long as they conform to the mod-posting rules, of course.  Caveat emptor, and all that.  I just hope that if someone does that, they (and their users) are prepared to deal with the potential fallout (e.g. if they break thousands of people's saves).

So, to summarize, here are your (and everyone's) options:

1. Stick with the last release of this Kopernicus fork, on an older KSP version that you don't update.
2. Fork Kopernicus and update it yourself (or use a fork from someone who has done so).
   • Note that if you want to do this and publish your fork here in the forums, you'll need to jump through the usual mod-posting hoops, including posting the license and your fork of the source code.
3. Don't use Kopernicus.

That's basically it.  Take your pick, nobody's stopping you.

You'll note that "pester the current authors of the current fork to try to tell them what to do" is not among those options, since this fork being maintained by these people is their lookout, and therefore of course nobody else is in any position to tell them how they should conduct themselves in any way.  Because they've been giving everyone shiny toys for free, and therefore-- naturally-- they don't owe anybody anything.

[Mircea The Young]

I would like, once again, to suggest a petition for the game devs to assimilate this mod into the stock build. It should be obvious by now that the mod community is simply unable to keep up with the required updates, I mean 1.10 is just on the horizon  (ignore the pun), and yet the mod still lacks 1.9 compatibility. Kopernicus depends on the free time of volunteer devs far too much, while the stock game keeps getting constant updates from PAID devs and given how much of a game-changer (and I do mean that literally) this mod is, I wouldn't imagine it would take too much convincing. I mean seriously now, is there any other KSP mod that is as game-changing as this?

[Jim123]

10 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

I would like, once again, to suggest a petition for the game devs to assimilate this mod into the stock build. It should be obvious by now that the mod community is simply unable to keep up with the required updates, I mean 1.10 is just on the horizon  (ignore the pun), and yet the mod still lacks 1.9 compatibility. Kopernicus depends on the free time of volunteer devs far too much, while the stock game keeps getting constant updates from PAID devs and given how much of a game-changer (and I do mean that literally) this mod is, I wouldn't imagine it would take too much convincing. I mean seriously now, is there any other KSP mod that is as game-changing as this?

I like this idea 

[Snark]

20 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

I would like, once again, to suggest a petition for the game devs to assimilate this mod into the stock build.

Oh, I'd love to see Kopernicus rendered unnecessary by having the stock game support the same kinds of features.  I'm sure lots of other people would, too.

Such a discussion would be off-topic for this particular thread, though.  The topic of this thread is about Thomas P.'s fork of Kopernicus that he's been maintaining for the last few years.  The topic of this thread is not discussing Squad petitions and desires for changes to the stock game.  Great idea for a topic ... but it belongs over in Suggestions & Development Discussion, not here.  Perhaps spin up a thread over there?

(Given the high level of interest in Kopernicus, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see such a thread get a lot of attention and discussion.  Give it its own place to live.)

As for this,

20 minutes ago, Mircea The Young said:

It should be obvious by now that the mod community is simply unable to keep up with the required updates, I mean 1.10 is just on the horizon  (ignore the pun), and yet the mod still lacks 1.9 compatibility.

...I'd respectfully suggest that the jury's still out on just how fast the community can keep up with things.  For example, now that Thomas has officially stepped back, there's already at least one new Kopernicus fork out that's 1.9.1 compatible, and there may be others to come (subject, of course, to questions of how long they'll be maintained and at what level of testing).  So we'll see what develops.

[Mircea The Young]

3 minutes ago, Snark said:

Oh, I'd love to see Kopernicus rendered unnecessary by having the stock game support the same kinds of features.  I'm sure lots of other people would, too.

Such a discussion would be off-topic for this particular thread, though.  The topic of this thread is about Thomas P.'s fork of Kopernicus that he's been maintaining for the last few years.  The topic of this thread is not discussing Squad petitions and desires for changes to the stock game.  Great idea for a topic ... but it belongs over in Suggestions & Development Discussion, not here.  Perhaps spin up a thread over there?

(Given the high level of interest in Kopernicus, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see such a thread get a lot of attention and discussion.  Give it its own place to live.)

Hmm, I'd assumed that a discussion about the future of the mod would be on topic, but if it's not, then a new thread it is!

[Snark]

1 minute ago, Mircea The Young said:

Hmm, I'd assumed that a discussion about the future of the mod would be on topic, but if it's not, then a new thread it is!

That's about petitioning stock KSP, which really deserves its own place.

[Mircea The Young]

17 minutes ago, Snark said:

That's about petitioning stock KSP, which really deserves its own place.

I hope this is not too off-topic, but here is the thread for the discussion of stock Kopernicus that I made

 

[Walker]

For some time I was wondering whether to take part in this discussion, but after the @Thomas P. post - I have to. I would like to thank him and also I’d like to draw attention to a fact that is, in my opinion, quite important. I mean how important mods are - not just for those who use them, but for all KSP players and even for the devs. You know, the more mods are developed and updated, the better it is for the entire KSP community, even stock KSP players. We all know that KSP has a lot of potential. Mods not only make use of it, but they make KSP a game that may be interesting for almost anyone… No matter if someone wants a super realistic simulation of Mars landing, or interstellar travel in SF style. The more mods there are, the more players will stay with KSP for longer, the more expansions or sequels will be sold. The more mods there are, the longer KSP will be supported by the developers. Dangit, I know I’d have abandoned KSP years ago, were it not for these new worlds that I could discover thanks to Kopernicus.

What I mean is that Kopernicus is one of the greatest, most popular and important mods that has been created for KSP. I've been playing KSP since 2012, I remember times when new planets were just a community dream. Thanks to Kopernicus, they have become almost casual in add-ons forum. That is why I am very grateful to @Thomas P. (and other Kopernicus supporters and authors) for developing this mod over all these years. I am afraid that the @Thomas P. statement is a turning point in the history of KSP. But I believe it was also necessary for the good of our community. I am also grateful for it. I hope that Kopernicus will find a good new home.

Once again, thanks @Thomas P., and fly safe!

Edited June 21, 2020 by Walker

[MechBFP]

@Thomas P. Thank you and the entire maintainer team for keeping this going as long as you guys did, and thank you for clarifying your position. While I was hoping this would get an update soon, I now know that it very likely won't and any new fork (if created) will likely take quite some time to get up to speed, so I can simply stop checking and make a decision to either revert to an older version or just check back in 6 to 12 months and see what the community has been up to with this.

I wish I had the programming skills to help with a new fork, but in my opinion this is not something that anyone should take on lightly, and without prior KSP modding experience to boot.

[Verthel]

Thank you to Thomas P and the whole team that has kept this Mod alive for years. You have allowed many players to visit new worlds.
 

[Jognt]

18 hours ago, Thomas P. said:

If that was true, Kopernicus would have died with KSP 0.25 or so, because its original creators left. If noone else would have a say, I would never have been able to fork it and start working on improving it. @Dragon01 also gave the example of PlanetFactory which scratches the same itch. As long as it stays respectful, people who want to advance independently from the main developer should not be silenced just because it might annoy the main developer.

The license explicitly allows forking, and I encourage forking it. The sad truth is that I have been done with KSP a long time ago, and I always tried to communicate it that way. I tried to keep Kopernicus updated as much as my time allowed it, but I reached a point where I don't have a lot of free time, and would prefer to use the time I have available to work on projects that I actually use and enjoy working on. I simply don't have the time and motivation to get the code for 1.9 into a shape where I would feel comfortable with releasing and supporting it. And adding to that, I dont want to push out releases without having the time and motivation to support them properly.

That's why you haven't seen, and probably won't see a 1.9 release from me (or a 1.1x release for that matter). I'm sorry for not communicating this better, but I've been trying to figure this out myself too for some time...

If someone wants to work on Kopernicus, and needs help with understanding how the code works and what it does, feel free to ping me on the Kopernicus Discord, open a GitHub issue, send a carrier pigeon, smoke signals etc. I'm happy to help with that. And if there is some specific problem that needs to be solved, and I have an idea for that, I'll even happily write the code for it. It's just the testing, release and support work that has become really painful for me to do, to the point where there are literally 1000 things I would rather do.

Again, sorry for not really communicating (and / or realizing, I guess?) that earlier....

So, please: Don't stop people from discussing how Kopernicus development could continue, or even moderate them, in the name of some "Thomas just needs time" crusade. The license allows you to fork and work on it. I want you to fork and work on it. Kopernicus deserves a maintainer who has no lost interest in KSP 4 years ago and just keeps maintaining it just because he feels responsible for it. People should have fun with development and maintainance, which sadly is something I lost a while ago.

Thank you for the heaps and buckets of time and effort you’ve put into this! Thank you for a lot of clarification. 

And best of luck with the stuff you do enjoy.  

[DeadJohn]

There's a new fork linked below. Thanks to @Thomas P. and anyone else who has previously maintained Kopernicus.

If anyone else was considering adopting Kopernicus, please discuss the details with @prestja. Maybe you can work together instead of creating different forks.

 

 

[prestja]

Just now, DeadJohn said:

If anyone else was considering adopting Kopernicus, please discuss the details with @prestja. Maybe you can work together instead of creating different forks.

I second this. Reach out through DM if you'd like to help out.

[Majikthyze]

I would just like to say....

I am a fairly new player to KSP.  I started when about a year ago and didn't really start looking at mods until it was about 1.7.  I was so relieved to find such a large supportive modding community because I really found KSP to be lacking - rather bland, in it's vanilla version.

The mods that altered the dimensions and sizes of the systems, especially RSS, was terrific!  I found the right challenge I was looking for because there really is no challenge in Vanilla.  Working with the realistic physics and challenges of Interstellar Exploration was immersive.  Since my childhood watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos, I have been enchanted by Space Exploration.  KSP is the ONLY game I have seen that offers that immersion and at the same time, gives the light hearted humour of our little green men.

Kopernicus Mod is so very fundamental, as I'm sure everyone here agrees, to my enjoyment of this game.  I cannot thank Thomas P. enough for the efforts he has made in maintaining this mod which supports so many other mods.

However, I find it so overwhelmingly daunting that the KSP developers did not add this to the game.  I think many players would take more interest in this game and it's development if it offered so many of the mods.  Most especially this one.

My thanks to all the modders in this community.

[StoneWolfPC]

Thank you Thomas P. and all of you members who have worked so tirelessly on this project.  Your hard work is duly noted, and so very appreciated.  Stay safe, stay healthy, and most importantly I hope you all stay happy.

[ricardo_]

when I load kopernicus I get a popup that it didn't load correctly.  

I went into my log for the mod and here is where the problem is [LOG 22:40:09]: Logger "Kopernicus" was created
[LOG 22:40:09]: Injector.Awake(): Begin
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target name in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (System.String)
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target timeScale in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Double])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target scale in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Double])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target Epoch in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Double])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target useOnDemand in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target useOnDemandBiomes in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target onDemandLoadOnMissing in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target onDemandLogOnMissing in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target onDemandUnloadDelay in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Int32])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target useManualMemoryManagement in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target mainMenuBody in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (System.String)
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target maxViewingDistance in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Double])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target scaledSpaceFaderMult in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Double])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target force3DOrbits in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.NumericParser`1[System.Boolean])
[LOG 22:40:09]: Parsing Target self in (Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader) as (System.Collections.Generic.List`1[Kopernicus.ConfigParser.BuiltinTypeParsers.StringCollectionParser])
[LOG 22:40:10]: [Kopernicus]: Configuration.Loader: Loaded Body: Sun
[LOG 22:40:10]: [Kopernicus]: Configuration.Loader: Failed to load Body: Squad/Moho: Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: type
[LOG 22:40:35]: [Kopernicus] RuntimeUtility Started
[LOG 22:40:35]: StarLightSwitcher.Awake(): Begin
[LOG 22:51:01]: Injector.OnDestroy(): Complete
 

[Cruesoe]

2 hours ago, ricardo_ said:

when I load kopernicus I get a popup that it didn't load correctly.  

I went into my log for the mod and here is where the problem is 

Body: Squad/Moho: Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: type

 

Is this a fresh install of KSP? Looks like it can't find a stock asset that it requires. Perhaps your install of KSP is borked.

[ricardo_]

1 hour ago, Cruesoe said:

Is this a fresh install of KSP? Looks like it can't find a stock asset that it requires. Perhaps your install of KSP is borked.

so  what do I do then  should I reinstall of my backup or a clean reinstall.   

[ricardo_]

mine is completely broken 

 

[Nightside]

29 minutes ago, ricardo_ said:

mine is completely broken 

 

Welcome to the forums @ricardo_. Please look at the first post of this thread for instructions on what information you will need to provide for anyone to be able to help you.

[ricardo_]

I did that and a clean reinstall 

[ricardo_]

1 hour ago, Nightside said:

Welcome to the forums @ricardo_. Please look at the first post of this thread for instructions on what information you will need to provide for anyone to be able to help you.

I just did a clean reinstall nothing changed