Jump to content

Is there any free IVA mod for 1.11?


Recommended Posts

Unfortuneatly, I dont believe so... FreeIVA was a *very* unique/niche mod. It also relies heavily on modifying existing IVAs, and requiring moar involved wor be done while creating *new* IVAs... Creating IVAs seems to be a very unpopular task for most mod authors... requiring even MOAR wor for them to do, doesnt seem lie there has been a lot of open-arms support for FreeIVA

Also, the FreeIVA dev, pizzaoverhead, has not been very active in KSP for quite sometime, along with the ARR license they chose, means that liely the mod *is* pretty much dead, and no one else can pic up the reigns. Someone would have to completely re-do it from the ground up, unless they get permission from pizzaoverhead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
25 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Pending a review of the license of the original mod, the download links have been removed.

This thread has been moved to Add-on discussion.

Yeah, this was pretty complicated but I contacted pizzaoverhead, who said that the source code is under the MIT license (as indicated in the readme) but the models and sounds were under other licenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JonnyOThan said:

Yeah, this was pretty complicated but I contacted pizzaoverhead, who said that the source code is under the MIT license (as indicated in the readme) but the models and sounds were under other licenses.

As listed, the mod is ARR.  We are taking this under consideration, and we'll get back to you shortly.  We appreciate your response. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gargamel said:

As listed, the mod is ARR.  We are taking this under consideration, and we'll get back to you shortly.  We appreciate your response. 

Sounds good - and just to be clear, my github repository does not include the models and sounds, and the release link only includes the DLL and not any other assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JonnyOThan said:

Yeah, this was pretty complicated but I contacted pizzaoverhead, who said

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way-- "people contacting people privately to find out what they say the licenses are" is not a system that's governable.

The add-on posting rules require that any mod published here needs to say what the license is in the OP, and also provide a link to the source code there.

Unfortunately, the OP for FreeIVA does neither of these things.  Since it doesn't say what the license is, we have to treat it as "all rights reserved" until that gets cleared up-- meaning that you're not allowed to recompile, or publish a copy, or do basically anything with it other than download for your personal use and not further share it.  :(

The fact that "you contacted him privately and he said this or that" isn't something that we can work with, alas.  Thank you for contacting pizzaoverhead-- we appreciate the effort.  :)   However, for us to be able to allow you (or anyone else) to do anything at all with @pizzaoverhead's work, we first need him to bring his mod thread into compliance with the add-on posting rules.

For example, it's not enough for him to tell you privately what the license is.  We need him to say in the mod OP what the license is, as per the add-on posting rules.

I've posted in his thread to let him know about this requirement-- hopefully he'll see it soon and will be able to update the post accordingly, which would then allow you to publish your own recompile (as long as his license permits it, and as long as you yourself follow the add-on posting rules in doing so).

Until that's straightened out, though, please refrain from posting any links to any of your own content that's derived in any way from his.

Yes, we know it's a hassle, and we're sorry about that-- but it's unfortunately necessary, because we gotta have these rules if we're going to be able to allow anyone to share anything.  Thank you for your understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why the license is at issue, clearly it's not everywhere it needs to be. I don’t understand, though, why the source provided in the mod download is not sufficient to fulfill that part of the Add-On Posting Rules? Is it not actually source code, and misleadingly labelled “Source?” 

Edited by RyanRising
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RyanRising said:

I don’t understand, though, why the source provided in the mod download is not sufficient to fulfill that part of the Add-On Posting Rules?

The short (though unsatisfying) answer is "because that's the rule".

The slightly longer (though still not really satisfying) explanation is that the rules need to be that way in order to permit the necessary governance that allows the forums to permit posting mods at all.

As to the actual details-- i.e. the real answer you're looking for-- that gets a bit lengthy, and I'd kinda prefer not to totally derail this thread (whose topic, after all, is about IVA mods and not "why are the mod-posting rules the way they are").  It's a conversation I'm totally happy to have, but this thread isn't really the right place for it.  If you'd like to start a separate thread for it (here in Add-on Discussions would be a good place), then I'll happily talk your ear off about it, and answer any questions you may have.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snark said:

The add-on posting rules require that any mod published here needs to say what the license is in the OP, and also provide a link to the source code there.

4. Source code

  • All plugins that are made available on the services maintained by Squad that serve the KSP Community must have their source code be made publicly available. This can be achieved by posting it on a public code repository and linking this repository in every location you offer the plugin for download. Including the source code in the download file itself instead of hosting it on a public code repository also satisfies this requirement.

 

2 hours ago, Snark said:

The short (though unsatisfying) answer is "because that's the rule".

But it's not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, razark said:

4. Source code

  • All plugins that are made available on the services maintained by Squad that serve the KSP Community must have their source code be made publicly available. This can be achieved by posting it on a public code repository and linking this repository in every location you offer the plugin for download. Including the source code in the download file itself instead of hosting it on a public code repository also satisfies this requirement.

 

But it's not?

Helps if you point out the relevant rule.

 

  • These licenses must be made available in both the download file as a readme or license text, and in the location the user downloads from (such as a forum post or a Curse listing).

The relevant issue is that the original mod thread does not have any license information posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

Helps if you point out the relevant rule.

Indeed.  I'm talking about the rule regarding posting source code, not the one about the licenses.

 

6 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

The relevant issue is that the original mod thread does not have any license information posted.

That's a separate issue from what I'm discussing.

 

Snark said: "The add-on posting rules require that any mod published here needs to... provide a link to the source code there." (There meaning in the OP)

RyanRising asked: "...why the source provided in the mod download is not sufficient to fulfill that part of the Add-On Posting Rules?"

Snark responds: "The short (though unsatisfying) answer is 'because that's the rule'."

This is what I was responding to.

Therefore, posting the rule covering source code availability is completely relevant to the discussion I was having.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, razark said:

Including the source code in the download file itself instead of hosting it on a public code repository also satisfies this requirement.

Yes, it's fine to include the source code in the download.

However, if a mod is going to go that route... please say so in the OP.  "Source code is included in download."  There, done.  Rationale in spoiler, since this is starting to get off-topic.  Basically it boils down to:  if you don't mention in the OP that you've included the source code in the download, then it becomes impractical for the moderator team to be able to verify that you're in compliance, so we have to assume that you're not.

Spoiler

Because otherwise it's very hard for us to know that the rule has been followed-- unless we actually download the zip and unzip it and start spelunking through its contents, which is not practical when the moderator team is a tiny handful of part-time volunteers; we simply don't have the bandwidth to dissect every zip file that gets posted. 

(It's the same reason why you need to say in the OP what the license is, in addition to having the license in the download.)

Another (slightly more subtle) reason why it's important to say this in the OP is to help encourage other modders to be aware of the rules so they can comply.  There are a lot of would-be modders out there, and not all of them sit down and read through all the add-on posting rules before posting.  It's not uncommon for them just to look at another, already-posted mod and then emulate them.  If a mod includes the source buried in their download somewhere, and doesn't mention anything in their OP, then anyone looking at that OP might think "Oh, okay, as long as I have an OP like this, then I'm good," and end up not posting their source at all.

 

57 minutes ago, razark said:

Snark said: "The add-on posting rules require that any mod published here needs to... provide a link to the source code there."

I said that because that's what most mods do, and at the time I wrote that, I had no idea that the mod had source code in the download-- because it didn't say so.  Thus the issue.  If the code's in the download, then that's fine-- all that needs to happen for that aspect is to add a note to the OP saying "source code is in the download" and that aspect is satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snark said:

I said that because that's what most mods do, and at the time I wrote that, I had no idea that the mod had source code in the download-- because it didn't say so.  Thus the issue.  If the code's in the download, then that's fine-- all that needs to happen for that aspect is to add a note to the OP saying "source code is in the download" and that aspect is satisfied.

Just wanted to make sure that it was clear that posting source in the download was acceptable, since the rules say one thing, and what was said in the thread was contrary to it. 

(Further comments redacted due to Rule 3.3)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, pizzaoverhead has updated his thread with appropriate license information, so that aspect of the matter is settled. A reminder to anyone who wants to post anything derived therefrom (e.g. a recompile) that all the art and sound assets in the mod are licensed All Rights Reserved, per the mod's OP, so you can't redistribute them. If you do post a recompile (without those assets), please be sure to follow the add-on posting guidelines yourself, with appropriate license, source, etc. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...