KSP Forums (Open source debate)

[Magnet_man16]

So. They say every project has to be accompanied by source code.

"All addons, plugins and similar works (such as code, textures or models) posted on the services as meant in 1.1 must be accompanied by the source code (if applicable) and a license in both the post and the download file. Any works derived from addons, plugins and similar works must attribute the original work and provide proof of rights to use the original work.".

They say mod development is slow and not as many are being developed as they would like. I for one would not make anything, software, mod and give away the source code. Maybe not having to have everything open-source would make more programmers want to get their mods out there.

Some say its a good thing, open-source. They say this because they like going around and looking at what someone's done and altering it to their needs. Above this rule they say:

"The services Squad has opened to the KSP community are intended for people of all backgrounds and of all ages. The rules are meant as a framework in which all users treat eachother with a basic level of respect and keep the services available to all of them.".

Im sure a 8 year old is not going to care about some source code. I doubt they would even know what it is.

And lastly many say its to prevent malicious content ect. This is just plain stupid. Ok so i code a mod and package the source. Then i add a virus or something else before compiling it. You can look at the source all you want but it wouldn't have a virus in it. Also on this topic people have things called Anti-Viruses. Me i have Norton, before that McAfee, before that Kaspersky.

I feel this rule makes out everyone to be a no good hacker who wants to ruin the game, I for one am against open-source but have never had any virus reports/complaints from any of my software. That's over 3000 users.

Yes these are the rules, yes they're put in place by SQUAD. But i just cant agree with giving away work. Surely its good enough for the people to spend, sometimes ridiculous amounts of time, making this to give it away for free. But to be asked to provide the source to the public. I maise well just go download someone else's source alter it heavily and re-upload as my own work..

Can we get KSP's source code?

What do you think on the open source rule?

(Ive seen people have different views on the subject on my thread for a KSP Launcher which got locked)

(No doubt this wil get locked)

Edited July 29, 2013 by Magnet_man16

[Magnet_man16]

Ok, so a user called Earth voted yes. When looking at his/her profile they have never developed any mods so they wouldn't understand this from a developers point of view.

[doggie015]

just because YOU do not like it does not mean you should force ANYTHING on ANYONE

[Magnet_man16]

Im talking about them stopping forcing things on anyone.

[jamac41]

Having looked at the various rules, I think you may be misunderstanding things a bit. Whilst you do need to provide the source code, you are free to use any license that allows the viewing of source code. In particular, you could use, say, a CC BY-NC-ND license, which means that other people can only download and share your code in its entirety as long as they credit you, and they cannot create any derivative works (i.e. nab pieces of the code for themselves), or use it commercially.

Essentially, as Ted mentioned in one of his threads, the source code publishing is a protective measure. Even if someone publishes a completely bogus source code along with a virus, it is much easier for people to notice that said source code is not doing anything resembling what the plugin says it will do, than for people to spend a lot of time working out what just gave them the virus. People are not going to go to all the effort of coding a mod and then adding a virus to it - they will either just bung some random code/gibberish in, or they will go to a game which doesn't require code-publishing and have a lot more success with it.

Also, a few other points,

They say mod development is slow and not as many are being developed as they would like. I for one would not make anything, software, mod and give away the source code. Maybe not having to have everything open-source would make more programmers want to get their mods out there.

Do you have any evidence for the first claim? Also, I suspect that you are fairly unusual in the above respect. As far as I can tell, most KSP modders do it because they want to improve the game and improve the community's enjoyment of the game. Making the code readable means that other people can look at it and go "ooh, that's and interesting bit of code, I bet you could fiddle with it a bit and get [insert cool KSP improvement]." They can then go to the original code-writer and go "Hey, I think you could get [such-and-such] from this, can I nab this bit of code for it?" The original developer can refuse, but if they don't, the community benefits. There is a strong argument that readable-source code actually helps speed up innovation, so your claim needs evidence.

But to be asked to provide the source to the public. I maise well just go download someone else's source alter it heavily and re-upload as my own work..

Not if their license doesn't say you can you won't.

[Seret]

Ok so i code a mod and package the source. Then i add a virus or something else before compiling it. You can look at the source all you want but it wouldn't have a virus in it.

That would be pretty easy to detect. Build, checksum, hello!

In general, having more eyes on the code can't be a bad thing, especially for community-generated content like mods. It allows people to collaborate. I don't think a mods community would be viable at all without it.

[Sof]

I think you'd be hard pushed to find a game in alpha v0.21.1 with as many mods as KSP.

So I'd like to see the source for the lack of mod development quote.

I bet you don't like posting source codes because then people will look at your stuff and go "lel wat is this bs?" and you'd be all like

[ASnogarD]

Rather unusual complaint, why would a modder on these forums be so averse to providing the source of their work ?

Its not like you can take your mod and charge separately for it, or somehow gain financially from it as that would infringe on Squads rights, so why the concern to protect your work ?

If someone copies your source and claims it for themselves others can study that source and see its a copy... for example, if I was to create a Methane mod by copying the Kethane mod, my mod would drown in a sea of complaints by the fans of the Kethane mod.

It also allows for a very popular mod to be picked up by others should the original author tire of KSP or move to another game / project, it would be a shame to lose some of the more popular and used mods simply because the author lost interest.

If you really do not wish to share the code, then you will simply not be able to share your mod.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I don't do a whole lot of modding for KSP, but I do have different mod projects of my own, and I'd happily present the source materials and code for anyone to reuse if it meant a benefit for the game and community as a whole. As such, I only support this idea. The more eyes on the code, the better. (the developer of a certain recent 4X game seems to be greatly benefiting from his game's code being unobfuscated C#. The community hunts down bug causes and introduces new features like you wouldn't believe.)

Put it this way: you're unlikely to profit from a mod. You're unlikely to reuse the code or content you added to your mod elsewhere. Why would you feel a need to hoard the source materials at all?

Edited July 29, 2013 by Sean Mirrsen

[Magnet_man16]

Im talking about this more from a programmer who makes software's point of view. I suppose mods are built on a game so why should you hide your code. But with software, its all yours.

"As you all know mod development is slowing to a crawl and perhaps an all out halt" - KSP Weekly.

[sal_vager]

Might as well ask for Unity to be open source, there's not much point in making KSP open until then.

[Sean Mirrsen]

"As you all know mod development is slowing to a crawl and perhaps an all out halt" - KSP Weekly.

That was on the brink of the switch from 0.20 to 0.21, a step so major that a lot of players stopped playing due to the breaking of save compatibility. Likewise, mod developers also stopped, waiting to see how the new version will affect things, so as not to perform futile labor.

[ASnogarD]

Besides all that , the mod showcase showcases mods in the 'Add-on Releases and Projects Showcase' section as far as I know , not the 'Add-on Development' which has a fair number of interesting projects (personally I am looking at the Lightswitch mod with keen interest).

[Seret]

Im talking about this more from a programmer who makes software's point of view. I suppose mods are built on a game so why should you hide your code. But with software, its all yours.

It's still yours if you open source it. Just because you allow others to read your code (or even modify it) doesn't mean you lose any claim to ownership or bragging rights. As mentioned above, you can choose a licence that suits you. That's no different from any software. A lot of software (whole operating systems even) are released as open source.

"As you all know mod development is slowing to a crawl and perhaps an all out halt" - KSP Weekly.

Let's put that in context. From KSP Weekly 16 July:

As you all know mod development is slowing to a crawl and perhaps an all out halt until the release of .21 we will work hard to make sure you guys get your mod spotlights as new mods are introduced or older ones updated, however, at the current time there seems to be a lack there of.

They were referring to the fact that the new release would break mod compatibility, not that there was a lack of mods overall.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Seret

[Themohawkninja]

"Should HAVE to": No, if a company doesn't want to release their code, than they should have the full rights to do so. However, I do agree that companies SHOULD do it, at the very least to show up and coming programmers how the pros do it, and for those already adept at it, to have access to the methods, and functions to help with modding the game.

[SiliconPyro]

Two major reasons I see for including source are for resolving conflicts between plugins and identifying malware. If someone downloads your mod and suddenly nothing works or another mod freaks out, open source makes it much easier to identify problems. As for malware, you cannot hide a virus in your source code, not from someone who knows what they are looking for. You CAN, however, write a plugin that would never trigger your AV.

[softweir]

There are several reasons that I know of for this rule:

1. So that source code is available to check for malware. This is less important now that many of the loopholes have been closed, but no utility that adds code to a game can be completely free of exploits. This is the most important reason, and is the reason why it is compulsory.
   
2. So mod-makers can learn from each other.
   
3. To make it easier for mod-makers to work out how to make each other's plugins compatible - I have seen several occasions where one modder has encountered an incompatibility, looked at the other plugin's code and worked out how to change his plugin to make it compatible; and at least two occasions where one modder has told another how to fix his code. This process would be much slower and more unwieldy if people had to ask nicely every time they wanted to look at another person's code!
   

The only reasons I can think of why a mod-maker would refuse to release code are Jealousy, Laziness, Paranoia and Stubbornness. Personal freedom isn't infringed - nobody is forced to provide plugins!

[DChurchill]

The only reasons I can think of why a mod-maker would refuse to release code are Jealousy, Laziness, Paranoia and Stubbornness. Personal freedom isn't infringed - nobody is forced to provide plugins!

And no one is getting paid for their mods, either. Your point #3 is the biggest reason I can see for a game as open to mods as KSP. Especially mods that are specifically designed to work with mods like FAR.

[Hiddos]

These rules only apply to official KSP-related pages/services (Plugin showroom/Spaceport), if you really want to share your plugin without source you could always upload it somewhere else where those rules do not apply.

As to the question you're actually asking, I think it's great. It's great to be able to see how someone has done something in a plugin, you could learn from it yourself or maybe even give the original developer(s) some advice on how specific parts could've been done better

[Mr. Man]

It's always the developer's choice. There should be no mandate.

[regex]

Pretty much everything softweir said.

[acealeam]

Why not let them do what they want with it? No harm there.

And by that I mean, the original creator. So, if they want it to be open source or not, it should be their choice.

[OrbitusII]

I like the open source plugin rule. If you have nothing to hide, releasing the source code should not be a problem. If people don't want to release the code, then something's potentially up.

If you don't want to follow the rules, then don't publish your stuff. I have test releases of my plugins on my development thread, and source code is available as well. Why? Because the rules say so, and also so that I can get input on how to make the code better.

I like open source software. As someone who's used OS X, Windows, and Ubuntu Linux, my favorite OS is Ubuntu- an open source operating system- for its efficiency, security, and many of the extra features that closed source OSes don't have. However, I don't think open source needs to be applied to everything. There are things that would benefit from it, but others don't need to be open source for security and/or copyright reasons.

If you have issues with making your plugin open source, keep it for personal use or publish it on your own separate website for people to find on their own.

[Magnet_man16]

Paranoia and security are my main problems. I cant give people source code as they could use it to decode the last login file. Also they could find ways to hack peoples accounts. This is why. Plugins are different from 3rd Party game altering software. I am referring to a project called KSP Launcher. Google it (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=KSP+Launcher+Magnet_man16). (Funny auto google thing).

[Sean Mirrsen]

Considering what your program is for, I'd say it's paranoia first and foremost... and some kind of misguided sense of superiority second, judging by some of your comments on the first page of the thread. >_>

Exactly what would people benefit from hacking into a mod manager? I.e. you're obviously not going to be doing store integration (that's kind of Squad's own agenda), and Spaceport doesn't require any credentials.