KSP Forums (Open source debate)

[air805ronin]

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).

Funny, having looked at your website I see various red flags that would keep me from using your software. Requiring an additional login to your site, saving credentials to spaceport, etc. Just things I don't like and don't want to put up with for some additional conveniences (to many things I already have scripted).

When it comes to third party mods and applications written to support or change my game experience, I like the idea of having source code available so I can see what is happening in the functions you write. That way I can make sure there is no transmission of anything I don't like. do I read the source code for every mod I've ever installed? No. But I've only installed 3.

As a guy who has written lots of scripts and code the very idea of TRYING to protect my work seems silly to me. I can't afford to hire a lawyer if somene releases an altered copy of something I've written. I doubt many mod makers could. Seems almost silly to try when the work isn't monetized.

And no, I haven't written a mod for KSP. I have modded, and I script and code at work.

[Magnet_man16]

The login isnt required for all software and the credentials for Spaceport aren't needed. You don't need to be logged in to download mods.

[Sof]

Either way, its irrelevant. So you don't want to let other people play your mods according the the rules set by Squad, boo hoo.

You already lied about the open source limiting the number of mods created for KSP by deliberately misquoting KSP weekly.

This whole topic is a non-issue to everyone apart from you.

[m4v]

What do you win by closing the mod? Are you going to start selling your mods or something? Is your code too embarrassing to see? Having the code available helps a lot in learning plugin development, there is almost no documentation, and if you made any plugin I bet that you did read quite a bit of source code.

I wouldn't feel comfortable using a plugin that is closed source. The way I see it, adding the source adds value to the plugin. Having source code with an open license adds even more value, you know that plugin isn't going to get orphaned because anyone can continue working on it. And if it doesn't have an open license I can fix it and keep it for myself.

About security, giving source gives no real security as you rightly point out, but neither does antivirus software, they mostly detect known or variations of known viruses, they aren't going to detect my troll plugin that deletes all your craft and saves from your game. Both justifications aren't enough for the same reasons, yet you agree with one just because it helps your argument.

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).

So you are doing security through obscurity? uh huh, you're a real software engineer aren't ya? and using Lmgtfy?... are you trying to come out as jerk or something?

[air805ronin]

The login isnt required for all software and the credentials for Spaceport aren't needed. You don't need to be logged in to download mods.

Sorry didn't mean to derail your thread. In my defense, you website said a login is required for all software downloads.

[Gristle]

I think the OP is confused about Open-Source and Copyright. Open-source does not mean Public Domain. Think of a book, which is essentially open source and copyright protected.

[Sean Mirrsen]

The login isnt required for all software and the credentials for Spaceport aren't needed. You don't need to be logged in to download mods.

Therefore... why have these security things there in the first place? If you're worried that someone can use your source code to reverse-engineer a hack to your other software's login system... can't you, y'know, not have the login system in this program? Since it's not required, ultimately.

Seriously, when what is essentially a glorified frontend has more DRM than the game it's a frontend for... that's a seriously sad piece of software.

[FEichinger]

I'm not going to join deep into the discussion, but I feel the poll in particular is rather pointless. Of course not everything has to be Open Source, but there is an inherent difference between Open Source and a publically viewable source - You can still apply any license you like to your work, as long as it complies with the rules (that is, you can definitely keep your property protected, the source code just has to be public). Making the source code public is also beneficial in a lot of regards - protection from plagiarism, as there is clear and definitive proof of "who came first"; protection from malicious code can be collectively investigated by the community rather than having to grind the gears of whatever communication method you wish to use; the ability to develop something to work en lieu with another plugin; etc.

Now, there is something to be said about "critical data". Login info and the like. Of course, being able to see how that is handled by a plugin or other application is inherently bad. I doubt that we actually need said critical data, though. I cannot think of a single reason for anyone here to have a desktop application, plugin or mod storing and using critical data like account info of any sort. It makes sense for web services, but that's about it. And even then (and that's something I'm in full support of and would love to see) a centralized user API from Squad's end would be a much better idea than random third parties providing account-bound services into the KSP community.

As this probably sounds a lot more formal than I thought it would, do note that my participation in this thread is not in a moderator's capacity whatsoever. I will ask you all to be nice to one another but that's it.

[OrbitusII]

The login isnt required for all software and the credentials for Spaceport aren't needed. You don't need to be logged in to download mods.

What is a login required for in the first place? KSP is intentionally DRM free, and there aren't going to be any services you can't use without logging in (besides uploading things to SpacePort and talking on the forums, but those are a given).

[Majiir]

If anyone's wondering when someone might want to keep source closed, I can give an example.

If it were up to me, I'd have made the code that generates the Kethane geodesic grid closed-source. Not the code that creates the overlay, just the code that crunches the numbers to figure out where the points on the sphere should go. Does this hurt development? Not at all; since nothing in that file is related to KSP, there are no lessons to learn about the API. Does it open the possibility of malware? Not at all; I've never heard of someone decompiling the Kethane assembly to check that it matches the source code. (I even accidentally released the wrong DLL once and nobody noticed.) Does it prevent people from writing their own programs using my geodesic grid code? Well, yes... but my license already prevents that. If I had the choice, I'd keep most of Kethane open source, but I might keep "proprietary" elements closed.

The security argument is a gigantic red herring. The benefit of the open source rule is that it allows people to learn. It makes you wonder, then, why KSP's code must be so locked-down. (No, sal_vager, it has nothing to do with Unity being closed-source. We have documentation for Unity.)

[MachXXV]

The benefit of the open source rule is that it allows people to learn.

Speaking as a developer myself, this is the #1 reason for me. I'm not new to software development, but I'm still new to Unity and KSP - there are mod ideas I'm working on, and being able to look at the KSP related code in other's mods is incredibly helpful to see how they were able to retrieve certain data and perform certain actions. There are many things regarding the KSP side of the API that others were able to find out through trial and error that are documented nowhere else. Putting all that out in the open helps bootstrap other devs.

[dlrk]

I think the source should be disclosed but the open source requirement should only require modifications to be allowed to the extent necessary to provide continuous support through future updates to KSP. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

[NovaSilisko]

Accidentally voted wrong. Meant to vote for "Why not".

[Commander Zoom]

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

[citation needed]

[RavensLast]

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.

What an asinine, ridiculous thing to say. You think that just by looking at someone's KSP forum profile that you automatically have their full background and experience? Go take a look at my profile and tell me what I have and haven't done in my life, please.

I think you have other peoples' opinions confused with your own. Not everybody shares your opinion on a subject just because you think yours is so righteous.

Nobody is stealing secrets here. Some things could go without being completely open-source, but is it hurting anybody being that way? No. KSP wasn't made to get your hits on your website and make you money. It might be hard to swallow, but this isn't the Minecraft community.

The benefit of the open source rule is that it allows people to learn.

This.

Why would you be so selfish as to completely close your mod's source code across the board and refuse to publish it? Yeah, I can see some things you'd want to stay behind closed doors, such as Majiir's grid crunching code, but the entire thing? Really? Are you really so conceited that you're convinced that your ideas are such post-modern, revolutionary content? Bollocks to you. This is such selfish behavior. You're making mods and utilities for an indie game, not writing software for a major company that you're getting paid by. If you want to go get a real software engineering job that you get paid for, then, by all means do that and keep your source code to yourself. Until then, you just look like some kid that thinks he's hot and is mad because Mr. Man wants him to share.

I'm not really sure what else to say as all points have already been made by other people, other than if you're going to post an argument like this, you might try at least attempting grammar and formattting that doesn't look like it was written for senior citizens by a middleschooler. Giant fonts and caps lock, despite popular belief, is not cruise control to people taking you seriously.

[citation needed]

[Commander Zoom]

Thank you. I posted that foolishly before checking the rest of the thread, in which others supplied the vital context (reproduced above) that it was pending the release of .21. Heck, I stopped doing anything until .21 came out, and I'm just a player.

Without the context, I took it for just more of the typical "chicken-littling" that goes on whenever there's any perceived lull, slowdown or setback.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Commander Zoom

[Greys]

An unnoted advantage to posting mods source visible is that you can then more effectively include your mod project in a portfolio when applying for jobs; Only presenting a compiled mod is far less impressive to future employers, all they can see is what you did not how you got it done and it's really the how that separates the beginners from the pros. Given sufficient resources and time, any human who doesn't have brain damage or no hands or something can learn to program.

[Devo]

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.

Who is "They" ?

This is not something I find a common discussion over. Most people are patient and realize it takes time to add content to a game we didn't ourselves create but are simply working with what we've got.

Even if people were to release it without source I do not see how this would improve things, if anything it would impact on the time it takes to find bugs. Currently, if you code a plugin and there is an issue, other people can solve your problem by finding the offending code and informing you of it, saving you much time - and in some cases they will re-compile the new plugin with the fix and do it all for you - that's how an open source community should run.

Squad have been very instrumental in supporting modders with part tools and such, and that's just the way things are done around here. Mod makers come and go, there is always someone willing to pick up the pieces they left, the trick is leaving enough pieces that the puzzle can be put back together again.

[Faark]

Yes, i know... it all has already been said. But to show that really a lot of people think that way:

- I'm sure KSP would not be what it is today when all mods would have been closed source. Learning by what other modders have done is the best way to get into modding, at least it was for me. And no, i do not have published anything. Yet.

- Having the code for security is nice. Yes, most people will just dl your compiled mod anyway, but beside that people can check that there rly is a valid mod in it, paranoid people also can compile it themselves.

- From a tech PoV is everything open source, anyway. Especially when using .NET. The golden internet rule these days: If the user is not allowed to know it, do not transmit it to the client.

- If you have to prevent reverse engineering to secure your user's data, then you are doing it horrible wrong. For whatever reason the law might not allow decompiling your stuff, it does not stop evil guys from doing so. You should check out some other people source code and how they accomplish e.g. mostly secure login systems

[cloudflint]

I like to open source all my projects for a few reason, not just in Kerbal space program but nearly all my coding projects. Firstly it allows people to learn something, secondly I find it helps me write better code if people can look over it and say "This part could be done better", thirdly it reduces the "hit by a bus" factor of my projects whereby if I stop development (By getting hit by a bus, getting bored or whatever) its development can be picked up and continued. I tend to use "Do what you like so long as you credit me" licenses on all my stuff as well since quite often if a project is good I have found people tend to make forks and add awesome features which can then be pulled back into the main project and what starts as a little one man project can easily grown into a big project with multiple coders working on it and become something greater than I originally envisioned.

[MacTee]

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. ...

Why does a Launcher App for a DRM free Game needs a login system?

Mods and Software are a world apart. ...

Where is the difference? Aren't mods a pice of software?

I maise well just go download someone else's source alter it heavily and re-upload as my own work.

Thats where your free choice of a license come in. They should protect you from that (at leats from a law PoV).

And another solution would be to put the code of your login handling to another dll. You dont have to go open source with that part of code since you can use 3rd Party libs in your project, but you should mention this in your documentations.

Can we get KSP's source code?

That's ridiculous! Do you realy want to compare your tiny work with this Launcher to the works thats needed to program a comercial Game like KSP?

[GavinZac]

I for one am against open-source but have never had any virus reports/complaints from any of my software.

Against... open source? Why would anyone be against open source? It has nothing but benefits for the user and is entirely optional for the developer (assuming they're not using some licensed material themselves). What you mean to ask is should this forum endorse closed-source code.

No, an 'official' forum should not allow this, particularly when the game itself does not yet place the right restrictions on what a mod can do; feel free to do so elsewhere, however, and people will be free to download it if they want.

I maise well just go download someone else's source alter it heavily and re-upload as my own work..

Evidently you do not know a single thing about how open source software licenses work. I'm sure the GPL is available in your language, please read that, or the MIT license or something.

[sumghai]

I'm sure the GPL is available in your language, please read that, or the MIT license or something.

magnet_man16's real name is Alex Ashton, as per his website's about page. Therefore, it is highly likely that English is his native language.

My understanding is that his KSP Launcher is basically a collection of "convenience" tools for managing screenshots, savegames and mods and a soapbox platform for people to subscribe to his personal website's news. It doesn't appear to store user bank account info or remote backups of the player's files, so if someone "hacks" an account or reverse-engineers his "security codez" from source, the worst that could possibly happen to legit players is pretty much nothing.

Further browsing of his website reveals that every piece of software Alex publishes makes use of his "proprietary" login system, and that he encourages users to upgrade to paid premium accounts. So it appears to me that he's erecting an artificial paywall between the player and otherwise DRM-free games to profit off it.

tl;dr - He's not really worried about user security, but about his potential loss of revenue.

And oh, it looks like he conceded:

So, KSP require open source while Minecraft doesn't. This is a hard decition [sic] but ive [sic] made it. KSP Projects will be open source and others not. This means everyones [sic] happy. Though i [sic] would be happier not giving away my projects. So ive [sic] read through licenses and have chosen one. Ive [sic] updated the license page for more clarity. Maybe i [sic] might just survive the massive drop off of people. I took a risk moving to KSP and everything went wrong at the most vital stage. So im [sic] recovering from the equivelent [sic] of a crash. Slowly trying to regain motivation to carry on. [h=5]30/07/13

[/h]The fact that he talks about "massive drop off of people", "recovering from the equivelent [sic] of a crash" and "trying to regain motivation to carry on" strongly implies that he feels bad because he can't profit off his KSP launcher.

[wuselfuzz]

Without going too deep into legal/copyright issues with non-GPL/MIT/WTFPL, here's a point of view:

Having been involved with administering a modded Minecraft server for a bunch of friends, I actually like the requirement of mods to be open source. With MC, it went always like this: MC gets an update, Forge (MC mod framework) gets an update, 90% of the mods you're using gets an update, but one or the other mod your server depends on was abandoned by the original author. Congratulations, you're stuck on an old Minecraft indefinitely, because you can't properly convert your savegame!

Having open source mods kind of alleviates this situation, since an abandoned mod could be taken over by someone else. Even with a "may not be distributed in modified form" license, it's still possible to publish a source code patch and instructions to download the original, apply patch and recompile the mod.

[tomwillp]

I say no, it shouldn't be mandatory.

i am currently Trying to make a plugin myself right now and am having a hard time of it. i have recently be peering through the source code of a few mods to try and get a handle on things and i greatly appreciate the ones made available to me.

So while it would be useful to have access to more mod source codes, I wouldn't want for force anyone to part with something that took this much skill to make, and i have tried, it ain't easy. as i too wouldn't want to be forced in to that position if i manage to make my mod.

So while i implore moders to, and greatly appreciate moders releasing source code. i think it should not be forced on anyone.

It also annoys me that people feel a right to access mod source code. and who in turn don't appreciate those who do release it.