Danger of popular mods dying off?

[Tiron]

I'm pretty sure I have seen ones that explicitly waive all rights, but I didn't say it would *work*, I said I thought some idiot might *try* it.

If it doesn't work for some of them, well hey.

[PatriotBob]

See now I have to go dive back in to licensing again... I don't like GPL and it's viral nature, but it might work for a mod. Maybe CDDL?

Really all I want to see from a mod creators is that they change the license to something that allows it to be forked before they stop maintaining it.

Now I have to go poke around mod creation... anyone have any ideas for a mod?

[wasmic]

@Op: I don't think there is a danger of popular mods dying off. That danger applies to ALL mods.

[HeadHunter67]

if a piece of code is released under one license that permits modification and redistribution, and someone does just that, and then the original author relicenses the code, they can't exactly go back and demand that the person who made modifications and released a new distribution abide by the new license terms.

They certainly can - happens all the time in the software world. Licenses and terms of service get updated, and the user has two choices: Accept the new license, or stop using the software. (Many choose the unofficial third option, "ignore the terms and keep using the product", but that won't hold up in court).

[Greys]

That only applies to a service standpoint.

Imagine you have a piece of code/software with the following versions/licenses

0.5 GPL

1.0 Proprietery

1.4 BSD

Even during the reign of 1.0 before 1.4, the code from 0.5 is still GPL, you can't use the code from 1.0 onward but they can't make you stop using 0.5. Likewise the code in 1.0 will always be proprietery even though it went opensource again afterwards.

This gets complicated because a lot of the code is probably shared between the versions and depending on the wording perhaps only the new code in 1.4 is BSD, but you still have to buy the old code.

What you're saying is true with services because every time you use it you're re-agreeing to the terms, which are permitted to change. You can stop distributing the outdated versions, but that license remains valid for that code.

[HeadHunter67]

In that case, there's really no worry if the author includes a license that's too permissive at first - the worst that can happen is that others can fork off that version (and that version alone) if the author decides on a more restrictive license in a later version.

Some people may not desire this, and that's certainly understandable. But choosing the wrong license for your 0.9 version shouldn't have too much impact on, say, your 1.4 release later.

[regex]

Greys is correct about the service/code distinction.

In that case, there's really no worry if the author includes a license that's too permissive at first - the worst that can happen is that others can fork off that version (and that version alone) if the author decides on a more restrictive license in a later version.

Some people may not desire this, and that's certainly understandable. But choosing the wrong license for your 0.9 version shouldn't have too much impact on, say, your 1.4 release later.

Most mod authors will do a release after they've got a decent feature-set and, even if they screw up the first license have a leg-up on anyone forking their code because they know it better. Even if the forker makes headway mod users will often cling to the original author out of loyalty, so community presence and pressure definitely counts. I don't think it's as big an issue as it seems to be, but then, my opinion about (my non-professional) code is pretty liberal (in the "liberty" sense).

[Greys]

That all depends on how things play out with your add-on. A part pack might not put out a significant set of changes except when KSP does, which can easily be six months. Most of the changes will be refinements to assets and minor fixes/balancing to the cfg, so 0.9 might be very similar to 1.4. Depending on what state you're at when you change, a plugin may have most of it's primary feature set available at the very start, and then just improving it, tweaking things, and keeping up with KSP, all of which are things that anybody is allowed to do with the old version.

[Majiir]

Consider also that you're often licensing many components of a mod. If most of the iterative work is in the plugin, someone could still use your incorrectly licensed parts, and that can be undesirable.

[Interfect]

If Spaceport added full project hosting, it could help the community manage vanishing mod authors (for the mods with sufficiently permissive licenses).

Making open-sourcing your mod an opt-out feature of Spaceport could vastly increase the portion of mods that the community is able to update. (EDIT: Apparently we do this already. Awesome.)

However, the "best" solution to mods going out of date would be stability in the modding API (and good documentation of it to make updating mods easy when the API does need to change). This will (hopefully) happen as the pace of development slows.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Interfect

[Greys]

Asking for stability in the plugin* API is like asking for Squad to stop developing KSP, namely because there mostly is not an API, mods tap into whatever they can find and not get in trouble for using, it's rather similar to Minecraft, you just find the way to make what you want work, the game is only slightly working with you and mostly working completely oblivious to you.

At least for Parts things will probably be pretty stable for a while. The current system is pretty complete, there are a handful of bugs that need to be fixed and outdated modules that need to be replaced, but the way parts work now is not likely to change very much ever again, it'll be added to surely, but parts that exist now will likely remain functional. Unless they're aerodynamic parts.

[WinkAllKerb'']

licensing, and (all kind) of property is a pretty old story in human history i usually sum it this way:

© is a combination of a "c" + a "o", after investigation around alphabetical and ideogram genealogia you can learn that the "c" we use in our occidental alphabet as for original meaning a "open house" and the "o" represent a garden wall around this house, this is something like as old as first ideogram used by human kind (so yup pretty old story):

"i open my house to other and i protect it with a garden wall."

nowdays wheels are used everywhere should we give something to neanderthal ? + garden wall are not that strong to protect some 'virtually inexistant anykind of property' xD combine thing together is an old human process, and licensing thing that belong to all in some way is imho kinda silly sometime.

400 years ago royalism ruled the world, nowdays greedy capitalism wich consist taking property upon thing that belong to everyone to generate self profit, what's next ? (what's before !? a yes i remind i take a club hit my neighboor and take what i want from him => neanderhtal® approach, as said very old story xD)

i do love this kind of artistic and concept/design approach:

These works are of Ukrainian Mark Khaisman to realize it just uses big brown scotch glue it on a sheet of plexiglass. He then plays the tape layers and transparency by illuminating his paintings from the rear.

so when speaking of license thing can become very relative sometime, especially when we all made things based on someone(s) else things (does this artist has to pay something to the glue and scissor/cutter inventor ? it's like saying i would have to give money to bill gates each times i copy paste reassemble some existing things together, wich is sometime sadly the case in some way xD)

most mods support come and goes it will always be like that and thoose kind of mod should use soft license, for mod that pretend to be future dlc with maintained support as long as ksp is supported too i can understand more protective licensing regarding our current commercial/business model else ...

Edited September 29, 2013 by WinkAllKerb''
typo

[Captain Sierra]

In regards to the original subject of popular mods dying, KW came back today so there. That says it all.

[Camacha]

In regards to the original subject of popular mods dying, KW came back today so there. That says it all.

That says that if you are lucky, one of your favorite mods might see a new lease of life?

[astropapi1]

It's back, in all it's glory. KAS also got updated a couple of hours ago! Hopefully .22 won't break it all up.

[Commander Zoom]

I would like to open a discussion over whether it is appropriate to alter the content of a mod against its creator's express wishes, when the creator is both present and active, if such is allowed by the (possibly "too permissive") terms of their license.

[Majiir]

I would like to open a discussion over whether it is appropriate to alter the content of a mod against its creator's express wishes, when the creator is both present and active, if such is allowed by the (possibly "too permissive") terms of their license.

Generally speaking, this is allowed. There are a few exceptions, which are usually spelled out in the license text but sometimes not: you usually can't imply that the original creator endorses your work, and you sometimes can't create something that would defame the original creator or their work. Often, you can't release derivatives under the same name as the original.

That said, if someone has released their work such that derivatives are allowed and they simply don't like your idea, there's nothing they can do to stop you (except relicense newer versions of their work).

[Tiberion]

Of course there is a difference in "allowed" and "appropriate" - Branching off of major open source projects happens a lot and tends to be handled professionally, but KSP projects are a completely different thing; usually a personal project by one person who is putting their leisure time into it for free. So then it becomes a matter of "Is this worth getting into conflict with the original author over? Is it worth the risk of disrupting not only my own work but the original work too?"

Its going to differ from instance to instance - why does the creator not like your changes, even though they have an 'open' license in place? Could I make some changes to diffuse the conflict?

Certainly, if the license permits it, you can do it. But in my opinion, it should probably be the last resort to just proceed and take on the creator of something head-on. And as always, ask yourself how you would feel if the situation was reversed.

And its a good example of why you need to pick the right license.

[regex]

I would like to open a discussion over whether it is appropriate to alter the content of a mod against its creator's express wishes, when the creator is both present and active, if such is allowed by the (possibly "too permissive") terms of their license.

It doesn't matter whether it's "appropriate", what matters is whether the license allows it. At the end of the day, though, actions like that may push the original author to put a more restrictive license on their future work, which damages chances of it being able to change maintainers in the future, especially if the author simply disappears. If you're talking about the drama in the Stock Texture Resize thread, it's pretty clear that it's a misunderstanding between two people that need to talk it out privately, and you should just ignore it.

[sumghai]

Seeing as this has been bought up...

Do you guys reckon I should re-licence my current FusTek parts to be more restrictive (i.e. with the additional no-derivative clause), and then lift that restriction after I officially release the next version with my own refactoring(s)?

Edited October 5, 2013 by sumghai

[Majiir]

Seeing as this has been bought up...

Do you guys reckon I should re-licence my current FusTek parts to be more restrictive (i.e. with the additional no-derivative clause), and then lift that restriction after I officially release the next version with my own refactoring(s)?

I'm not sure it's really appropriate in this case.

You can't unlicense what's already out there. If this were a long-term concern, you could release new versions under a restrictive license, and compatibility issues and new features might dissuade people from extending the old GPL version. For example, Kethane was originally GPL, but later versions were relicensed under more restrictive terms. Who would want to release a Kethane fork based on a year-old version?

In this case, it sounds like you're looking to prevent a specific use of your work in a relatively short timeframe. I'm not sure relicensing would do anything but make a loud statement, which you've already done. (For what it's worth, I hope your wishes are respected.)

[regex]

Do you guys reckon I should re-licence my current FusTek parts to be more restrictive (i.e. with the additional no-derivative clause), and then lift that restriction after I officially release the next version with my own refactoring(s)?

No, just do the work like you want to in your time. Encourage your users to use your re-factorings. FWIW, I don't think you have anything to worry about in this case.

Re-licensing for the short term is pretty boring, better to troll the other guy by releasing a slightly revised texture pack every week or so.

[sumghai]

Gotcha, thanks guys.

[Tiberion]

Well I had missed this bit of drama, but I went and caught up.

Since he said he wasn't going to act until you release the next version, I don't think you need to re-release anything, and it wouldn't help you legally anyway. You're just going to have to do some soul searching and decide if you want to release that next version with more restrictions or not - how much you think a derivative project would disrupt your own and other such concerns.

Personally, I prefer people not make derivatives of NP or TD, and have said so to the few people who have asked me privately. It's a pain to have to support multiple versions and trying to figure out why something may or may not work. But I didn't add a no-derivs clause to the license nonetheless, partially because Novapunch itself is a derivative. But I am also pretty open to contributors and have no issue in making suggested changes when I can.

I have some other thoughts on the other side of the issue, but I am going to express those privately.

[Faark]

Now we have a great example why Majiir is correct in pushing people to start with an "All rights reserved" license. But there still isn't any version that protects the mod and savegames of players using it from dying once the author is suddenly gone. Its sad that no license offered in the licensing thread or any restrictive license i know of from existing mods include such an abandonment clause. Even guys like Majiir, who obviously spend a lot of time thinking about licensing, do not offer their users those kind of protection.

What i am looking for is a license that

- is pretty much "all rights reserved"

- handles abandonment, by e.g. allowing people to share compatibility updates for my mod if don't do so within a specific timespan

- it may even makes it freely available once i am gone for a long timespan (yes, finding a clear way of measuring this isn't easy :/ )

- allows me to change my license as long as its not yet freely available

Does anyone more experienced with licensing know such a license or can create sth like that?