Tippis

…that the user might not even see depending on where he gets it from.There is absolutely no reason or excuse not to include it in the download mod. There is also absolutely no excuse for not including one any time a mod of any kind collects data from a source the creator doesn't own, doubly so if it sends it to a destination s/he also doesn't own. I simply can't get my head around this vociferous and aggressive unwillingness to provide information to the end users at every possible opportunity. It costs nothing to do so. The only argument against it is because you want them to remain uninformed, which only ever hints at some severe dishonesty going on. So why are people getting so upset over the notion that, hey, why not include it with the mod?

Then he definitely must include a privacy statement.

No, I understand that. I'm simply saying that the license he chose is deliberately antagonistic. Sure, he has those rights. He could have chosen not to and let people create disablers. He then goes off to say that counter-modding is a dirty solution… but it's only dirty because he has decided to disallow distribution of proper forks. And it's only needed because he has decided to not make it a deliberate user choice to install. Not as clear as standalone-only opt-in, since you still have no choice in having it installed or bundled or not. And there is quite literally zero sensible reason not to make the mod standalone and opt-in. The fundamental question remains: why should any of that even be needed? Why can't he let people decide on their own whether or not they want to give mod makers usage statistics? The only answer given to this is “but then they wouldn'tâ€Â, which just proves the point: there's probably a reason why they wouldn't. If a mod is good enough to drum up some user enthusiasm, the maker should have no problem asking his users to download a standalone mod that gathers that data  it's the new “contributeâ€Â-button.e: Oh and… I don't care. I care about his flippant “your data is mine, stop struggling†attitude.

The point being that he deliberately picked rights that are in some conflict with the distribution method he chose, and which are deliberately antagonistic to others who'd want to fix his mistakes. There's this for one, apparently others have seen similar behaviour elsewhere but I haven't seen any links to it. See those last two qualifiers you used? Those are the ones that don't apply here and which are the cause for all the complaints… In fact, he has pretty much explicitly said that it's what he wishes to avoid by making it opt-out, since they'd not give it out freely an readily if given the clear choice.

…and a good compromise would be that some users give can away information if they're asked to and if they think it would be a good thing, and everyone else are left alone. Sure, Majir can do what he thinks is right, and take data without asking, but then he will have to face the unavoidable fact that others will do what they think is right and start building mods that directly target, disable, and disrupt his work. That's how all mod wars are born, and that's exactly why it's not a particularly good way to go. His actively trying to suppress this development to his own advantage, and his passive-aggressive stance to any kind of to his own advantage isn't exactly helping either (nor does the fact that his unsolicited poking around in other mods seems to break some of them). So let's start the compromises there.

…which is just intellectual dishonesty and entitled laziness mixed together into a pretty poor excuse for not implementing a proper user-facing behaviour from the get-go. The entire problem is that none of that should strictly speaking even be necessary. The fact that it has now become so just demonstrates that, already this early, the game modding is taking a sharp turn for the worse. When/if this game and its related mods becomes more and more popular, it will pretty much instantly stop being possible to make any such demands on the end-user. You have to assume that no-one ever goes through what you consider “proper channels†to get the mods  anything else is either hopelessly naïve or downright ignorant of how these things actually work. Would it be best if Squad sandboxed the whole thing and had very specific user controls for what modules can do which actions? Sure. Would it be great if everything was vetted and centralised by them, AppStore-style? Probably. Until they do those things, though, it's up to the modders to behave properly. Obfuscated, unwarranted, unasked, uncontrolled, (possibly illegal) collection and spreading of user data does not qualify, nor does excusing such behaviour or becoming belligerent when people voice opposition to it.

This, once again, sounds like all the reason ever needed to make it 100% opt-in; to not bundle it with any other mods; and to no be so flippant about people wanting it in every way gone from their systems. As long as you go for the “just opt out by disabling†route, hostile interaction will be the only way possible to get the mod setup some want.Oh, and if you don't want it to be hostile, stop using hostile language; stop using hostile terms of use (for users and for other modders); and stop trying to dodge the responsibility for what is going on. For instance, ModStatistics in its current form absolutely sends data to third parties  that third party being you, not the author of the mod where it is included. This is why bundling is such a horribly bad idea. A disabler or complete removal mod is far more reliable than keeping the mod installed and hoping that everyone respects the config file (or even the base url for the reports). This isn't just about what happens now, but how it will evolve in the future, especially since you are trying to get more and more mod makers to use it (for no useful reason whatsoever). Yes, his intent is very clear: he has no interest in infringing on your rights  he just wants to ensure that your mod never goes active, and not only is he allowed to create such a mod by looking at your code (per the github rules), he isn't even using your code to do so.Still yes, there's no need to play these games. Make it opt-in, removing the bundling, and stop expressive such massive entitlement to other people's data  if people want to send mod usage stats, they can download this one mod that does that and all the mod authors can look in the central repository for the statistics of their mods without having to force it on users.

That was never the question.The question is whether the mod author  any mod author  is entitled to user data without asking for it. The answer is, they're not. Trying to claim that there can't be an opt-in because they'd miss out on data is treating it as if they are entitled to that data and that the nasty ebil users would keep it away from him if given the choice… …and is a third party to all the mods that includes this. If this was an entirely separate and discrete mod, the distinction would be easy and it would be entirely optional to install it. Since it is actively being promoted as a component in other mods, neither of those hold true any more and you are now sending data to an unrelated third party without having given permission to do so to either of them. Hell, you aren't even sure that the second party gets the data in question even if you were ok with it. Maybe it should be opt-in so that it doesn't matter and the user is always aware of all the components of a mod and what they do, rather than (incorrectly) assume that the mod author is entitled to the data.

Only in the sense that, yes, they are entitled to not having their data sent all over the place without being asked to. The brat part is only with the author since he can't come up with a good reason for not making it opt-in: he somehow (and 100% incorrectly) feels that he is entitled to that data. Oh, and it's not really optional if you have to jump through hoops to get rid of it. The data is sent to a third party, not the mod author. So when I download the mod from a random link, install it, and start up KSP, it will say “oh hey, this mod you downloaded for purpose X will also provide ‘service’ Y, meaning it will send data to (unrelated) party Y unless you jump through the following hoops…� No. No such information is given.

Doesn't particularly matter. It's not his mod any more after it's forked, and by hosting it publicly on github, he gives people permission to fork it.