Derb

This is a false premise, as the EULA does not make any provision for the transfer of existing copyright to T2, and only reserves copyright interests that arise through the use of The Software. Since PartTools does not contribute material that is copyrightable in its own right to to your already copyrighted material, only changed the file format, the original copyright is the only copyright that exists for your work. Changing of format exclusively without the addition of copyrightable material does not give rise to a copyright interest as a derivative work. TLDR: Because PartTools did nothing but change your file format, you retain the copyright that existed before you put your work into PartTools (you would even if it did do more because the EULA makes no provisions for existing copyright), and that copyright applies to the changed format - you hold the rights to the .mu and .dds files derived from your material. Similarly, if you write a code mod, and put it in KSP, you retain the copyright. KSP does not contribute copyrightable material to your mod. Only difference is that you don't have to move files around as with the PartTools output to get it working in KSP.

To my knowledge, most (if not all) mods require none of those actions to be done to the Licensed Application. EDIT: I'm dumb you were doing a sarcasm. Also very good point, because 7.7 does sound like a scary mod ban, but when parsed correctly it actually isn't.

Thank you for clarifying this. While it is true that you would have to terminate your use of KSP itself, it is still allowable to continue to publish mods as they can be created without KSP itself. Hard to test, though. PartsTools has no license attached to it from the download I made of it (please point me to its license if it has one, I haven't found it). Something of note though - nothing in the new terms prevent you from continuing use - they don't hold weight if you don't agree, and can't apply ex post facto. It's the old terms that allow for the updating of terms and your acceptance or discontinuation of the license that matters. Nothing retroactive about the requirement to discontinue use.

But are you saying that it could be interpreted that way? If the EULA stated that you agreed to transfer your existing copyrighted material ... I have no idea how that would play in a courtroom. I can only imagine the headaches of proving the material belonged to you in the first place, that you used PartTools and not some reverse engineered software to create the files, tracking all of the new content T2 'owns'... But I see no way for it to be interpreted like that. (sorry for the repetitive bit here, just linking my thinking to what the EULA says) Your copyright interest arose when you created the models in Blender or whatever program you use, before using "the Software" to convert for use with KSP. Since "the Software" adds no new material that is copyrightable in its own right, the output of PartTools is not a derivative work of your original work as defined by the US Copyright Office, so no copyright interest arises through the use of PartTools. The EULA makes no mention of the transfer of existing copyright. I agree that it would be nice to get and is reasonable to want reassurances, but everything we need to know is spelled out in very carefully chosen language with specific legal meaning. GTA they did what, put a cease and desist on OpenIV? Aside from that ill-informed action, I'm not aware of any situation where they actually took original work from modders and published it as their own, so I think people are absolutely safe on that front. Maybe we have to worry about cease and desist actions given the history I'm aware of, but I think the greater concern here is about unauthorized republishing. At the end of the day, I can only imagine T2's legal team deciding against giving legal advice to people who do business with and could have future legal claims with their client. Their likely suggestion: Ask your lawyer. Edit: If people think that the new EULA as written gives T2 the rights to your copyrighted material for redistribution and sale in spite of established copyright law regarding derivative works, and they don't want that, they at least may rest easy knowing they are protected and can publish for any version of KSP released under the current EULA, 1.3.1 and under, as the new agreement doesn't apply ex post facto. Edit2: Note that the above edit only applies to the publication of mods, not the continued use of KSP itself.

Quite a few people are under the impression that mods that use PartTools (a Squad created plugin to convert models to part files usable in KSP) could be owned by T2 because PartTools "created" the file for final use in KSP. The problem with that thinking is that the part file is dependent on the creator's IP, models etc. that were made outside "the Software." So does using "the Software" to convert your 3d models to a different format of 3d model generate a copyright interest? The US Copyright Office's definitions of derivative works directly say that changes to format exclusively do not give rise to a copyrightable derivative (you must add material that is copyrightable in its own right to secure a different copyright for derivative works) , so the original creator's copyright would stand. You are absolutely right.

@Paul Kingtiger , I think you may have answered you own question in a sense. You are absolutely correct that T2 doesn't own the rights to NASA's logo just because it has been posted on these forums. Likewise, if I publish a mod that slaps a big 'ol NASA logo on all 4 sides of every stock park, T2 wouldn't have any right to distribute those texture files themselves, especially for financial gain, as there is no apparent fair use at play. (Technically I wouldn't even be able to publish such textures without NASA's permission, but let's assume I got permission somehow.) Just apply this same legal theory to your own copyright protected material, and the answer is clear. Before you even get to KSP and PartTools, you have created 3d models and textures which are your intellectual property. Using those models and textures in KSP does not make them any less yours, because you created them using tools not under the T2 EULA. If PartTools is under the same EULA, you can make the same statement - the models and textures that make up the file that PartTools output still belong to you. T2 cannot claim that output for distribution or financial gain because, outside of the formatting of the files, the product is identical to your existing copyrighted work (a textured 3d model of identical appearance). The US Copyright Office itself says that changes to format alone do not give rise to a new, copyright-able work (usually this would be for things like making a play into a movie, but here we are essentially moving from different types of 3d model files, so one could expect this protection to be even stronger). Because your use of PartTools does not give rise to a copyright interest, you retain the rights to the output of PartTools.

I absolutely understand that PartTools creates a file from the resources - this sense of the word 'create' is distinct from creating in an intellectual property sense. My point is, PartTools doesn't create those resources. KSP itself is needed just as much as PartTools for any mod to be usable, and if the ownership of mods not using PartTools remains with the creator, so too would mods that use PartTools to become functional. No resources need be created for Mission Creator from what we know about it. The resources are the IP. T2 cannot redistribute mods that use your IP. If anything, I would say you might be able to make an argument that T2 can't redistribute certain missions either, depending upon their content (copyright-able storytelling as opposed to historically factual orbital parameters which can't be owned).

"part tools is an integral part of all parts" - Isn't KSP also integral to all parts and all mods? Think about it that way. I think the key point is that content outside KSP and PartTools is necessary to create many parts packs - without this outside content (the modder's intellectual property), the parts pack would not be possible. Mission creation relies entirely on KSP/Mission Creator - the point here is that any player could create any given mission with just KSP, no outside IP is needed, or that's the theory behind the EULA anyway. To say that PartTools "created" a parts mod makes as much sense to me as saying KSP created a mod because it rendered the parts in-game or made mod code usable. Any component of a mod that cannot be created by KSP, PartTools, and Mission Editor alone is the creator's IP.

If we assume Part Tools falls under the new EULA, it makes no difference for parts creators, unless they are using stock resources exclusively to create their content (re-texturing a stock part with a different stock texture). If T2 can't claim your content just because it can be used in KSP, they still can't take it if it can be used in PartTools+KSP, as you created the models, textures, etc. outside the software under the EULA. Using PartTools and KSP alone, you could not replicate a parts pack. PartTools didn't create the models, textures. The models and textures are the creator's intellectual property which is compatible with PartTools+KSP.

Just substitute "The Software" with KSP, and you're good on that front. I don't like the EULA myself, but outside the realm of in game mission creation, ship creation, or anything you are capable of doing within the game, anything created outside that you retain the rights. PartTools seems like it might confuse things, but did you use PartTools to create your models, or did you feed your models into PartTools and then into KSP? PartTools as far as I can tell is unlicensed software separate from KSP, and even if it fell under the same EULA, using KSP and PartTools alone, is it possible to create this parts mod? If you created material outside these programs, you retain the IP, even when fed into the programs which fall under that EULA, however generic. I hope Squad will confirm this, but it is entirely possible that they aren't going to say anything, at least without consulting their legal department, who will most likely tell them to say nothing. As written, if T2 did take your content without permission, you would have a very good day in court. Edit: Looks like the courts would side with you if Oracle v Google is any indication.

But it isn't bundled with KSP, right? Edit: If it isn't bundled with KSP, refer to it's license.

Obviously I can't give a definitive answer here, but the way I read this is that user created content created using tools provided by the software become the intellectual property of T2. For example, you would have no claim to missions created using the mission editor in the Making History expansion, or craft created in the VAB and what have you. Do the assets you are developing require any software included with KSP to create? Either way, I find the terms disagreeable. I hope you get a good response Daishi, Universal Storage is too good to die! Edit: The line "to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest" is what makes me think you will be in the clear to continue your work and retain your intellectual property.

@Nils277 Thanks for the update, looks perfect now. I must say this is quickly becoming one of my favorite mods, along with KPBS. I also found that the small fuel tank doesn't change its badging for different fuel types for me, and the thin one is badged as LF for EC. Sorry I didn't wrap that in one post, but I just noticed it.

Anyone else having a problem with flags and the off color of the truck cockpit?

problem fixed

Anyone else have a missing/transparent polygon on the edge of the 3X24 parachute? It's a pretty minor problem, but it bugs me.