Jump to content

RandyTheDev

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    46

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RandyTheDev

  1. RandyTheDev
    Hey @Beetlecat, it should absolutely work with your G513 :) If you have any issues let me know.
  2. RandyTheDev
    Hey @fwdixon , unfortunately this mod does not support the G110 yet! I'll look into adding support for that keyboard in the next week or so!
  3. RandyTheDev
    @fwdixonUnfortunately my patch for this issue has not been merged by @battlemoose yet My fix above should work though! https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/169895-141-ksp-logitech-rgb-control-v110-2018-03-18/&do=findComment&comment=3336813
  4. RandyTheDev
    I’m trying to avoid getting into the intricacies of which bits of the GPL are legally enforceable in a court of law or not, that opens up a whole other bag of worms! I’d much rather focus on respecting the GPL’s original intent As for the difference between KSP and Linux, when you write a Linux app, your code isn’t really that reliant on Linux. It would be relatively simple to get it working with a different OS like Windows or FreeBSD. Linux isn’t even required to compile the software for Linux! KSP mods on the other hand, are entirely dependent on Kerbal Space Program being present.
  5. RandyTheDev
    The moment you resort to insults is the moment you concede the point. It’s basically saying you don’t have anything more constructive to add to the conversation but you still disagree because you’re either too stubborn to either back down publicly (understandable imho) or worse, you believe that you are infallible.
  6. RandyTheDev
    Looks like my hope was misplaced! The irony that a law professor is throwing petty insults is not lost on me. Here's an article on how to argue: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue You might find it helpful for your job. In the future, try to keep any of your arguments near the pointy end of the pyramid!
  7. RandyTheDev
    Your translation of the GPL isn't worth the paper it was written on. You can't just snip the text that was irrelevant to your extremely narrowly-scoped example and then claim I've somehow not read/misinterpreted the GPL. You're being deliberately obtuse and misleading. The bit you snipped is only irrelevant because you chose the one type of mod that has no object code or executable component whatsoever. That's not the case for the vast majority of KSP mods. They do need to worry about the bits you snipped out. Your interpretation of what source code/object code is, is so laughably wrong it's difficult to correct you without appearing to condescend. As the license states, source-code is a file type that is the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a DLL, this would be something like C# source files (.cs), for a texture, it would actually be something like a Photoshop PSD, or the native format of whatever editor was used to create it. It has nothing to do with the format you published it as, and everything to do with how easy it would be for someone to continue the work you released. Object code is defined as literally any form of the work that is not source code. Since we are talking about software, this is typically a compiled version of the source code, and results in a DLL, LIB or EXE file. While it's technically possible to edit these by hand, for all intents and purposes, it's not remotely practical. So in the context of KSP mods, this means that if you publish a DLL, you have only published the object form of your work, not the source form. I'd actually argue that .dds files do not qualify as source code, since they are generally only an output format. To Simplify to a gross level but without losing nearly as much of the original intent than you removed: Source form: The type of files you edit while developing a mod/any piece of software. Object form: The type of files you exported once you were done and were ready to release, which were generated from a source form at some point (not necessarily by you). No. Conveying Verbatim copies specifically only applies to redistributing the work in its source form. The moment you convey work in its object form you must also convey the corresponding source. Everything you said in this sentence is wrong. As long as they only convey the work in source form, there is no requirement to provide the corresponding source. This can be any source, not just the formats you distributed your mod in. For example, they can add C# source code to add extra capabilities to your part. If they compile that into a DLL, they are now responsible to convey the corresponding source which includes the actual C# source code, as well as all of your source form files. There is no requirement to translate the files back into .cfg, .dds, or .mu, in-fact, they are more than allowed to translate your original work into different source-form files, and they will still count as source form files! The only requirement is that you provide a means to convey your source form files to a user. To correct one of your earlier examples, it is perfectly fine to change a .cfg file into a .txt file and vice-versa, as they are both perfectly acceptable formats for specifying a part config. Including the original mod with your product does nothing to assist with GPL compliance, all that matters is that all corresponding source is available to any licensee who requests it. This is simply untrue, at no point does the GPL restrict a licensee's ability to make money by using/redistributing the work. I have no idea where you pulled this nonsense from, but I imagine it's a very similar place to the rest of it. Like I said, there is no requirement to distribute the original mod, only one to convey the corresponding source. If you modify the source form of the original mod, you only need to distribute the modified version of the source form. Not the modified version in addition to the original. I hope you actually try to understand my counter-arguments, rather than your usual schtick of throwing uninspired insults.
  8. RandyTheDev
    It's literally a direct quote from the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Section 1, Paragraph 4.
  9. RandyTheDev
    What I am trying to say is that it is impossible for a user to respect the GPL if they intend to distribute a binary form of your mod or a derivative. Almost, but not quite. The GPL requires redistributors to convey all of the corresponding source of the binary, not just the source code for the binary alone. The corresponding source of any GPL-licensed work is defined as the following: My understanding is that this means a redistributor would need the capability to convey the source code for: Assembly-Csharp.dll to compile, and/or modify the mod Kerbal Space Program to run the object code This requirement to convey more than just the mod's source code is what makes me believe that KSP mods are effectively incompatible with being licensed under the GPL.
  10. RandyTheDev
    While this is true, by incorrectly licensing your mod under the GPL you falsely imply that the user has permission to distribute binary versions of the mod (or modified versions) under the terms of the GPL. This is not possible, as there is no way for them to acquire the "corresponding source" that they are required to convey to anyone they distribute their version of the mod to. They may also be under the false impression that they can freely incorporate the code of other GPL-licensed software products into their version of the mod, and distribute a binary version of the combined work. They could then be sued by the other developer for incorporating their GPL-licensed software in a GPL-incompatible software product.
  11. RandyTheDev
    Pull request submitted! https://github.com/battlemoose/ksp-logirgb/pull/2 Has some various minor bugfixes.
  12. RandyTheDev
    That's actually a pretty accurate summary of what's going on! It's not Kopernicus' fault per se, they're using a system library that is causing the issues. That's actually what I'm planning on doing! It turns out this behaviour is a known missing feature in C#'s build system. I'll move the tests to a separate C# project which should resolve the issue.
  13. RandyTheDev
    So this is incredibly weird, but it's actually the unit testing framework I introduced that is causing this. It's not included in the release since it's only needed for development, but for some reason it's still packaged as a dependency, and Koperincus expects it to be there and freaks out when it can't find it. Anyway, download NUnit.3.9.0.nupkg from this URL https://github.com/nunit/nunit/releases/3.9 Once downloaded rename it to NUnit.3.9.0.zip, and copy lib/net35/nunit.framework.dll into your GameData/KSPLogiRGB folder. Kopernicus should work from then on. By the way, Kopernicus has a version checker so won't work with 1.4.1. To get rid of the version warning message for KSPLogiRGB in 1.3.1, edit the KSPLogitechRGBControl.version file to look like this: { "NAME": "KSP Logitech RGB Control", "DOWNLOAD": "https://github.com/battlemoose/ksp-logirgb/releases", "VERSION": { "MAJOR": 1, "MINOR": 1, "PATCH": 0, "BUILD": 0 }, "KSP_VERSION": { "MAJOR": 1, "MINOR": 4, "PATCH": 1 }, "KSP_VERSION_MIN": { "MAJOR": 1, "MINOR": 3, "PATCH": 1 } } I'll look more into stopping NUnit from being packaged with the mod... How odd. Pinging: @Dark Necrotic, @battlemoose
  14. RandyTheDev
    I’ll investigate SOON™️. But seriously I will follow this up later today. Is there any particular configuration you’re using with Kopernicus?
  15. RandyTheDev
    The modified version of KSP is also considered to be a combined work (according to the FSF), which would also need its source code to be conveyed. This actually isn't something I don't necessarily believe in, and it is legally untested. However, I think that it is better to err on the side of caution. It's also irrelevant to the main argument (my bad I guess ), as you correctly stated, the Corresponding Source is required for any distributed binary, not just executable ones.
  16. RandyTheDev
    Great to hear I don't have access to the CKAN stuff so @battlemoose will need to handle that!
  17. RandyTheDev
    You do have an obligation because it is written in the terms of the license. Whether or not you can do it anyway by getting the user to buy/assuming they have bought a copy of KSP is irrelevant. Even if you were an authorised reseller of KSP and you provided a copy of KSP along with your source code it still would not change anything, because the GPL requires that you convey the source code of your dependencies, not just the dependencies themselves, under the GPL license. Specifically: Unless you can convey a GPL-licensed copy of KSP's source code, (or the source code for a GPL KSP clone with an identical API), a user intending to redistribute/modify your mod cannot meet the terms of the terms of the license.
  18. RandyTheDev
    If you are doing it without a copy of KSP then I'd be inclined to say yes! The GPL says nothing about end users being able to generate, install, run and modify mods with the help of proprietary software, it specifically says that you must provide the source code to do so. If you think I am wrong please explain why. Enough with the irrelevant insults. Either explain how a user could possibly generate and run a KSP mod (which links to Assembly-Csharp) without a copy of KSP, explain why KSP should not count as corresponding source, or explain why mod distributors do not need to comply with the corresponding source clause of the GPL. If you cannot do that then there is no point in this argument, because you're doing nothing to disprove my contention.
  19. RandyTheDev
    Thank you for engaging constructively The problem is that the GPL, for software, requires distribution of "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work". Even if you make the dubious assumption that distributing a mod that links to KSP does not form a combined work (I can go into this more if you want), there remains the fact that if the user does not have a copy of KSP installed, they will be unable to generate the object code (Compilation will fail without a copy of Assembly-Csharp.dll to link to), or run the object code (It is impossible to run the mod without a copy of Kerbal Space Program). The only way to allow users to distribute your mod under the terms of the GPL would be to also distribute the source code of Assembly-Csharp.dll and Kerbal Space Program, both of which is exceedingly unlikely.
  20. RandyTheDev
    I appreciate the work you did in creating your post, but in that particular case study (part mod model/texture/config), your interpretation is completely consistent with my own. That doesn’t change my view that writing a mod including executable code that links with KSP via Assembly-Csharp.dll creates a combined work under two licenses that are fundamentally incompatible. Minor nitpicks: The GPL does specifically allow publishing a GPL licensed work in an aggregate including nonfree/non-GPL works. As long as your mod is distributed in a way that provides access to the corresponding source, and the less free mod is distributed under the terms of its own license, then the GPL sees this to be fine. The GPL makes no restriction on commercial exploitation of a GPL’d product, as long as it is distributed under the terms of the GPL, the same for non-commercial distribution. The GPL only allows for verbatim copies of a mod’s source code, binary distributions require the corresponding source to be conveyed. Please stop insulting my reading comprehension, I can read fine, and I’m sure you know it Can we please limit the discussion to mods that contain executable source code that links to Kerbal Space Program via the Assembly-Csharp.dll file bundled with Kerbal Space Program. This represents a very large category of KSP mods, and is the type that I believe has license compatibility issues, hence the title of this post. If you rebut my arguments using different types of mods as a case study, we'll just end up going around in circles, since I was never talking about them in the first place.
  21. RandyTheDev
    Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Besides the as-yet unproven "as a junior law professor" claim, you've done nothing to support your contention or anything to refute my arguments. If you think they are nonsense I'm sure, that as a junior law professor, you will have no problems setting me straight. I'm more than willing to listen. I'll condense my arguments: GPLv3 and KSP's licenses are fundamentally incompatible. Mods link to KSP through the Assembly-CSharp.dll file distributed with KSP under the Take-Two EULA. You cannot compile the vast majority of mods without a copy of KSP. This linking alone results in a combined work that cannot be distributed (by an end-user) as a binary under the terms of the GPL. There are multiple reasons to assume that the intent of the GPL is to prevent GPL licensed code from adding value to non-GPL licensed software, which is the natural result of writing mods for KSP. This creates issues for modders using other developers GPL-licensed source code. It also creates a contradictory license that prevents users from exercising the permissions they were "granted". I'm not asking anyone to stop making mods or only license under All Rights Reserved, I'm simply asking them to use a license that actually grants users the permissions it claims to, something that a GPL licensed mod which is intended to link with KSP does not do. I'm confused, have you not read the license? If so, don't you think it's a bit early to say I need to "stop what I am doing RIGHT NOW"? For the record, I have read the license, both specifically in the context of KSP mods, as well as in a professional context. Please elaborate. If you were so confident, you wouldn't consider the behaviour you applied that metaphor to as poking anything in the first place. The role that KSP fulfils is "linked software", which the GPL requires the corresponding source be released alongside a binary distribution of the mod. Here's the excerpt saying so. Here's another excerpt from the license that indicates that the GPL does not permit incorporating a GPL licensed work into a proprietary piece of software: If GPL mods/plugins for proprietary applications were allowed by the GPL, the license would be an absolute joke. Whenever they needed to use GPL-licensed code, developers would simply develop GPL-licensed plugins for their non-free software, distributing them separately. This clearly isn't something that is allowed by the GPL, and there's no reason to believe it would be any different when there is a volunteer entity creating the GPL plugin.
  22. RandyTheDev
    It's nothing like that at all. It's more like a judge telling someone they can rob a bank, only for the person to be arrested & charged with armed robbery when they rob the bank. Your statement is correct that rightsholders can't technically violate the GPL for their own code (assuming they haven't used someone else's GPL'd code), but that's irrelevant. Licensing is essentially a list of things you are letting your users do with your software. What's the point of giving them a license that they cannot comply with? Just give them a different license that is not a contradiction.
  23. RandyTheDev
    Not true, specifically, there is a legal precedent behind this claim: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/ The gist behind this decision is that the requirement to distribute source code is not covered under copyright law, therefore, it is a contract instead. Nobody is going to get shut down. This literally does not affect Take-Two in any way whatsoever, they are doing nothing wrong. My questions to them related to what they considered the API to be licensed under. The EFF is not going to shut us down either. What the??? I'm just trying to help. There's no need to be upset. If you don't care about license compliance, then don't let me stop you from using the GPL incorrectly. For everyone who does care, I've provided a list of strategies on how to avoid licensing issues. I noticed. Software licensing is a pretty esoteric topic. Many full-time professionals don't like thinking about it/get it wrong every single day. I understand that it's not as sexy as making new parts or innovative functionality, but it's an integral part of the software development process. If you care about your software, you should care about how it is licensed. Anyway. Here's an exception I drafted with the help of the EFF compliance labs. Replace the bits in bold. Save it as something like LICENSE.EXCEPTION or COPYING.EXCEPTION and put it in the root directory of your project. It's also generally considered to be good practice to put it at the top of your source files.
  24. RandyTheDev
    That quote is a standalone paragraph and is in its full context. It is under the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs", clearly targeted at developers. Take-Two does not need to distribute it. I don't know how many times I need to explain that the GPL considers distributing a plugin to be distributing a combined work. You are distributing your plugin under the conditions of a license that you cannot meet. Even forgetting all of this talk about what an operating system is, the end user will not be able to compile a copy of the plugin without a copy of KSP. That alone results in a breach of both the GPL and LGPL.
  25. RandyTheDev
    There is no concept of forwards in the first place. Any combination of GPL'd software with nonfree software (or, more specifically, any software released under a license that is not GPL compatible) is specifically banned. That's from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html. It literally cannot be more clear-cut than that. Unfortunately, the LGPL is not compatible with KSP either, due to the EULA forbidding reverse-engineering (this clause was also present in the original SQUAD EULA).
×
×
  • Create New...