Lisias

Apparently KSP needs to have +w rights on the files in order to "see them" (i'm guessing something on the UMASK - perhaps an Unity issue). In the /Applications, usually only the Super User have such rights. IMHO the best place for KSP is on ~/Applications.

The same. But I remerge it from scratch to keep the commit's history, so it's easier to spot typos and mistakes. But since I potentially lost some hypothetical adjustments that could had been made and committed embedded with that merge, I release the thing as PRE-RELEASE while I proper test it on my KSP installments and find the time to eye ball the code-trees.

Would not be "signing"? In time, what would be the impact on the modding scene? "Don't call me Shirley" :D

Yes, I forgot to mention the dependency on the Release Notes. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/KSPAPIExtensions/releases

Nope. It was a "?" char, 0x3f ascii code. Ir probably happened when the guy typed the ">" to close the tag, and hit also the "/" key by accident! — POST — EDIT — hmm, hmm. Aha!

Completely and utterly off-topic - but I could not help my self. =P Now, on the real thing: I ddn't used to use LES until I found this mod. That made all the difference. Before that, I was using them as a de-orbit device to save a engine! I tried to use them as retro-rockets for landing too, but never managed to make this stunt to work!

New toy, boys. KJR (/L) 3.3.3.4 for who wants to keep playing while Ferram is learning how to launch real rockets on the real World. (whoever is going to really maintain this, is going to gain a lot of issues solved!) https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/releases/tag/RELEASE%2F3.3.3.4 — POST — EDIT — I did a remerge from Meiru's code, followed by a rebase from my own changes. It's a new code-tree - I hope without glitches. If someone is willing to help me test this new code-tree, this is the download: https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/releases/tag/RELEASE%2F3.4.0.0 Curiously, I remember I had mentioned the need for this remerge before.

You are doing it the way I do. I just automated part of the process, but essentially, it's what you are doing. When you create a Release (and a TAG), GitHub also creates automatically a Source Code "tarrbal" (and a zip too). If all what your add-on contains is assets (textures, sounds, etc) and CFGs, (and readmes, etc) you can use that as distribution files and save some work. The filename is a little weird for a distribution file, but it will do,

@linuxgurugamer is the Maintainer of the excellent mod EditorExtensionsRedux, and he is the guy to ask this for!

It's on the back log. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/3

watahell?? o.O I totally missed that! This problem is there since before I forked the project, as it appears!!!! @DStaal , please check if this would not fix your issue!!!! A new release will be published by night. Jeez… Sure thing. — POST — EDIT -- I localized the source of the error. IT`S NOT FROM FERRAM4 , just to prevent misunderstandings.

Metal Gear Peace Walker on my PSP. Yeah, I know: old dogs, new tricks- that stuff. Would not by KSP, I would be playing it (yeah, I bought it too). And this is from a guy that had played Elite since the very first version, on the 8 bits era. David Braben was, probably, the second or third Game Developer I became a fan.

Technically, yes. But this file was committed this way since the very first commit. So I don't know if this was done on purpose ("let me do this to remember to proper test it and then advise users to fix it"), or a Copy&Paste error. It worths to give this a try on testing Scenarios, but I'm out of time these days. I will eventually do it. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/issues/2 I have a new theory. I run my KSP on ~/Applications, so everything runs on my user accessing files owned by my user. And with +w on the files in GameData - as I discovered some time ago that by shoving -X or -W on all the DLLs would render the KSP unbootable. Apparently, the UMASK they are using while searching for files needs to have the +X and +W set to on, otherwise the file is not found. DLL included (and I wonder if this is the reason some A/V taints KSP as a threat). You use KSP right on the /Applications hierarchy, where only the Super User can write things. Check who is the owner of the KSP files on that installment (in special, for "my" KJR files) and see if the +w and +x are active on them!

Essentially, the formula is: p_new = p_old * scaleFactor ^ exponent The exponent is the part being scaled linearly, by area or by volume (1, 2 or 3). The lines you are seeing tells you the Part's internal atribute and the scaleFactor. The exponent is defined by the nature of the thing being scaled: power? (engine) area of action? (solar panels) volume? (fuel tanks) https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/blob/master/GameData/TweakScale/documentation.txt

Yes. Edit the config.xml and add an entry on the "exemptModuleType" with the module the parts you have problem with.

I have a problem with the legal issue. It can lead you to Court. Now that we had cool down (me included), let me explain some things that would prevent a lot of trouble in everybody's lives: everybody are entitle to have an opinion, but you are not free from the legal consequences when acting based on such opinions. I detected a very concerning issue when re-reading this thread with a cool head: people here are misunderstanding Authorship with Ownership, and this can lead to some legal issues and even money losses on the worst case. When you create something, you are the Author and the (only) Owner of that thing. This is simple, I think that everybody understands that. However, things start to get hairy when you decide you need to use other people's Works. Usually, people don't just give their hard work for free, just because. It's usual that people would want something in exchange. Some wants money. But some others want access to your work in exchange: "I let you use my copyrighted material in your copyrighted material as long you let me do the same you acknowlegde my work and/or doesn't misrepresent me" It's the Open Source way. Free Software goes one step ahead: "I let you use my copyrighted material in your copyrighted material as long EVERYBODY ELSE can do the same with yours." So you say yes, you accept the terms and merge other people's works into your work. Every time you accept a merge from someone (or by any other means), you are merging copyrighted material into your own. Every single line of code has an Author, and most of them retains ownership when licensing you to use such material. Right now, you are still the Author of your work, but you are not the only Owner anymore. Your work has many owners, each of them owning the bits of code/assets they wrote and licensed to you. So, now, you are bounded to the license you used when accepted such contributions. You can only license what you own. So, yes, you can relicense your lines of code and other assets are long you are the Author and had not waived the ownership, or had received ownership of such material. But you can't do the same for things you don't own, and now your Work has parts that you don't own - and you are legally bounded to the license you used when accepted them. And this is when bullets start to fly. Or lawsuits. When you, by any means and reasoning (no matter how well intended or how beautiful the World would be if everybody else would do the same), break the promises you made when accepted other people's copyrighted material on your Work, such people became not exactly happy with you. They allowed you to use their work under certain conditions, and now you are breaking your vow to such conditions. You now are in license infringement, and are liable under the Law. And your opinions worth very little now. If you don't want to play Open Source, don't accept contributions from Open Source people. If you don't want to play Free Software, don't accept contributions from Free Software people. But once you accept them, play nice by the rules you agreed to be bounded to (knowingly or not). GPL, CC and some others just don't allow you to add further restrictions to the work. You can ask, but you can't demand. And if you can't demand, you can't enforce. So it's pointless to harass people for such demands - and in some licenses, it can be even (legally) dangerous to you. In the end, if you don't have a legal ground to ask for something, insisting on it is plain harassment.

I see your point. I just don't know how to solve it (ab)using the Copyrights and Licenses without getting into a worse mess. Misrepresentation is an issue. There's no argument of mine on it. But once people decide to use anything else, whoever is maintaining this anything else is not the maintainer? As long it's perfectly clear it's a fork from someone else but the Original Author, I fail to see a problem (assuming, of course, a License allowing it). What I think it can be done is kind a list of ENDORSED forks. This you can do. And I think it would solve the problem.

Now I see. This is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. The confusion about the added "Continued" on the tittle is legit - misrepresentation is immoral to say the least. By all means (and some licenses make that clear), you are demanded to make it clear you are not the original author, and must mark your changes as such. However…. Exactly how much you must make that clear is somewhat open to be debated, at least around here. Using the original name followed by "something" is already an stablished practice here on the Forum, and for years. I think you are right on this concerning, but I don't know how to solve it in a way that would satisfy you and at the same time would be fair to everybody else that is doing this for years already. One could try to withhold the distribution of the fork on the Trademark grounds. But then the guy would pinpoint the Forum where such practice is already common. However, keep one thing in mind: it's not your userbase, they don't belong to you. Your userbase is there because they have a problem that your work is solving. If they decide that another fork is a better solution for their problem, you can't stop them and trying to do so is as much immoral as the misrepresentation on Free Software eyes (essentially, it's the central difference between Free Software and Open Source). Misrepresentation is the problem, not your userbase deciding they want to use the other fork. I don't agree with both sentences. Morally, the permission was already granted when the author choose the license. And a Society that need to be "oiled" by unnecessary (and without legal grounds) "courtesy" is an imoral one. The Law should be for everybody. And that should be enough. [snip]

A license is a contract, and so, bounds both sides. Once the guy license the thing to me, he is bounded by the license as much as me to the licensed work. So… he cannot revoke my rights, as the GPL says clearly. He cannot "violate the GPL" on their own copy of the work, and this is what that FAQ is saying. But once I download the work under the GPL, the original author can not change the terms of the GPL. And so, he is bound to the license. You are misunderstanding DOUBLE LICENSE with ADDITIONAL TERMS. The GPL does not allows additional terms, but allow you to license your work using alternate terms (i.e., a second license). If the guy choose the GPL, that's it. In the same FAQ you linked, you will find: SO… Essentially, you can't revoke my rights to the work as long I comply with the GPL terms. The GPL is asking me to ask permission to fork the thing? No. So, you can't enforce this to me. Again, from the very same FAQ: And that's settle the matter. By all angles, there's not a single chance that one could license his work under the GPL and then ask for permission to fork the work. That's final. I don't see any possible line of arguing that would change this;

Yes, he is. Otherwise, the GPL is null and void and then, it's A.R.R. and nobody should use it as it is unlicensed work unless an additional license is given. And, if by any reason, such author used any GPL licensed material on his work, he will be in legal troubles as he will be using unlicensed copyrighted material - as GPL had became null and void itself.

[snip] There're no Society without legal bindings - and even this forum has some, that every one of us should follow as close as we can. The licenses used on the add-ons are cristal clear - no further restrictions are allowed, and some of them revoke the rights if this rule is broken. This is final. I'll not talk again about this - the ones that would listen, already had, and the ones that didn't, never will.

I don't agree.

Krakens. I'm out of ideas. The only way I could reproduce your problem if by mangling my environment - deleting KSPe.dll, putting an old one on there, deleting my KJR's DLL, deleting the config.xml file or moving it out of the KSPDIR/PluginData/KerbalJointReinforcement/config.xml . ALL but the last mangle happens to log something on the logs, but yours are clean of problems. On last (desperate) attempt: you play KSP using a different user account you did to download/install the add-ons? The file being there is not the same as the KSP executable having rights to read it. Well… Sometimes, the nuclear option is the only option. Run this little bash script (adapting MY_KSP_DIR to your KSP dir): #!/usr/bin/env bash MY_KSP_DIR=/Users/lisias/Applications/Games/KSP/Exodus cd $MY_KSP_DIR/.. pwd > KJR_LISIAS_ISSUE_3.log ls -lR $MY_KSP_DIR >> KJR_LISIAS_ISSUE_3.log echo Please publisht $MY_KSP_DIR/../KJR_LISIAS_ISSUE_3.log on. echo https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/issues/3

An awfully amount of CFG files on KSP has the BOM. The whole KSP/Squad shebang has them. I just gave up on that. Doesn't make sense expending efforts on trying to fix something that KSP would redo later.

No. We live in a Rule of Law, not on a Rule of Morals. You are free to live under the rule of your morals, but you don't have the right to impose it to anyone. No, it's not a must. And depending of the license adopted, if the mod author demand it he will be on license infringement himself. Every Open Source license make it perfectly clear: the work's author are not allowed to add further restrictions. Some licenses tell you just to ignore such demanding, but a few harsher ones revokes the license if the author tries that, essentially rendering the work unlicensed if the author does not have full copyrights on the whole work (as by a fork or by accepting pull requests - committers are authors too! Every single one of them).