Lisias

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).

Use Steam/Console. It's tricky, but it's how I did it. Also… Google is your friend. https://help.steampowered.com/en/wizard/HelpWithGame/?appid=231410

I have a MM prototype doing exactly that. It works flawlessly. I got some issues with some mods (needlesly, by the way) accessing the cache files - funny thing is that the 'fix' was just to remove that code, as whatever they were trying to accomplish, KSP already had done that (verified, I provoked the problem they were trying to prevent and double checked it). However…. Mods that creates CFG (and other assets) that need to be accessible by the KSP engine from the GameDatabase, they *need* to be on GameData somehow. So I got that "/usr/local" idea . Since KSP usually load things ordered by name (probably using linq, by the way, I managed to simulate exactly the ordering by using linq), I choose to put all of that on a directory name to something that would be loaded last for sure - mainly due UbioWelding. So I'm playing with "GameData/__LOCAL/<mdname>/<what_the_mod_wants>". Not so "perfect" as keeping the GameData writeless, but at least all the "local data" are confined on the same place, and GameData continues to be in pristine condition. This idea is in production on my KSP for some months now. Including the __LOCAL stunt. I moved the KerbalKonstructs's NewInstaces to GameData/__LOCAL/KerbalKonstructs/NewInstances and symlinked it to the original place - not the best of the ideas, as now things are loaded twice and I didn't cared to though on the problem yet. One possible hack is to use GameData/__LOCAL/PluginData/KerbalKonstructs/NewInstances for that, but I didn't test it yet. And for the ones willing to take their chances with KSPe this is not a problem, as add-ons using KSPe open files using a internal mechanism that derives the name using introspection and the root for that sub filesystem can be changed to anything in the World without affecting the client DLLs. It's a user setting? It's a file that the user is expected to edit (as config.xml from KJR, to activate the debug mode)? So it should be on a different place. It's something that is never changed by the user? It stays where it is. Just MM or KSP too? The info I got above is that KSP would ignore such directories. This information is vital to me, as this can force me to rethink some things, as the one I proposed on this (merged) post.

Steam still have the demo for download. It's a bit tricky to find the link, but it's there. And there's also this : https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131906-the-earliest-versions-of-kerbal-space-program/&amp;

Dude. You are chatting with a bunch of naked monkeys that enjoy wasting time watching green little men/gals being exploded on half baked rockets flying on a 1/10th scale simulated solar system using physics that are not like anything in real world. This is a bin. We are the loonies on the bin.

can you please run what follows on a terminal window and screenshot the results? less "/Applications/Games/Kerbal Space Program/PluginData/KerbalJointReinforcement/config.xml" You need to have something like this:

Thank you. It was not clear on the repo. If you allow me, may I advice to commit on the repo a screenshot and a link to the post with the permission? Just in case - better safe than sorry!

Going for MIT is probably the safer option, but had you secure permissions from magico13, rem02, phwoelfel, fommil and Kerbas-ad-astra? StageRecovery was originally released under the GPL3, and you need (registered and trackable) permissions from every committer in order to relicense it - under the sanction of having the GPL revoked for you - rendering your whole worked unlicensed, unless an additional license was granted to you. It's unfortunate in this case, but you do not have the rights to relicense other people's work - only the Copyright Owner(s) of the work can do it, and ownership is the one thing that GPL does not grant to you.

It was the logic conclusion, as you proposed a 'democratic vote" by all users, without considering if the developers would agree with such decision. And even if only developers could vote, how you would convince the ones that voted "no" to comply? It's how life works. CRP and CTT were things that developers agreed to use, as it would be benefcial for them. Users got beneficed too, but that decision was took individually: "should I use this or is better to add my own?". And, guess what… Some add-ons choose not to use them. Some are "compatible" in the sense they doesn't stomp on each other's toes, but one or two I had to adapt to coexist to CRP but without using it. Things doesn't works exactly as you think.

Managed to load it. Without KJR (any of them), the booster are bouncing on the LaunchPad and on flying, but with "my" (and probably any other one recompiled without the KSP version lockl), it works as expected. It's something on your runtime. We will check this soon. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement/issues/3

And once such democratic consensus are reached, how you would force the modders to follow it? It's nonsense. For the add-ons that are Open Source, the solution is clear: fork it and update it yourself, or use the fork from someone else that did it. While every License is being respected, nobody will have problems. Some add-ons are working flawlessly since 1.2.2 (I tested ir on 1.2.2, 1.3.1, 1.4.5 and 1.5.1) without modifications or even recompilations. For at least some add-ons, this will not be a hard work.

I agree. User wise problems usually are solved by forking, and the developers perceiving people migrating to forks where the desired feature is implemented and then, merging the features to their products. Essentially, it was what drove Open Source products ahead in the past - from EMACS to every new Linux distro still in existence.

By no special reason, I remembered this one today.

I agree. If you edit a craft file on Notepad and change something on it, the thing is still "stock". It's even "vanilla stock", not a single add-on needed. But still, this stunt is not feasible using only KSP - don't know how to call it. Hell of a hack. Kudos, @buguniao!

I'm downloaded the files, and got almost all the mods. But I didn't recognized or found what follows (neither KerbalX): USGuidanceComputer USKASWedge Large.Crewed.Lab.6

Probably yes, but subject to further investigations. Volunteers?

A "file router" for add-ons I'm prototyping. From the DLL point of view, you can move anything to anywhere - if it uses KSPe, it will be found (and also any files with it). Doesn't works to Parts, obviously.