Lisias

In time, the @hoioh's vessel with 14 crew is a very decent vessel to try our scorings. I could not figure out the vessel total cost, however. Hoioh, can you give this number?

I did. Here. Some data had to be inferred from the screenshots (as the proposed new scorings use them). From the scoring systems until now, I think no one really cut it. =P Mine appears to do a decent job, but then a freaking hacked mastodon, wasting fuel as there're no tomorrow, barely reaches the Kerman Line for a few seconds and gets the highest score. Not fair - the time the vessel stays above the Kerman Line must be accounted for my scoring, or I don't think it will work. @hoioh's one does a decent job, IMHO. But I like @neistridlar approach to promote efficiency. It will prevent a "moar boosters" :-) approach to get high escores (exactly what that mastodon of mine did), what hoioh's approach ignores. But it doesn't promote accuracy (landing on airstrip - or on a Pad as I did). All approaches (including mine) don't count the time the vessel stays above the Kerman Line, what I think would be one of the best metrics for this challenge - if we cook up a way to measure it.

Yep, I noticed that. The fuel used is also accounted for. I think, however, that pilot only vessels should not be written out from your score. I updated my spreadsheet with the various scoring proposals until the moment. Would be interesting if I could use data from the vessels posted here too, for comparison!

Your equation is demoting the landing! This equation makes better to land in anyplace but the airstrip. I think it should be: ((launch cost - recovered cost)*max altitude) / ((kerbal capacity - pilot)*(1.5 if landed back on a runway)) Additionally, I think we could reward landing on a small spot, like the launching pad or a helipad. :-)

I made a Google Sheet using my entries (and some derivatives) here. I think that carrying more passengers should be more weighted than mass, but it's soon to be sure. The time the vessel spends above the Karman Line. I'm trying to figure out a way to measure that without using KRPC. :-)

I think that the time you spend above Karman line should be considered. A heavy vessel that rounds Kerbin @ 71.000 meters should score way higher than mine than reaches 120.000 but stays above the Karman line for a few minutes (given the same number of passengers).

Perhaps using the the aircraft landed weight as a multiplier bonus for the altitude? The more weight you have *on landing*, bigger the bonus. And a bonus for landing in the same attitude you launched, or alternatively, by landing and standing over landing wheels or legs. This will make things a lot harder for vessels like mine. =D And perhaps another bonus for not using clipping, to address my jealously of not thinking on it first!!! :-D :-D How about math.log(num_passengers) as a bonus multiplier? Bonus would start to kick in from the third passenger.

Holy Molly! I'm stupid! I can save TWO parts on the vessel! #facePalm But I got about 800 meters lower this time. 6 * 7621 / 132299 = 0.3456262 -1 = -0,6543738 Pictures, evidences and video in: https://kerbalx.com/Lisias/Karman-Crossing-Challenge-Mk1 or And I managed to save the engine this time! :-)

I think I've scored a good one... 8 * 8461 / 133112 = 0,50850412 [EDIT: No landing bônus, I blow up a engine on landing!) Pictures, evidences and video in: https://kerbalx.com/Lisias/Karman-Crossing-Challenge-Mk0

This is not uncommon (neither necessarily a bad practice) in the industry. Sometimes the way we fix for a problem last release just don't cope with another fixes (or features) we need to code for the next. And given the enormous complexity of this program, I would not be surprised if this happens a lot here. But in a way or another, one should keep track of such events. Closely. And coordinately.

Man, thanks for the symmetry awareness. This will make my life a lot easier. :-)

One change from 1.4.1 to 1.4.2 that got to my nerves is on the Editor. I'm building an aircraft, and there's some clipping needed on a specific part. On 1.4.1, I could snap the thing on the closest spot and then using the Translate tool, fine tune the position until the right place. Well, now this is way harder - I must hit the sweet spot at first try. If I miss the first try, when I try to translate again, the parts just pop-out into a snap hotspot, even with the Snap Button UNSELECTED. I was never too fond from the Snap and Symmetry buttons changing by their own while editing, more than once this bite me in the back - but now the thing is happening even without the feature being selected, so I just can't know what is going to happen because the feature happens without changing the button state! =/ I don't think it's a testing issue anymore. This kind of regression has deeper roots. I think they're loosing control of the code-base - they can't anticipate anymore the collateral effects of a change in a code, and so they don't know for sure what need to be tested once a change is made.

Is the dispute for the last place still open? :-)

Also... Double licensing some assets are allowed? For example, I made up my own "Space Agency" using my own logo. Such logo must be licensed to TTI, obviously, so they can use it on the game if they choose to. But I want to keep rights over my logo, so I can use it on my own web page - and have some friends mentioning me (and the logo) on theirs without worries. A way to do that is double licensing the logo - on one license, the usual GPL or MIT or anything, and on the other the full rights license TTI needs to do their business.

That was *exactly* my argument at that time, and in another argument I had in a similar forum in the recent past. :-) I loose (epically) the first battle, and I had a bitter sweet half victory in the other - I shoot what revealed itself a mirage, but hit a skeleton on the cupboard. =P But as I was said both times, the Copyright Act has prevalence over the GPL, and if the GPL even tries to counter-measure the Copyright Act itself, the GPL became non compliant to the Law itself. And that is something that nobody wants. That's the catch! KSP mods are dependent of something that *realizes* an API. Currently, there's no free software realizing such API - but, and I hope I'm not crossing any lines here on the forum, such loopholes were reverted in the past into GPL's side: the whole UNIX SysV API had only proprietary implementations until FreeBSD and GNU came to action. FreeBSD got stuck on a long and bloody legal battle that was won by the FreeBSD Foundation, however that battle created a void (as the FreeBSD Foundation could not release anything until the verdict) that was filled by Linux (at that time, on the very old 0.99 version!), that by itself was only viable because the GNU Foundation was implementing the remaining of the stack - the Linux Kernel is licensed under the GPL 2.0 (and it's still under the 2.0, as far as I know) exactly and just because GCC were licensed itself under the GPL 2.0! :-) And when the tuple Linux Kernel + Gnu Tool Chain gained the World, there was TONS and TONS of Unix source code to be recompiled on them. It's wise not to further discuss this point here - we must remember that KSP is proprietary, and frankly I don't have absolutely any reserves on paying for and using proprietary software, and really wants to stay around to play. :-) (and that's the reason I have the feeling that LGPL would be a better choice for us, end-users).

As a matter of fact, @RandyTheDev, I just remembered a discussion I had with some GPL developers long, long time ago about this exact issue. They were the guys from the Conectiva Brazilian distribution, and I was defending a point of view exactly like yours. Well, they were kind enough (but not exactly "kind" =P) on explaining me every single detail of the law (Brazilian and US) that would prevent such a practice. At that time, I had some difficulties on accepting that (I was very young), but nowadays I see how they were right. It's really a non issue.

Oh, I see. To the best of my knowledge (and this reasoning is field proven, see the linux kernel practices about blobs in device drivers), I can assure you that the mod author just need to provide the source to rebuild HIS WORK, not any pre-existant work on the user's machine. I grant you that there's a line of thinking defending that dynamic linking and static linking should be handled equally - but even in this case, if both linkings happen on the end-user machine, it's still a non issue. I remember, in a long past, some serious discussions about the ethics of allowing proprietary code being linked (statically or dynamically) to GPL'ed code in the end-user's machine, but such discussions were fruitless. Above the GPL, there's the Copyright Act, and in the Copyright Act is stated that the user has the right to to whatever he wants on his machine (what includes reverse engineering and binary code tweaking) as long he doesn't redistribute this work. GPL can't prevent a user from linking a GPL'ed DLL with a proprietary executable by that very reason - it would be void and null such a clausule. See the U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A further reasoning is that a DLL is just the Realization of an Interface (API), not a complete work. And since until the moment, APIs are not copyrightable (this can change, however...), GPL doesn't have a reason to forbid a GPL code to realize such API. I have the feeling that using LGPL would be a better choice. But again, for this exact concerning of yours, it's a non issue. Honest. Binary (proprietary) BLOBs would not be allowed on the Linux Kernel if you were right.

Granted. It's a right. And this forum isn't about my rights. Being the reason I'm asking about here. I *NEVER* claimed such thing. I *NEVER* stated that screenshots are illegal. I stated that screenshots *ARE FAIR USE* when not previously authorized by the copyright holder. And I stated that the TTI's initiative to require granting in advance such rights to them aims to avoid having a troublemaker boring them with claims because they reused a screenshot published here in other place. And, at very last, I`M ASKING about the Forum Rules. I'm not promoting any kind of infringement.

Being the reason I'm asking about this Forum rules for the matter. In mean time, you are wrong on reducing the fair use to only "education, commentary, criticism, or parody" (but granted, I didn't expanded the concept myself). So I think it's time to expand it. From this link at stanford: * Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? YES. That part in question fulfil a role that no other equivalent and compatible part does, and this role was already asked for before. * Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? YES. The game would be (hopefully) beneficed with a part that has been asked for sometimes in the past by some players. No harm would be done to existing parts. * The Nature of the Copyrighted Work KSP is a widely published work, but it's somewhat biographic - as it depicts itself some factual histories. But my part would have no role in any of them. * The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken Half part of four meshes (internal space, overlay and border must be tailored too), 4/448 of the total meshes from GameData/Squad. 4/1883 of the total number of the files. About 120K of data from a pool sizing 457M. * The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market This work adds value by including a asked feature here on forum. It don't (neither can) compete or demote revenue of the product, as it can only be used within the product itself. The feature didn't changes any pre-existant feature. The only drawback is that my texturing is not yet so good as the original. * Too Small for Fair Use: The De Minimis Defense Perhaps. But I'm not willing to use this card. If the other reasons are not enough, I'll drop my fair use claim. * The “Fifth” Fair Use Factor: Are You Good or Bad? Good! The work aims to promote KSP by adding a functionality that was asked before to a specific subset of parts. * What If You Acknowledge the Source Material? Well, I have no intend to omit the source of the mesh I'm using (or the part I'm recreating the mesh). About asking for permission of the copyright holders, this post is my first step, isn't? ---- But, granted, "Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court." as stated on the very article I linked. I *firmly believe* it's not an infringement of the Copyright Law. But I don't know if it would be an infringement of this Forum Policies, which I'm subject if I want to stay around here. :-)

This forum accepts the Fair Use "license" that can be granted to me by the Copyright Act? It's a fair question - this forum don't have the "duty" to accept such material even by being legal. (they don't even have to accept me posting here!) I don't need to reuse their meshes, by the way (so I can "avoid" the All Rights Reserved on the binaries). I can create my own (it's just more work). But it would be still under Squad's copyright, as I would be "copying the look and feel" of the part published by them in a derivative work.

Read *CAREFULLY* what I wrote. :-) I AM SURE I CAN *CLAIM* FAIR USE. :-) I have a reasonable confidence that, if challenged, I would win if would have the money to spend on court. And I have a lot of confidence that TTI would *not* challenge my claim because I will not, in any way, depreciate or erode the KSP's value to them on this. Thank you for your participation on this thread, but I think your line of arguing is becoming disrespectful. What I know for sure is against this forum policies, by the way.

Are you aware that, recently, Matt Lowne had one of his best videos taken down by YouTube due a music that Matt **HAD** asked and granted the right to use, don't you? He was using Starman from David Bowie. Well, it's exactly the way things are. The music's copyright holder unilaterally revoked the Matt's right to use the music, and made YouTube take the video down. Just like that. I'm guessing that that happened when Elon Musk secured the rights to broadcast the music on his Tesla Launch, and then BMG (I'm right? I don't really know) issued the take down in respect to the contract. Since this contract is not active anymore, it appears that the video is back online. :-) Anyway, the sad answer to you is that *YES* every gameplay on YouTube is subject to a take down by the copyright holder at any moment, and then is up to the video owner the burden to claim Fair Use in court in order to have the video back - Brave New World we have nowadays, online streaming nullified the "Inversion of the burden of proof" that the Copyright Act grants to us (thanks, DMCA). What happens is that the Copyright Holders in the gaming industry discovered that the backslash they receive by doing that hurts more that any alleged "loss of revenue" they would have by not doing. Some Holders even grant in advance such right (making gameplay videos) in order to have an edge over the competition. :-)

Not quite. The image that such meshes and textures renders on screen are still Copyrighted by the mesh author. The whole shebang is under the Copyright Act, not only the "source code" and the "binary code". We must have in mind that the Copyright Act *has prevalence* over the GPL. The GPL is enforceable as long it didn't try to counter some right already granted by the Copyright Act. Being more explicit: I can create my own mesh and texture to mimic the part. The image my set of meshes and textures renders would be still under the original mesh copyright, as the image it renders would be visually identical (or heavily based) to the image the original mesh renders. So, even by creating my own mesh to render the part, I still must be covered by Fair Use otherwise I would be in copyright violation the same way - GPL or no GPL. About the screenshots being a copyright violation, do you know that Take Two Interactive are demanding rights about every screenshot published on the forum, right? This is to avoid having to claim Fair Use - TTI is demanding a explicit authorization in advance. From the EULA: So, no. Not a single one of the screenshots published *here* is a copyright violation, because the mere fact that you were using KSP to take the screenshot already granted the Forum the right to use (and reuse) it. Fair Use is a "beg for forgiveness instead of asking for permission" thing. You only are sure that you really have the Fair Use right after the original copyright owner challenges you and loose in court. Until this happens, your claim for Fair Use is just a (contestable) claim. Going back to the TTI issue, it's exactly what they are avoiding by demanding rights over the screenshots published on this Forum - the risk to have to beg for forgiveness. And, just to clarify, please read all the Thread about what I'm asking. I'm not asking about Legal Advice (what I already have). I'm asking about the Forum Policies. I know for *sure* that I can claim Fair Use (and the GPL is not an issue, as the material I'm using is not covered by GPL). I want to know how the Forum Policies handle such situations.

What was not exactly clear in my argument is that it's the author responsibility to be sure he's using copyrighted material correctly - in other terms, it's over the current author's shoulders the task to verify if the work he's using/bundling is *correctly* licensed under any terms the original author is claiming. It's not a GPL issue, you *must* do it to any other copyrighted material on any other licensing terms. There's no license in the world that would save your sorry... back... :-) if you inadvertently incorporate copyright violating material with yours. Any other licensing terms would be void and null in such situations too. What makes GPL tricky is that GPL creates a few more situations where such violations would occur. And since such violations are tricky to check, GPL itself became tricky to use. By avoiding these tricky situations, you avoid the extra, particular issues that GPL incurs. CKAN does it. So *my* claim is that GPL is not the best option for KSP modding - but it's still a valid option. But *this* concerning (using copyright violating material inadvertently) is an issue with *every single* license out there. It's not GPL specific, it just happens that GPL decided to make this clear in the licensing terms while others choose to leave it implicit (as everybody is subject to the Copyright Act anyway).

The end-user *have* the right to redistribute binary versions of the mod, as long he provides a way to obtain the source code too. We can bundle the source code together the binary code - but we also do not, see the .deb and .rpm package systems where source and binary are packaged separately. If the end-user recompiles your mod with some alterations, he *can* redistribute his version in binary form, as long he respects the GPL (and adopt the GPL for licensing his fork, of course). What he should not do is to pretend he's the original copyright holder of the original work - and GPL clearly states that you must mark your new code as changed from the original. [EDIT: This really don't address the quoted question, but it's a preamble to my answer that does, see below] If the user receives a "GPL protected work" without source and without a way to download such source [or that is in GPL violation for any other reason], then the GPL is null and void at the source at the first place, and the GPL claiming is false - the code is not protected by GPL. Point. Of course, GPL will bite the end-user here. But any other license would do the same. If someone violates KSP licensing terms and provide a link to download it ["licensed" under the MIT], then this unfortunate (and uninformed at best) end-user would be in the same dangerous waters. It's not a GPL issue, it's a licensing issue. Again, as long the original work is *correctly* licensed under the GPL, and the derivative work is also licensed under the GPL, this is a no issue. If by any reason part of your mod is not compatible with the GPL, all you need to do is to create a dependency so such material can be downloaded separately (and tell CKAN about). And that's it. CKAN's guidelines explains this. Your concerning about the GPL licensing terms is, really, a concerning about licensing terms. *EVERY* mod author should be concerned about licensing issues while authoring. A mod author can be sued by violating *ANY* licensing terms (including Squad's and TTI's), not just GPL. So, GPL is not incompatible with KSP modding. GPL is just trickier to be used on KSP modding when bundling and/or incorporating other people's work. Don't bundle such material and you are safe. But if you need to incorporate such material, read the licensing terms and fully comply with them (no matter the license used!). I would agree with you if you states that GPL is not the best alternative for KSP modding - what in my opinion, it really is not. But that doesn't makes GPL mods incompatible with KSP.