Lisias

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.

Being a long (about 25 years) free software user and enthusiast (and perhaps developer, I did my share of contribution), I can affirm to the best of my knowledge that *NO*, there's no problem on using GPLed mods on KSP, *as long you don't distribute your mod with GPL incompatible code*. The GPL is crystal clear about this: it only covers *COPY* and *DISTRIBUTION*, and *DO NOT* imposes restrictions about *USE*. So, if it's legal to download the GPL'ed mod, you can use it anyway you want no matter what. What you can't do is to *(re)distribute* GPL code (in the original form, or altered and/or embedded in your own) together GPL-incompatible code (what KSP surely is). So, if you pack your copy of KSP with a GPL'ed mod, you are in GPL violation - but frankly, this would be the lesser of your violations. :-) What a GPL'ed mod must care is about what is being distributed together. CKAN is a perfect solution, IMHO - every single GPL'ed mod can be downloaded individually, without caring about the licenses its dependencies use. About DLLs, there's a doctrine saying that *DYNAMIC LINKING* (and not only static linking) is also covered by GPL. So, I can't bundle non GPL DLLs with my GPL code (or vice versa) for distribution. But, and again, the end users *CAN* download both separately and link them in their machine. What they're not allowed to do is to repack and redistribute the thing together in the same bundle (but surely they can do it in separate bundles, if the original licensing terms allows redistribution). I don't mean to be rude, but this is a no issue here in KSP. I'm not an enthusiast of using GPL code with proprietary code (by practical reasons, I don't think this would be unethical or something), but people here in KSP did it right. The excessive use of emphasis was to.. well... emphasize key concepts needed to understand the matter. Again, I do not mean to be rude.

Now that you mention it... There're some parts that yes, they can use MM as they are just CFG tweaks. It's a good opportunity to learn the thing. Thanks. But two parts needed .mu tweaks. In one I only changed and added seats and cameras - I saw some CFGs with more than one mesh on the model node, perhaps I can reach the same result combining my mesh (with only the marking objects) with the stock one. It would be a better technical solution too. I will give it a try. But there's this one part that needed slicing and welding vertices and faces, and frankly this part is the sore reason I though it could be interesting to publish something now.

The main purpose of publishing this mod is to add a already asked feature. Granted, it's interesting that nobody did it before (or didn't publish it...), and what we're talking about can be the reason. About the screenshots, by the concept of the law, there's no difference between showing a screenshot of my altered part and linking the altered part "source code" here! The original part is covered under the copyright both in "source code" as in "object code" (i.e., it's rendered form). So, if I can't link my tweaked parts for download here, by the cold letter of the law I can't publish screenshots of the tweaked parts neither! Yes. It's a mess. :-) Yes, it doesn't makes sense. =D But yet, is how it is.

I beg to differ. There're exceptions to the rule in many countries. In USA, in special, there's the "Fair Use" Doctrine that can be applied to my work. See more about this here. Legally, I'm probably (but granted, not surely) covered by the Fair Use. The restriction to do whatever I want as long is for "my own use" is for reversed engineering and backup copies of the software itself, not for derivative works based on the original (parodies would be copyright violations otherwise!). Yes, law is confusing - and different countries make different confusions about the issue. However, I'm not looking for legal advice. I asking about the community practices. By doing this and promoting my work here, I'm violating some Forum Policy?

Hi. New kid on the block here. I'm cutting my teeth on add-on development, and - as usual - I'm starting from the basics: changing what already exists to see what I get. I ended up with a (perhaps?) nice solution for some complains I had read on the forum, but that solution reused some (edited!) meshes from the Squad's vanilla install, and now I'm unsure if I can redistribute the (edited) material bundled with mine. Looking into the KSP's directory, I found a LegalNotice.txt with many people granting the licensee rights to do whatever is wanted - but of course, each licensor grants the right for his work, and for his work only. But I don't know what resources from Squad's subdirectory was licensed by whom, and of course Squad's copyrighted material is licensed under different terms (or I would not have to buy a KSP copy to legally play it, right?). I'm not worried about retaining ownership of such material - ethically, I think it "belongs to the game" as I'm reusing game's resources, and I don't mind waiving away the rights for the (few) things I had done. But I don't want to cross any line on the forum, so I choose to be safer than sorry. Since I didn't found any solid definitions about the issue, what's is currently accepted as the way to go around here?

Le me know if you need some help on testing. I'm on 1.4.1 (as you probably noticed =P) and I'm interested in your mod! :-)

Unfortunately, it doesn't works with 1.4.1.

It works on 1.4.1 perfectly.