Lisias

I just bought two. I know, there're chances to the game to be never finished, but: One of them is already on a very decent state, and I think it worths the money being asked as it is now. The other is a single dude, doing something that I'm not seeing anyone doing and I liked it. It's, right now, the only shot I have to play a Classic SimCity style game with modern mechanics but still feeling like the classic one. Don't be too harsh about EA, aim your canons to people abusing it - blame the gamers, not the game.

This is not a problem when the customers has no choice. On the Microsoft Way. Problem: even by not having a choice about a specific game the user likes, the user has the choice to play something else at the same time the competition can publish a new game with the same mechanics/similar lore - and this is something the C-Suits that are controlling the Bug Big Studios and Publishers are learning now. No matter how interesting and/or addictive is a game, they can't be locked down on it as MS managed to do with Windows (for some time, they are being gradually cracked down over the years). The future for Publishers and Studios currently in the hands of these guys are less than bright - on the long run, the share holders will understand that these shares are not sustainable in the long run, will demote the shares as speculative investment and then things will start to really look bleak around here. But since the demand will not vanish with the share holder's profit, new Studios will born from the ashes of the older ones (and the end of the Non Compete clauses will help a lot on this) and, with them, new Publishers (or old ones that managed to be not incorporated, or to buy back their shares). It will be pretty harsh times ahead, the Winter finally had come. But the good news about the Winter is that it's always followed by the Spring. Eventually...

Northrop Alpha. Believe it, it's AN AIRLINER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Alpha Open Cockpit, passengers (8?) directly behind the engine (no heater necessary - but earplugs mandatory). Looks like something made with KAX...

Only if it's profitable. They are on the game (pun not intended) for the money. No one managed to win a lawsuit against OSI unless the project had broken the rules. The novelty is that, this time, they managed to change the rules. This is serious as it can get - kiss GIT bye bye if this ruling were in effect in 2005 https://lwn.net/Articles/130746/ https://lwn.net/Articles/975099/ TL;DR: BitKeeper considered trying their luck on suing a Linux Kernel developer for "reverse engineering" their CMS protocol - when all the dude did was to send a request to their services with the "help" command, what they responded without the need of authentication. You missed the point. Open Source developers are usually not easy to lure by words, they want actions as proof. And the Development Team responded with actions: Do you see the clause 9? They solved it formally publishing the api: https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ksp/api/index.html THIS is the reason it's 100% legal to mod KSP under OSI, because we don't need to do "decompiling" (what's against the EULA) to mod it. You can do clean room tests using the published API, and this is guaranteed to be 100% legal. Companies can't the trusted. People there come and go, and any deal you have with someone there dies with them. Get everything written and public, otherwise your SAS in on the line. Not if people start to get sued by doing this. You see, we are talking about a Nintendo level of dangerousness. And if Steam closes the Workshop talking about legal issues, you can bet your mouse this is going to cause a commotion. CurseForge, Nexus Games, you name it. As these guys start to get the heat, things will change - not necessarily for the better. This is not about a kid publishing things under a nickname anymore - we are talking about not existing a place to publish these things other than bittorrent.

Mainly due this post: === BRUTE FORCE POST MERGE === Get a good pair of headphones, enhance the bass. There're two things in this song that I absolutely admire: the bass and Turunen's voice.

Didn't found the article I had read, but found this instead: More. The rationale is horrendously gruesome. In the spoiler...

No. It's only the testament that he likes his ass and don't want to get it ripped apart on a lawsuit due the NDA he signed. (this is the only part of your post that I disagree)

Darwin would be proud! Tragic fact: he almost did it right, as it appears. Apparently the implosion happened by the failure of the **GLUE** that kept the carbon fiber hull and the titanium caps tied together. Assuming this is true, the glue may had been weakened by the Sun's heat while being towed. Previously, they used a bigger ship and the sub were used to be transported protected from the direct Sun light.

Yes, a Facebook game where Kerbals farms on Laythe - and you have to invite 15 "friends" to start every crop!!

@ColdJ Yep - and when not working, I'm recovering from a flu. Winter is coming around here! Hello @Jacke! Are you in the house?

Yep. By exactly the reasons I explained above already. Some I'm maintaining, others I'm effectively developing - most at this time were significantly rewritten. Ah, that's the deal: KSP¹ from the very beginning was welcoming to modders. And it was appealing too, it was an indie game, developed by some people cutting their teeth in the industry and learning while doing it. You know, everybody love the underdog. Of course they wanted to. But here is the catch: when a scammer scams a victim, the victim at that time was willing to engage on the scam too! (dramatic example) There are bad people in the World, some make a living on Software. The World would be a better place if naive people could stop helping bad people, and using their efforts for the common good instead for the good of few. We don't write laws (and licenses) for the good men - they don't needed it. We write them due the unethical people. --- -- - POST EDIT - -- --- I forgot something pretty imporant! The original dev team, the one that developed the game up to KSP 1.1.3, had the policy to ask the add'ons published on Forum to be licensed under an OSI license. This surely lured open source devs to KSP, you can be absolutely sure about it!

I'm pretty sure this cartoon can be applied here somewhere... Any hints? Source: https://br.ifunny.co/picture/i-don-t-understand-i-after-so-many-budget-cuts-ZPRaeUy48

You know... These guys would not do bad on Brazilian's Carnival - or even on the Parintins' Boi Bumbá.

Language barrier. There's "free as in free beer" (or "free as in free lunch"), and "free as in free speech": I don't mind giving a free beer now and then for a friend; I don't think it's right to give free lunches for people that will sell them for profit; and I fiercely defend free speech. When OSI developers do Open Source, they are doing "free as free speech". There's no free lunch, but we can have a Stone Soup. Using KSP¹ as a concrete example: yes, I had to buy KSP¹ to have access to the IP. So, in theory, by working on OSI here I'm also giving them some free beer. However, a lot of people around also did a lot of Open Source work here, that I also use - and use a lot. So, besides giving Squad some free beer, I'm also getting from the fellow add'on authors a lot of code too so I can toy with the thing myself, and it worths the free beer I gave. So, of course Squad had benefited too, but hell, these guys also had provided us with 10 years of updates without further charges, so they are giving back to the Community too, perhaps not on a "free speech" but on a "Stone Soup" style. Now, KSP¹ development was ceased for some years already, and we have adversarial actors treating to screw up the KSP¹ Modding Scene as a mean to solve their own problems disregarding the consequences to us (at best). The virtuous cycle that was keeping KSP¹ alive and kicking is at risk. What we shall do now? Opening the KSP¹ Source Code under a adquate OSI license (and only the Source Code, nobody is asking for "free IP" - just a necessary disclaimer for the casual reader) is my answer to the problem. Keep doing "free beer" will, now, feed the actors that are threatening us.

The automatic grant of right may not apply to him - it surely doesn't apply to me, my legislation considers null and void any terms of copyright granting without a formal agreement from the copyright holder - i.e., I need to formally agree on granting any rights from stuff I made, mass contracts don't have this power here about this subject. Until I say in a legal bounding way "I'm granting you such rights", TT2 doesn't have any no matter what the EULA says. So, if the automatic grant of rights is null and void for me, the whole clause should be. And so I think I would lose the right to keep exploring the IP after a refund. I doubt Europe (or more specifically, England) doesn't have any similar legislation about and, so, perhaps this may apply to European (and British) users. I couldn't agree more. Fortunately for me, my Country's legislators also do. Go Rumble!

From the consumer's rights point of view, I agree with him. But there's something else to consider: imagine I'm a youtuber that earnt some money on videos about KSP2 (completely unrelated subject... ). If this dude ask for a refund, they are still entitled to have their videos using KSP2 being published and monetized? After all, any agreement about the subject had ceased to exist with the refund.

But why doing it "for free"? On OSI, you are contributing back to a pool of resources that you are also using, it's a constructive, self-sustainable feedback. When you do it for non OSI projects, you are essentially working "for free" to someone, without any guarantee about still having access to the thing later, when the owner of the thing decides to go closed source and sell the access. It's good to work on passion, but it's not good to be exploited using it to be induced to work for free. These as the good examples, but there're the bad ones too. Falcon 3.0 is one of the bads. The whole ecosystem was hijacked, with all the mods disappearing and being incorporated in closed sourced competitors on the niche. We have one survivor nowadays, making some serious money - besides all that long forgotten open source projects probably are not there anymore after so many years of improvements, in theory they own their existence to that huge amount of contributors that failed to secure the rights to perpetuate their work as they intended. As I said, one thing is to passionately contribute to a project you love. Other, completely different, is allowing this passion to be used to do free work so someone else can make money - in truth, I think that there're some countries around that even criminalize this practice... This is the point I wanted to reach! You can royally screw the Community and the IP by trying such a stunt - but you can , also, startup a new one (smaller, but still profitable for a few ones) using the remains. It was what was made from Falcon 3.0. Do you think that Spectrum Holobyte (or whoever would still have the IP for Falcon 3.0 nowadays) is getting any revenue from the product that managed to survive the Falcon 3.0 community crash? This is the reason I think it's also the current IP owner best interest to publish (under an OSI license that better fits them) the KSP¹ Source Code - to guarantee that they can also earn something back from any derivative project, instead of just having their remains used to kick start another commercial product without getting anything back in the process. The effort now is to prevent the Community from being dismantled in order to have its remains kicking start some "hostile" kickoff. Believe me, there's a chance this is already happening.

This is called probable cause. It's how the Justice justifies investigating someone when there's no proof the investigated had committed the crime. Since this is a Civil Case matter, there's no Prosecutor deciding to file or not a criminal process, but yet probable cause is considered by the Court while deciding to dismiss or not the lawsuit. What the Bungie engineer said was essentially "I heard a gun firing, but I didn't saw the gun". It's up to the trial to decide if the violation really happened. What Bungie managed to accomplish. This is exactly what I think it is going to be attempted. Why investing your time into something that is not Open Source? When you go OSI, you are contributing back to something you are also using.

Looks like a bandstand, to tell you the true...

Are you sure you really removed FreeIVA? The exception is happening on a FreeIVA code...

I beg your pardon to disagree. I think the most interesting times are still to come. Obviously, I'm unsure if they are going to be the best times - but they are going to be interesting nevertheless.

Holy Ugliness, Batman!!! Boeing Vertol BV-235 . It was the Apache competitor on the AAH program. The enemy would die of fright by seeing this thing - probably lost the competition due some clause about cruelty on the Geneva Convention... http://nobarrelrolls.blogspot.com/2020/09/boeing-vertol-bv-235-un-verdadero.html

By that time, they will create a worst problem so we worry about it, completely forgetting them.

You know, it was easier to make use of a rhetoric device (100 miles per gallon by installing a device) than trying to describe the convoluted (but still legal) scam used by dealers to earn an edge over the buyers by exploiting their own greed. You would be surprised about how many things that the common sense calls "fraud" are, in reality, legal. You know, the terms of the sell are in the contract. Once you sign the contract, whatever is written on it is what bounds you to the contract, not what you were told in the process. It's the very reason we sign contracts. So, if the seller says to you "this car do 100 miles per gallon" in a jocose voice tone, but in the description of the car in the contract says explicitly that the car is doing in average exactly what the manufacturer says it should do, how do you plan to sue the dealer for fraud?

This is the part in which you are probably right. This is where you may be missing the point. You see, this is like buying a car: if you buy a used car after the seller says you that the vehicle was being able to do 100 miles per gallon after installing some "special device", and then the vehicle (obviously) is not able to do a fraction of it, who is the real responsible for the mistake? The seller needs to sell the car, and it's not a crime to over promise. It's up to the buyer the decision between buying the car from the seller saying the car is miraculous, or from another seller that says "this car is a crap, but it works for your needs and it's the best I can do for the money you have". You get what you promote; you get what you pay for. The whole industry is addicted to this "fake it until you make it" mentality because people who tell the naked truth don't sell their car.