What is the disadvantages of freeing your mod in the public domain?

[flamerboy67664]

Except from people stealing your mod and putting it up as theirs?, what is the other disadvantages of freeing mods?

I am currently making (still in modeling stage) a stock-alike Orion capsule (Mk.1-2 Adv-A) and is thinking of freeing it once released.

Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle

PS. I need to know the LoD (lift over drag) values for Orion capsule.

Edited March 20, 2015 by flamerboy67664

[kerbiloid]

Somebody's fork of your mod can become more popular than the original, and then evolve in "wrong" (from your POV) way.

For example, as in KSPI/KSPI-Lite story. Original KSPI is more "nerdish", KSPI-L is more "folksy".

So, it was a kind of little two-acts drama: first time - when "no more KSPI, only KSPI-L", second time - when "no more KSPI-L, just KSPI reborned".

[stupid_chris]

People could reuse your work without your permission and sell it. Or if you happen to write plugins, unlock certain things in your mod that you did not want to, and then distribute it.

[hab136]

The license is what you allow people to do with your work. Public domain means they can do anything, including rename it and resell it. Or tarnish it's reputation.

Let's say you make the "Korion capsule" mod. Someone could copy it, put pictures of genitalia all over it, and then tell people far and wide to download the "Korion capsule" and point at their modified version. Suddenly nobody wants the "Korion capsule", and you're fighting a losing battle to retain the reputation of your mod.

There's a continuum of permissions you can give out:

* "do whatever you want with my stuff"

* "you can make modifications, but give me credit and make it clear that your modifications are your own"

* "you can make modifications, but give me credit and make it clear that your modifications are your own, and keep the source open"

* "you can make modifications, but give me credit and make it clear that your modifications are your own, and keep the source open, and don't sell it"

* "don't modify or reuse my stuff at all, just use it exactly as I packaged it"

The disadvantage of the last one is that if you stop updating it, nobody can take over. That's what happened to ISA Mapsat, and it was a while before people wrote SCANsat as a replacement. So people are wary of strictly-licensed mods.

Choose a license code: http://choosealicense.com/

Choose a license for artwork/models: http://creativecommons.org/choose/

[Malah]

People could delete the DRM that you have put in your work... (but if your license allow fork, they can also delete it )

Seriously, your mod will never leave into oblivion due to a license that does not allow forks. If you want freeing what you have done, you can use one of the opensource's licenses as GPL or CC-BY-SA, it keep credits and allow forks.

And as stupid_chris said your permission is not need to fork something on the public domain as well as on the opensource's licenses, if you don't want a fork don't use a license which allow a fork ...

Edited March 20, 2015 by Malah

[sarbian]

I have to add that I grew a bit wary of the GPL. I find it generate too much restriction for a modding community.

You could also add something to the license that stops fork from using the same mod name.

[Streetwind]

One important thing to keep in mind is that freeing something to the public domain is a "no takebacks" affair. Once it's out there, you often cannot move back to a more restrictive license. Because if even one person has already forked or reused your work, you have absolutely no power to intervene. And because that forked/reused work was public domain at the time it was forked/reused, it remains public domain even if you tighten up the license of the original, so other people can take just take the fork and fork/reuse it some more.

That's why you generally start with a restrictive license and then free it up as much as you consider prudent.

Of course, "what you consider prudent" may still end up being public domain after all. But you are asking about downsides here...

[regex]

Disadvantage? You've released your work to the world free of restrictions and ego to do with as they please. It's up to you to decide if that's a good thing or not.

[michaelhester07]

Also as far as the art is concerned in your mod, if you make it public domain anyone can use the models in your mod in their own work, KSP related or not. They can use the textures you made for your ships on their 3d models and they could end up in a blockbuster scifi movie.

You'll see it on the silver screen and go "hey i made that" and you'll have no claim to any cut of the profits from that movie cause it's public domain. That's a big downside. You made a texture in blender in 2 hours one night and it could have made you a millionaire but the license you released it under allowed someone to use it.

Then again doing a less restrictive license may help other modders out there and get you some fame (here's lookin at RoverDude) in the process.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

The issue that I have with public domain is that someone can build something on a PD work and keep all of its rights to themselves, instead of sharing with the community as the author of the PD work did. "Copyleft" licenses, like the GNU GPL, were made to address that concern: a copylefted work may be used by anyone for any purpose, but if they build something on it*, they have to release that stuff under the same license (and thus grant the same freedoms to everyone else that the original author granted to them).

*(I've oversimplified matters a little here. Less simplified: the GNU GPL distinguishes between "propagating" a work, which in the case of KSP addons includes things like making videos about an addon and getting paid for it, and "conveying" a work, which involves redistributing the addon or an addon which is based on it. You can propagate a work without restriction, but if you "convey" it, you have to release that under the GPL as well. On the other hand, CC-BY-SA makes no such distinction -- Adapted Material is Adapted Material.)

If you don't care to copyleft something, a permissive license (e.g. MIT, various flavors of BSD, CC-BY) can be an improvement upon public domain by disclaiming liability (probably not an issue here, but weirder things have happened) and requiring derivative works to credit you (or not, at your option -- CC-BY in particular has an option for an author to tell a derivative work to not credit them, if some derivative work is particularly odious to you).

[Norpo]

Slightly tounge in cheek version:

Advantages: People can do whatever they want with it. You've contributed to the grand internet of free information.

Disadvantages: People can do whatever they want with it. If someone gets rich out of it, you have no claim to the money.

[RAINCRAFTER]

I would have no restrictions other than "You must tell the consumer that I made part of what he is getting from the alternate source," on a mod.

[flamerboy67664]

Here, I started making a new licence

[CENTER]WELP PUBLIC LICENCE[/CENTER]

Version 1, March 2015

Copyright © 2015 Bien Vincent Balansag <[email protected]>

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the changer does the things below

WELP LICENCE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. The software is released as freeware and may be used by you only.
1. You must charge another user a maximum of $0.50 to make them eligible to use the software
2. You own the profits. It is not required to pay back the profits to the Original maker.

That might be good for buisnesses, like here in the Philippines (so many internet cafes here than make users pay to use the computer)

(PS I outlined that licence from the WTFPL)

Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle