Will KSP mods ever turn Paid?

[RoverDude]

I disagree with paid mods.

Build stuff for yourself. Share it if you think others will enjoy it. If you're so inclined, support the modders you like (I for one am partial to Patreon). If not, at least say thanks.

The second you throw money into the mix, people get stupid, and your community goes toxic.

[regex]

I disagree with paid mods.

Build stuff for yourself. Share it if you think others will enjoy it. If you're so inclined, support the modders you like (I for one am partial to Patreon). If not, at least say thanks.

The second you throw money into the mix, people get stupid, and your community goes toxic.

I agree with this sentiment 100%.

License arguments aside, there's a reason I always put my stuff under BSD 2-clause. There's also a reason why I enjoy contributing to mods that are open and free, and why I will always continue doing that so long as I am interested in the game (in fact, I'll have a few small releases when 1.0 comes out), and also why I will never provide a donate button or accept money for the contributions I provide.

IMO if you're doing it to get paid you should start your own thing.

[pincushionman]

What does the current EULA have to say? Not the forum rules, the game's own license?

[michaelhester07]

In order to support a paid mod system Squad would modify their EULA to allow it. I'm pretty sure right now the EULA doesn't allow selling mods.

I can see the toxicity. It's evident even while just talking about paid mods.

[Fel]

First your comparison is wrong since the devs don't work 365 days per year and not 10 hours a day. And not all Squad dev are full time on KSP. And I sure spend way more than 500 hour a year on KSP modding.

Second economics is a matter of demand and cost. If someone feel that 2$ for a mod is worth it then they pay for it. If it was a pure matter of time then you wouldn't see any $5 game and AAA title would sold for hundreds of dollars.

You're just being subjective here trying to make a bad argument to push a bad point of view. If you want to claim you work more than, or equal to, devs who get professionally paid for their work, then why not go on and make your own game.

This is an arrogance I see quite often, people will try to turn their individual labors into something on comparison with what a "professional" dev does. YOU will work full days, but people getting paid won't work full days. YOU will put in weekend hours, but a professional dev wouldn't dare; and then we also have the problem of "WORKING" on a project vs "PLAYING" on a project.

WORK implies progress, schedules, deadlines. WORK implies that goals get met in a timely manner and you have a responsibility to others at the cost of your livelihood. WORK would imply that you choose to come home every day and get paid nothing for a thankless job; instead of coming home to play around and see what you can do.

The arrogance we have as humans is completely astounding.

[Randazzo]

You're just being subjective here trying to make a bad argument to push a bad point of view. If you want to claim you work more than, or equal to, devs who get professionally paid for their work, then why not go on and make your own game.

This is an arrogance I see quite often, people will try to turn their individual labors into something on comparison with what a "professional" dev does. YOU will work full days, but people getting paid won't work full days. YOU will put in weekend hours, but a professional dev wouldn't dare; and then we also have the problem of "WORKING" on a project vs "PLAYING" on a project.

WORK implies progress, schedules, deadlines. WORK implies that goals get met in a timely manner and you have a responsibility to others at the cost of your livelihood. WORK would imply that you choose to come home every day and get paid nothing for a thankless job; instead of coming home to play around and see what you can do.

The arrogance we have as humans is completely astounding.

You're either being intentionally sarcastic, or the irony of your post is earth shattering.

I can't figure out which.

[RoverDude]

@Fel, your numbers are a bit off.

As a guy who runs a team of engineers, the reality of how much time at the keyboard folks actually get is surprisingly low. On the outside, for a surprisingly industrious engineer, you *might* get 2100 hours a year. If they never get sick or take vacations or attend meetings, etc.

Reality is a lot closer to about 1500-1700 per year.

It's tangential, but for whatever reason folks assume we just mash on keyboards non-stop.

Side note - I don't see what is bad about Sarbian's point of view, it's pretty much spot on.

[Sandworm]

I don't think KSPs mod community could go the paid route. It cannot because it has been too open for too long. Almost all of the great mods have been released under licenses that would disallow their creators from properly monetizing them. Once code has been released open source it cannot be crammed back into a proprietary license. So any number of people could attempt to monetize such a mod. Some other licenses, the "copyleft" branch, specifically forbid monetization.

Even if monetization was legally practical, the IP issues would be insane. Nearly every mod here relies in some part on others such as module manager. Releasing a monetized copy of a mod with a bundled copy of a dependency would require permissions. Then imagine if the dependency was subjected to a takedown. Not only would it break all those who use it, but they too would be subject to the takedown. And then there are the Squad-specific trademark issues. Trademarks must be defended. It's not an option. If you don't defend your mark then you can loose your mark. If mods become monetized, any mod using Squad's trademarks would have to be stopped. So basically every mod with the name "Kerbal" would probably be struck down or renamed. Such slash-and-burn events, on an already tired community, might just kill off KSP modding altogether.

[regex]

Once code has been released open source it cannot be crammed back into a proprietary license.

Incorrect. Future versions can (E: by the holder of the copyright), but anything already released to and held by the public cannot. You cannot take rights away from those who already have them (well, in this case, at least).

Even if monetization was legally practical, the IP issues would be insane.

This is very true. Edited April 24, 2015 by regex

[OrbitusII]

I don't see KSP's mods becoming a paid commodity. Since KSP doesn't have the Steam workshop and Curse isn't in wide use amongst modders here on the forums, I don't expect either service's decision will have a major impact on how the relationship between mods and money works for KSP users.

Even if KSP were to get the Steam workshop (unlikely, since a large number of us, myself included, don't have KSP on Steam) or Curse were to enable mod monetization, I don't expect Squad would enable it. The devs have shown themselves to be loyal to us consumers, so unless the monetization has obvious benefits, even to those who don't create mods, it's unlikely we'll see it.

[GluttonyReaper]

It's tangential, but for whatever reason folks assume we just mash on keyboards non-stop.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently, actually... I think it's something to do with people underestimating how much time and energy needs to be spent just thinking about how to do something and solve in these more ... creative pursuits (for lack of a better term). Would I be correct in this observation?

[sarbian]

since a large number of us, myself included, don't have KSP on Steam

I seriously doubt that those who bought KSP represent more than 10% of the sold copies. And even those 10% may be a wild overestimation.

Fel: you might want to read my post before replying to them. And you don't know what my real work either. Clearly.

[Sandworm]

Incorrect. Future versions can (E: by the holder of the copyright), but anything already released to and held by the public cannot. You cannot take rights away from those who already have them (well, in this case, at least).

Future versions if they don't contain any of the open-source code. If you incorporate open source code into your proprietary future version then you need to include documentation and copies of the used code (depending on the exact oss license used). And anyone else can take that same oss code and run with it as a competing product. This sort of license tracking is a royal pita for many organizations today. This is why why if you dig through the menus on any new BMW you will find reference to websites where you can go to download the oss code they used in creating their in-dash systems. A pure copyleft project will go further by forbidding any non-foss use of the code. In such cases you would have to release full code, including anything new, so that others could take the new code and sell a literally identical product.

The only wiggle room in such situations would be trademarks, but I don't think any KSP mods are worth enough to warrant serious trademark disputes.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Sandworm

[regex]

Future versions if they don't contain any of the open-source code.

Incorrect. if you are the copyright holder it is your code to decide how to license. This is how people can release one copy to one group GPL'd and another to another group under a proprietary license. Open source code in the wild will always be free for anyone to use (pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, of course) but there is nothing preventing the copyright holder from re-licensing under a more restrictive license at any time they want for future code releases.

E: We have an example of this happening in our community: KAS.

Edited April 24, 2015 by regex

[Van Disaster]

I'd never buy a paid mod for KSP, I'd attempt to make something similar myself if and if good enough give it out - I don't fancy being forced to support anything which is why I contract out for other people's ( fully commercial ) DLC rather than do my own, not that there's enough money in 3rd party DLC to make much of a living. Microtransactions have turned me off just about every game I've come across them in if there's not been enough core content to counter it, I'd quite like to smack whoever's trying to inject them into modding scenes. If I couldn't make something myself then either I'd ignore it, or if it was too necessary for my enjoyment of this game ( very few mods, but there are a couple, thank-you creators ) I'd just go and play another game.

I spend probably 1/5th of working time actually editing code, I think. That might even be an overestimate. Quite a lot of it is spent lounging around with a pen & notepad drawing what looks like a chaotic mess of lines & lists of words, and a lot of the rest is spent staring at random things while my brain works.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Sandworm]

Incorrect. if you are the copyright holder it is your code to decide how to license. This is how people can release one copy to one group GPL'd and another to another group under a proprietary license. Open source code in the wild will always be free for anyone to use (pursuant to the terms of the license agreement, of course) but there is nothing preventing the copyright holder from re-licensing under a more restrictive license at any time they want for future code releases.

E: We have an example of this happening in our community: KAS.

Ah, but when something is released as open source (GPLv3) then the creator is no longer an exclusive copyright holder. Each member of the public becomes a copyright holder. The original author cannot put it back in the bottle. It is not possible to "GPL" something to a specific group. A generic public license is a public license. It doesn't, cannot, differentiate between groups. All get the same. The original creator can only assert rights over code that he himself creates over and above what he has already given away. His rights post-GPL are, in short, identical to that of any other person except, as I said, in regards to copyleft.

Example: FAR has been released under GPLv3 (2007) as copyleft. Ferram cannot take that back.

"All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

I basically now own FAR, as does everyone else. So long as I abide by the terms, essentially by not touching the license, ferram cannot do anything. He could create new code but has already given me an irrevocable license to FAR build 0.14.7v. He can no longer assert wholesale copyrights over that code. He does retain certain enforcement rights but not to the extent that he can permanently prevent use/modification/distribution. If/when FAR 0.15 comes about, even ferram is bound by the previous GPL (assuming 0.15 is built from 0.14.7v).

Sorry to harp on about this but licensing is important with software. Mod creators too readily throw around GPLs without realizing that doing so gives up many rights. Other sow fear by suggesting that f/oss lives under threat of pullback by original authors. With GPLv3 free really does mean free.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Sandworm

[regex]

Ah, but when something is released as open source (GPLv3) then the creator is no longer an exclusive copyright holder. Each member of the public becomes a copyright holder. The original author cannot put it back in the bottle. It is not possible to "GPL" something to a specific group.

Incorrect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing

A number of businesses use multi-licensing to distribute a GPL version and sell a proprietary license to companies wishing to combine the package with proprietary code, using dynamic linking or not. Examples of such companies include MySQL AB, Digia PLC (Qt framework, before 2011 from Nokia), Red Hat (Cygwin) and Riverbank Computing (PyQt). Other companies, like the Mozilla Foundation (products include Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla Thunderbird and Mozilla Firefox), used multi-licensing to distribute versions under the GPL and some other open-source licenses.

Also, please read up:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

And then there's this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1409666/switching-licence-from-gpl-to-bsd-in-later-time

And this:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation†of the GPL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing#License_compatibility

Multi licensing is used by the copyright holders of some free software packages advertising their willingness to distribute using both a copyleft free software license and a non-free software license. The latter license typically offers users the software as proprietary software or offers third parties the source code without copyleft provisions. Copyright holders are exercising the monopoly they're provided under copyright in this scenario, but also use multi licensing to distinguish the rights and freedoms different recipients receive.

Copyleft relies on the strength of copyright. The original author can do as they wish with their own code but they cannot revoke rights that have already been granted. That is, if the license changes, they cannot revoke licenses already granted, but that does not entitle previous users of the code to the new code under the new license to use the new code as if it was still under the old license. Again, code in the wild under a "free" license is forever free, but the copyright holder can change the license any time they want, using their exclusive monopoly, for any future versions.

This is why copyleft works, because of the strength of copyright.

If/when FAR 0.15 comes about, even ferram is bound by the previous GPL (assuming 0.15 is built from 0.14.7v).

If ferram4 were the sole author then, no, he is not bound by the GPLv3 for future versions (if he isn't sole author, all authors must agree to a re-license). He is free to re-license 0.15 as he sees fit. However, the 0.14.7 codebase is still covered under the GPLv3 as you cannot revoke rights you have already assigned and that people may have access to.

E: It's important to note here that if ferram4 had not accepted any changes from other authors into his versions of FAR then the other authors would not have any say over a license change. Certainly they could continue to work on the codebase from the version they had before the re-license but, as ferram4 is the original copyright holder, they could not change the license themselves.

I've dealt with this on a previous project. I used GPL code in a BSD project and had to get the permission of all the GPL copyright holders in order to relicense, and preserve my licensing. Thankfully they were gracious enough to do that since I would have simply abandoned that feature for my users instead of polluting my project.

Sorry to harp on about this but licensing is important with software. Mod creators too readily throw around GPLs without realizing that doing so gives up many rights. Other sow fear by suggesting that f/oss lives under threat of pullback by original authors. With GPLv3 free really does mean free.

I, too, am sorry to harp on about this but I believe that creators should know their rights as copyright holders. Just because you've previously licensed something as GPLv3 (or whatever other license you name) does not mean it must always remain GPLv3, but any versions that were under that license in the wild must remain available to those who already have it under that license. Again, further changes under a new license do not entitle previous users under the old license to use the new code as if it were under the old license. Edited April 25, 2015 by regex

[touzenesmy]

Seriously, paid mods wil kill mods, end of story.

[Fengist]

My 2 cents.

• Modding costs money - When you figure in everything from electricity, the food you eat, to the price of the software that people use to create mods, it's not cheap. Though there are many open source and free pieces of software you can use to develop mods, most don't compare to commercial products.
  
• Modding takes time - You guys are comparing how long it takes a mod creator to make something to how much money they'll get in return. One thing you're forgetting is the amount of time and money they spent on the education to create mods. Learning how to mod in KSP is NOT easy, I know, I've tried.
  
• Other people are already profiting off the labor of modders - While it may be a labor of love to create mods, that labor gets turned into cash somewhere down the line, whether it results in more sales for Squad or websites like Curse who hosts those mods. It's money.
  
• When it's a 'labor of love', divorces happen - How many mods can you think of that have been either abandoned or taken over by someone else? How many mods can you think of (you old timers) from Spaceport that just vanished? As a shareware author I can tell you that anything I've written as freeware was a one-shot deal. I wrote it and gave it away, I almost never went back to upgrade or improve it. My shareware is a very different story. I constantly work to improve it.
  

Take a look around at what this 'open source' movement has created. Even the Apache Software Foundation, one of the most non-profit non-profits you'll find, realize the need for money. Here's their 990 from 2013. They took in over 1.2 million. Why? Because even labors of love cost money. Mozilla for you who think Firefox is a labor of love? $25 million. Even GitHub, where most modders store their code... has a for-profit business model based off these labors of love. While I like my neighbor well enough, I'm not going to go mow their lawn every week for free simply because I like to mow.

KSP is a great game, don't get me wrong and Squad deserves to profit off what they've created. But, it's the modding community that has made it work. Had mods not been developed, I'd have dropped it a long time ago. Squad needs to figure out a way to keep these modders producing and maintaining mods and the surest way is with cash.

[Devinci]

I don't see the problem. If someone make a good enough mod that others would want to buy then so be it. Why would that bother you in any way? I really would like to see some mods worth spending my money on and there sure are some already available for free. You have to understand that it takes time and effort to make mods so it's understandable if the modders get a little bit of money from it. Furthermore it'll make more interesting mods come to light.

[jwenting]

never noticed having to pay for skyrim mods... Sure, there's a "premium download service" at nexus, which is effectively the same as the premium service curse offers where the official KSP mod repository is hosted. You pay for fewer ads and higher download speeds.

[Van Disaster]

I should point out that I object to paid mods; I don't object in theory to officially licensed 3rd party DLC administered by Squad, with a percentage of the profit going to Squad to support the KSP core, and with guaranteed support. Unfortunately those tend to end up as a millstone when you want to do core updates, but you win some & lose some. I don't think a DLC market like a lot of other simulators would be a good thing for KSP, but it's the least bad option IMO. Also I'd be a bit hypocritical to attempt to shoot that idea down...

People effectively riding on Squad's efforts without any recompense to Squad, no. People asking for money with no guarantee of future support, no to that too. Modding with guarantees of quality & support? that's a job.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Kerbart]

Seriously, paid mods wil kill mods, end of story.

I guess that ends the discussion. The amount of arguments you show is overwhelming and hard to counter.

[Motokid600]

I found this quite funny.

The memes coming out from all this is the silver lining.

[Raven.]

If it happened, it would be absolutely legal and understandable (although a real PITA). Software development is a lot of work: if one wishes to get paid for it, he/she has a point.

Not saying that it would be a good business model, I'm just saying that it's understandable.

Now, what skyrim mods are gonna be paid? As a skyrim player, I'm worried.

Before Skyrim came out and when Oblivion was the big thing, a few people behind the scenes at the Nexus were talking about it, but they never pursued it. Their thoughts were mainly that modders who invest a lot of time into developing a mod should be somehow compensated for their work.

Me personally, I'm against it.