[Guide] Combining and remixing multiple add-ons with different Creative Commons licences

[sumghai]

[Guide] Combining and remixing multiple add-ons with different Creative Commons licences

For add-on authors who are into the business of combining and remixing other people's works, here's a nice little table showing which licences can be combined:

Instructions

1) Choose two add-ons you wish to combine or remix.

2) Find the license of the first add-ons on the first row and the license of the second add-ons on the first column.

3) If there is a check mark in the cell where the row and column intersect, you can combine both add-ons - use the most restrictive licensing of the two (use the license most to right or down state) for the new add-on.

4) If, however, there is cross at the intersection, you cannot combine both add-ons.

---

Remixing add-ons with a NonCommercial building block

It is not possible to mix add-ons where the first add-on is placed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license and the second add-on is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. The ShareAlike building block in first license requires that the newly created work is released under that license and can therefore be used commercially, whereas the second license requires you to release the new add-on under a license that does not permit commercial use.

---

Remixing add-ons with a NoDerivative building block

It is not possible to use an add-on in a remix where NoDerivative is a building block, as said add-ons released under this license may only be distributed in their original form. This restriction also applies to portions/subsets of the original add-on, including cropped or lower-resolution images/textures.

---

Original Version

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Wiki/cc_license_compatibility - fixed spelling/grammatical errors in the original, adapted paragraphs to fit the context of add-on authoring for KSP.

Edited July 29, 2015 by sumghai
Emphasis on using the "most restrictive" licence for combined works

[*Aqua*]

What if we add in the BSD (2-, 3- & 4-clause), MIT, GPL and LGPL licenses? Do they work with CC? Do they work in whatever combination?

[sumghai]

What if we add in the BSD (2-, 3- & 4-clause), MIT, GPL and LGPL licenses? Do they work with CC? Do they work in whatever combination?

Combination of those licences with/without CC is much, much more difficult, if not impossible, as said licences often have conflicting terms. The Wikipedia entry on Licence compatibility explains this in detail.

A good general rule of thumb would be: If in doubt, don't use/combine/remix those add-on(s).

[*Aqua*]

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I have to check again what license ModuleManager uses.

[sumghai]

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I have to check again what license ModuleManager uses.

Looks like it's CC BY-SA:

Licence & Source

Module manager source is under a "CC share-alike license" under the term specified by ialdabaoth here. He is the original creator of Module Manager.

[*Aqua*]

I just checked what license I included with MM in my mod and it was quite simple:

ModuleManager

=============

Original © from Ialdabaoth ( https://github.com/Ialdabaoth )

Modified by // Modifications by // Maintained by sarbian ( https://github.com/sarbian )

The original licence requirement was:

---

under a CC share-alike license. Anyone is free to do anything they like with ModuleManager's source, with two caveats:

1. You credit me as the original creator that your code is based on

2. You make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that your code is not the original ModuleManager, and that any problems that people have with your fork should be taken up with YOU, not me.

---

THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL MODULEMANAGER CODE.

Do not bother Ialdabaoth about any problems with it.

This is ok, isn't it?

[sumghai]

I just checked what license I included with MM in my mod and it was quite simple:

This is ok, isn't it?

I believe so.

[cantab]

In my view there is a Step Zero: Determine if you will be producing and sharing "Adapted Material". The Creative Commons licenses do not directly address this matter, you would need to look to wider precedent in copyright law. It appears to be generally accepted for example that a mod may combine multiple files distributed under various different licenses - that including them in the same download and even having some rely on others for correct functioning does not constitute producing adapted material. But I don't know if any relevant situation has ever come to court.

[sumghai]

In my view there is a Step Zero: Determine if you will be producing and sharing "Adapted Material". The Creative Commons licenses do not directly address this matter, you would need to look to wider precedent in copyright law. It appears to be generally accepted for example that a mod may combine multiple files distributed under various different licenses - that including them in the same download and even having some rely on others for correct functioning does not constitute producing adapted material. But I don't know if any relevant situation has ever come to court.

I presume you mean situations where certain mods include copies of dependencies such as, say, the ModuleManager or Firespitter DLL?

My personal approach is to not bundle those dependencies at all, but simply tell people to install it separately themselves in the README / release thread OP. While this may annoy certain users who prefer everything they need to be include in an all-in-one package, not only does my approach sidestep the licencing/redistribution issue, but also ensures that said dependencies can be updated independently from their original source without versioning conflicts. Add-on managers like CKAN make this process much easier for proponents of all-in-one add-on installations.

[sardet]

It's more clear now