Let's put this in a nicer, less egotistic way...

[Stone Blue]

^^ Yup... About the only thing beyond THAT, might be to get some modders together to come up with a list of "guidelines" (NOT RULES), of things they as modders would like to see both modders and the community follow... A thread where civil discussion of expectations and hopes of what would be good for the community as a whole...

Again, NOTHING should be forced on modders... Just a place to encourage modders to voluntarily follow similar ways of presenting mods, and encourage open licenses, but also a place to help educate and encourage users to understand where modders are coming from, and that there are certain etiquettes and ethics to consider beyond just the legalities of licenses, as well as expecting support or updates.

[Temeter]

There are actually a lot of mods that changed ownership. I think even big stuff like EVE, KAS, and mechjeb switched the modder? Often seeing outdated forum threads from before a mod chnaged. KW rocketry has it's community fixes done by other parts of the community, and that's pretty much the reason there wasn't another official release.

Otherwise I don't really see what else is there to do, aside ofc the mentioned encouragement of modders to use open licenses.

Not sure what else you're expecting. I think it is a bit hard to justify to nail down modders with rules or anything, taking their property away in any way. The whole idea of modding is based around the willingness of sharing, there is little room to enforce anything, as long as they don't ask for money.

[monstah]

2 hours ago, regex said:

Convince mod authors to use more permissive licences.  That's all you can do.  It's their work, their choice, anyone else has literally no say in the matter.

 

46 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

As noted above, about the only thing you can do is encourage open licensing.  That's it. 

Yeah, that's what I was going to say, too. Plenty of good mods here that exist because the original author abandoned them but said 'take care of it whoever feels like it'. 

3 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

But isn't it quite a slap in the face when something like kerbalstuff gets removed? There has to be some kind of process that a modder has to follow- a whole community depends on him, right? (...) What if a real-life company that billions depend on, such as Microsoft, suddenly shuts down?

But, the thing is, life slaps you in the face. Hell, entire governments sometimes vanish from night to day. It's bad. People lose a lot sometimes. But it's always a modder's right to say "I'm done, and I don't want you to continue developing/maintaining my mod". You may be offended, and sometimes you may even be right to be offended, but it doesn't make it less a modder's right. So, no, we cannot force a way to continue mods.

We can, as noted, give modders incentives to make their mod's licences permissive. How do you do that, you ask? Well, being nice to the modders always helps  I'm not saying you are not, by the way. I understand your frustration, and I can most definetely relate to the feeling of "I have this opinion and don't know how to express it without being a jackass". I've been there many, many, times. So, at risk of unintentionally sounding like a jackass myself, I'll just suggest you drop this idea.

 

[Andem]

So what I'm getting from @Matuchkins posts is that he wants a safety net for mods and community made supplements and recources. So, when a modder decides that he can't work on a mod anymore, he/she can select a successor from a list of volunteers so our favorite mods don't vanish off of the face of the earth. I would appreciate that, but as @monstah said it's 100% the modders right to use said system or to ignore it completely. I would gladly set up a thread with a list of volunteers for modders on permanent leave.

[monstah]

18 minutes ago, Andem said:

So what I'm getting from @Matuchkins posts is that he wants a safety net for mods and community made supplements and recources. So, when a modder decides that he can't work on a mod anymore, he/she can select a successor from a list of volunteers so our favorite mods don't vanish off of the face of the earth. I would appreciate that, but as @monstah said it's 100% the modders right to use said system or to ignore it completely. I would gladly set up a thread with a list of volunteers for modders on permanent leave.

I didn't think it that way, but you're right. Some sort of service would be good, if only for advertising that, "hey, modders! If you advertise your mod here, people may continue it after you're tired of it!"

They're free to ignore it, but, and I say that from a background of working on reducing healthcare costs, that sometimes people just need a gentle nudge to do the right thing they're already inclined to do.

[rbray89]

1 hour ago, Temeter said:

There are actually a lot of mods that changed ownership. I think even big stuff like EVE, KAS, and mechjeb switched the modder?

EVE has always been mine  I was on a bit of a hiatus for a while though.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Maybe modders should consider making their licenses more open (re-distribution, modification, etc, with attribution), however not allowing changes to the license?  That should allow any interested party to continue development and hosting, even if the original author/hosting site decides or is forced to move on. 

Maybe someone should write a new license saying that if the author has not been "active" in maintaining the mod, or has not stated an intent to continue the development process, someone else may continue development with attribution.  I'm not a lawyer though, so this may be a bad idea.

On the other hand, the above would be perfect for a user.  Modders are, as a majority, modding for as a hobby.  Just because many people enjoy what they create does not mean that they should do anything if that hobby is no longer worthwhile/fun/whatever to them. 

Maybe the License Selection Guide should be updated to include consideration of this?

[Temeter]

36 minutes ago, rbray89 said:

EVE has always been mine  I was on a bit of a hiatus for a while though.

You're right, now I remember. There were always a large number of derivative mods to eve tho.

[Matuchkin]

1 hour ago, Andem said:

So what I'm getting from @Matuchkins posts is that he wants a safety net for mods and community made supplements and recources. So, when a modder decides that he can't work on a mod anymore, he/she can select a successor from a list of volunteers so our favorite mods don't vanish off of the face of the earth. I would appreciate that, but as @monstah said it's 100% the modders right to use said system or to ignore it completely. I would gladly set up a thread with a list of volunteers for modders on permanent leave.

Yes, exactly. I'm thinking of making a light trend from it, as I said below.

1 hour ago, monstah said:

I didn't think it that way, but you're right. Some sort of service would be good, if only for advertising that, "hey, modders! If you advertise your mod here, people may continue it after you're tired of it!"

They're free to ignore it, but, and I say that from a background of working on reducing healthcare costs, that sometimes people just need a gentle nudge to do the right thing they're already inclined to do.

Sure, that's actually better. I acknowledge the fact that modders can't be forced to do stuff with their mods, but why not just do those things? Actually, why not make it like the "no pics no clicks" trend, except something with mods? Perfectly free to do whatever one wants to do with his own mod, but it is generally better to save it or give it to a successor.

[RoverDude]

35 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Sure, that's actually better. I acknowledge the fact that modders can't be forced to do stuff with their mods, but why not just do those things? Actually, why not make it like the "no pics no clicks" trend, except something with mods? Perfectly free to do whatever one wants to do with his own mod, but it is generally better to save it or give it to a successor.

That last bit... no.  That's just rude, and an excellent example of what NOT to do.  You kinda need to let it go - people are going to do what they wish, and pressuring them to do something they don't want to is just going to liquid them off.

Add semi-related... 'No pics no clicks' is rude.  'I won't download your mod unless you host it on site X' is also rude.  

I'll say it again.  Your best bet is to just be nice.  Everything else follows from that.

Edited April 13, 2016 by RoverDude

[Matuchkin]

9 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I'll say it again.  Your best bet is to just be nice.  Everything else follows from that.

Sure, wise words. I guess it all comes down to that.

[stupid_chris]

You are clearly omitting, that like any artistic/media/etc. creation, code/models/a mod is the intellectual property of the owner. The modder fully owns it and everything associated to it, unless released as public domain (which is extremely rare). This idea of "if you stop, you MUST ensure legacy" is completely nonsensical. If an author decides to stop writing a book series, what can you do? If your favourite band breaks up, what will you say? The answer is, not much. This is the concerned people's decision entirely. Sometimes it is a crappy way to go, but this is nowhere for anyone except the creator to decide.

Modders are doing all of this for free. This isn't a service. This isn't a job. This isn't community work. This is a hobby. A hobby that is very time consuming, and hardly rewarding. This idea that we owe the community an explanation, or retribution for abandoning projects we are no longer interested in, is completely unfair and a toxic attitude to have. You, or anyone else on the internet, is not entitled to my work I put out here for free.

If you want to limit the amount of mods that go missing, of abandoned projects, and of driven out creators, consider this: be nice to your fellow mod makers. We are humans. We spend a lot of energy, and sometimes even money, to put out content we believe the community will enjoy. Thank the modders for updates, and let them know you are grateful for what they do. I can assure you that if everyone did that, sudden departures would be exceptionally rare.

Chris out.

Edited April 13, 2016 by stupid_chris

[PolecatEZ]

47 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Maybe modders should consider making their licenses more open (re-distribution, modification, etc, with attribution), however not allowing changes to the license?  That should allow any interested party to continue development and hosting, even if the original author/hosting site decides or is forced to move on. 

Maybe someone should write a new license saying that if the author has not been "active" in maintaining the mod, or has not stated an intent to continue the development process, someone else may continue development with attribution.  I'm not a lawyer though, so this may be a bad idea.

On the other hand, the above would be perfect for a user.  Modders are, as a majority, modding for as a hobby.  Just because many people enjoy what they create does not mean that they should do anything if that hobby is no longer worthwhile/fun/whatever to them. 

Maybe the License Selection Guide should be updated to include consideration of this?

That's just it, that license selection guide was basically written as an emergency response to the very nascent modding community at the time.  Off-the-shelf solutions for licensing - many parts of which have no bearing on the game and lacking parts that fail to address KSP specific aspects.  Besides, the legalese in the license is only as good as someone is willing to ever practically enforce it.

They would need re-written in plain language -

- Levels or Classes of License (KISS, 3 or 4 max "types" of license, ranging between "Full Open, Go Nuts" to "It dies with me!")

- No license would grant any rights to any content outside the context of KSP.  That would need to be handled by explicit separate agreement.

- Be very clear (in KSP terms) what aspects the license covers.

- Exactly what the internal enforcement would be and how, official forums, Curse, Github, etc.

- Each level would have specifics covering abandonment, forking code, etc.

- Each would have rights and responsibilities of both users and creators attached.

- Each could be easily referenced in plain language, and users would be aware at a glance the type of support they can expect in respect to the longevity of the mod and impact on his game.  This can include short disclosures at the top of the readme.txt "Class D license, continuing support of this mod is the sole right of the original creator and the mod may become obsolete at any time."

- Portions of a mod package can be designated as having different license types.

 

 

[anxcon]

@Matuchkin do not use my mods

@allothers setting my licenses open to use / edit / do stuff, with the above exception

Edited April 13, 2016 by anxcon

[Andem]

Of course, the main goal is always to avoid burning out modders. That doesn't always work, and sometimes that isn't even the issue. But trying to provide a place where they can-- if they choose --allow someone else to take over, even temporarily. People already do it anyway w/o permission, why not provide a place for modders to choose who has their hands on it next.

Being nice isn't always the solution. Sometimes we need to be there to pick up broken pieces like with what happened to Kerbalstuff.

10 minutes ago, anxcon said:

@Matuchkin do not use my mods

@allothers setting my licenses open to use / edit / do stuff, with the above exception

I think that's a tad unfair and unrealistic.

[soundnfury]

11 minutes ago, stupid_chris said:

If you want to limit the amount of mods that go missing, of abandoned projects, and of driven out creators, consider this: be nice to your fellow mod makers. We are humans. We spend a lot of energy, and sometimes even money, to put out content we believe the community will enjoy. Thank the modders for updates, and let them know you are grateful for what they do. I can assure you that if everyone did that, sudden departures would be exceptionally rare.

This is all totally true.  But at the same time, I think any modder who doesn't release under a copyleft or permissive license is doing a disservice, not only to the community, but also to himself.  Let me explain that:

Because all my mods are open-source, I know I can leave them on hiatus, or just drop them and walk away, at any time, and if anyone cares and wants them maintained, they can take them over.  That takes a lot of pressure off me, and makes me less likely to feel the need to walk away.  Ultimately, open source is the safety net — for me as well, not just for my users*.

I don't think we should try to force modders into anything.  But I strongly recommend to modders that they should choose to go open source.

 

* Saying 'users', plural, might be optimistic in my case... my point still stands.

[RoverDude]

@PolecatEZ - we do not need new licenses.  The selection we have out there is perfectly fine.  If a modder wishes to allow others to redistribute or modify their stuff, awesome.  There are licenses for that.  If they feel they are being abused by the community, they can change it as well.

And sorry, @Andem - being nice is pretty much the only solution you have.  Trying to figure out ways of roping in the intellectual property of others at their expense for your benefit is just going to annoy people, and guarantee more restrictive licensing.  I think @stupid_chris summed it up pretty well above.  It's not pretty, but it's reality.

Edited April 13, 2016 by RoverDude

[stupid_chris]

5 minutes ago, soundnfury said:

This is all totally true.  But at the same time, I think any modder who doesn't release under a copyleft or permissive license is doing a disservice, not only to the community, but also to himself.  Let me explain that:

Because all my mods are open-source, I know I can leave them on hiatus, or just drop them and walk away, at any time, and if anyone cares and wants them maintained, they can take them over.  That takes a lot of pressure off me, and makes me less likely to feel the need to walk away.  Ultimately, open source is the safety net — for me as well, not just for my users*.

I don't think we should try to force modders into anything.  But I strongly recommend to modders that they should choose to go open source.

 

* Saying 'users', plural, might be optimistic in my case... my point still stands.

However, the mod is still my propriety, and if I do not want someone else to claim ownership of my work, it is my right.

I'm saying that out of experience. RealChute initially was under a permissive license. This massively backfired in my face. The Internet is a very vast network, and some people are unfortunately ill intentioned. If I had no fear that my work would be twisted into ways I do not like, I would have no trouble releasing under permissive license. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and now any derivative of RealChute has to go through me.

Edited April 13, 2016 by stupid_chris

[RoverDude]

6 minutes ago, Andem said:

I think that's a tad unfair and unrealistic.

But it's within his rights, even if we disagree with it.

And @soundnfury - @stupid_chris is 100% correct - I remember that particular kerfluffle.  Modders asked nicely, users got entitled and did stuff, using the 'but the license says I can so tough' excuse, and they got locked down mods as a result.

Any attempt to force or coerce creative folks to serve your interests instead of theirs will, pretty consistently, blow up in your face.

Be nice.  Be respectful.  Ask for things nicely, understand when a modder says no.  Pretty easy stuff really, and goes a long way.

[soundnfury]

Just now, stupid_chris said:

However, the mod is still my propriety, and if I do not one someone else to claim ownership of my work, it is my right.

I just want to make absolutely clear that I'm not disputing that, and I think that the people who are claiming the right to ignore that are behaving like spoiled little brats.  That said...

2 minutes ago, stupid_chris said:

RealChute initially was under a permissive license. This massively backfired in my face.

Care to elaborate on what happened?  I don't know the history here.  (And I'll just note that it's possible to have a permissive license while restricting use of the mod's name, or your name, to approved versions.)

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, soundnfury said:

 (And I'll just note that it's possible to have a permissive license while restricting use of the mod's name, or your name, to approved versions.)

Of course it is.  Yet that does not stop stupid support requests from coming in, because everyone knows what it was forked off of.  Especially when your 'fork' is just turning off guard clauses explicitly put in by the modder (which has happened a few times here) to prevent support issues.

 

And yeah, all paths still lead to 'don't act like a spoiled brat', be nice, ask nicely, respect modder's wishes.  While it probably sounds like a broken record by now, it's something that sometimes this community forgets.

Edited April 13, 2016 by RoverDude

[Andem]

1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

And sorry, @Andem - being nice is pretty much the only solution you have.  Trying to figure out ways of roping in the intellectual property of others at their expense for your benefit is just going to annoy people, and guarantee more restrictive licensing.

Respectfully diagreeing... We can encourage and incentivize modders to pass the torch with niceness as one of the tools, not the only one. And also, that is most definitely not my intention. My intention is to provide an option for modders to choose who continues their work. You make it sound like piracy... It is not in any way, shape, or form.

 

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

But it's within his rights, even if we disagree with it.

Of course it is. And I do, it just seems a little silly.

[stupid_chris]

12 minutes ago, soundnfury said:

I just want to make absolutely clear that I'm not disputing that, and I think that the people who are claiming the right to ignore that are behaving like spoiled little brats.  That said...

Care to elaborate on what happened?  I don't know the history here.  (And I'll just note that it's possible to have a permissive license while restricting use of the mod's name, or your name, to approved versions.)

It's simple. Back around 0.24, Squad released 64bit builds on the Windows platform for KSP. The reason they did that was because the community had found a way to hack/force the game into doing so. So ensued "official" support. The thing is, this platform was *insanely* unstable. To some extends, unplayable, although it was variable, and sometimes held tight. Combined with the average user's total ignorance of how to properly report a bug, this led to a full on flood of half-baked bug reports coming from the Winx64 builds of the game, that revealed to be too intricate into the unstability of Unity to even make any sense. So once 0.25 released, a very large collectivity of modders, including myself, decided to lock the game on the Winx64 builds. We refused to support a version too unstable to make sense on bug reports.

This, of course, let to an army of forks unlocking the mods on x64. In my case, a particularly nasty individual went to some very large extents to make RealChute publicly available on Winx64. This is what led me to lock RealChute, and abandon it for the next few months. And I'm not about to discuss my motives here and now, so I'd appreciate if we do not go into a discussion of whether I should or not have done it, because I'm not participating.

Edited April 14, 2016 by stupid_chris

[soundnfury]

1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

Of course it is.  Yet that does not stop stupid support requests from coming in, because everyone knows what it was forked off of.  Especially when your 'fork' is just turning off guard clauses explicitly put in by the modder (which has happened a few times here) to prevent support issues.

Wow.  Just wow.  Let me guess: the guard clause was for 64 bit?

Some people in this community are really forking entitled.

If I were running the community (I know, that would end terribly, but bear with me) anyone who pestered a modder about issues in a fork like that would get banhammered, hard.  And I'd hold the fork-maker responsible for their behaviour, too.

 

I'd still keep the license open, though; can't let the forkers grind me down

[stupid_chris]

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

Respectfully diagreeing... We can encourage and incentivize modders to pass the torch with niceness as one of the tools, not the only one. And also, that is most definitely not my intention. My intention is to provide an option for modders to choose who continues their work. You make it sound like piracy... It is not in any way, shape, or form.

Intellectual property is not something you choose who you pass it on to, but if you pass it on. This is not something that is up for discussion, that is basic respect of intellectual property and of copyright.