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

[Matuchkin]

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I'm just failing to see the problem space here.

Originally, the problem was the shutdown of numerous, very important mods for KSP. I am trying to think up a friendly way to avoid that, without depriving modders from their own freedom with their mods..

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, Matuchkin said:

Originally, the problem was the shutdown of numerous, very important mods for KSP. I am trying to think up a friendly way to avoid that, without depriving modders from their own freedom with their mods..

Why is it that someone doing what they wish with their own IP seen as unfriendly?  

And sorry, we've been telling you for several pages now exactly what to do if you want to encourage folks to keep sharing and establish continuity.  It's really not that hard.

[Andem]

33 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

I'm not keen on this idea. I think a hand over of a mod should be a discreet discussion between interested parties, and I think the current means to get those appropriate parties together is already there, meaning posting to the release thread and private messaging/emails.

I think if you put together public lists, you'll get hurt feelings and possibly too many people stumbling over each other if they all DO get picked to fork or continue a mod. You can have well meaning but not really qualified people ending up taking over a mod... plus a zillion other things that could happen that sometimes shouldnt be publicly discussed

Do you mean some team of random individuals choosing who gets to maintain/update a mod, or the original modder gets to decide? I mean the latter. If something was bothering me enough to make me quit, I would want to choose someone who was willing to take the challenge of keeping it alive. What I'm creating is a cache of people who have signed up to help in any way they can if they are chosen by a modder. If someone can or will not behave for something they volunteered for, they can get removed from the list.

[Matuchkin]

44 minutes ago, stupid_chris said:

Because it's My Apple© and what I do with it is My Decision™.

Which is why you do not pointlessly throw away your Apple^©, you keep your apple for the future, because you like it and you do not want to pointlessly lose it.

As Andem put it:

45 minutes ago, Andem said:

Tell me if you disagree with creating a list of people willing to pick you up when you fall.

Thank you. Someone with my mindset. 

 

By the way, this is how most people are acting in this thread:

"I have the right to fall and die (even though I don't have to), and I have the right not to choose someone to save me (even though I have multiple people who can). Therefore, I choose to die pointlessly in order to express my rights."

Just because it's your apple, doesn't mean you want to lose it pointlessly. Just because it's your life and your decision, doesn't mean you'd prefer to kill yourself to show off your right. Just because it's your mod, your decision, and you're not obliged to anyone, doesn't mean that you will choose a complete, pointless removal of the mod, instead of using your work usefully by choosing an easy way to keep the script and let someone else take over (or put the mod back in action when you feel like it).

If you chose the masochistic answers to each one of those statements, I have some serious questions to ask.

[RoverDude]

@Matuchkin - I find the implications in your last post incredibly rude.  You are becoming a prime example of the problem you're railing against.  

Cheers, I'm out.

[stupid_chris]

5 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Which is why you do not pointlessly throw away your Apple^©, you keep your apple for the future, because you like it and you do not want to pointlessly lose it.

I said it. It's My Decision™. This is getting a "how long can I repeat myself" game.

5 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

If you chose the masochistic answers to each one of those statements, I have some serious questions to ask.

You should go have a serious discussion with artists who don't want their art shared where they cannot get credit, or used without their permission. I'd like to see you go "Why restrict it? Your art is so beautiful you should want everyone to see it!"

Best recent example is Konami. A bunch of MGS fans started recreating the first MGS in Unreal Engine. It was going fabulous, until Konami decided to step in and claim their IP and force shutdown the project.

I don't understand their motives. But I don't have to. No one does. It sucks, but this is how things are, and how things work.

As @RoverDude just said, this is going nowhere, and I've repeated the same thing over again. Try to read my posts again and let what I wrote sink in. All the answers to all the questions you asked are in them. You're simply not liking them.

Peace out like a trout.

Edited April 14, 2016 by stupid_chris

[Van Disaster]

To be fair to Konami, I worked on a (team!) mod long long ago which was shut down by the producer of the host game because they had an IP-related legal obligation to somehow, even though they didn't want to. They were very nice about it & even helped find a workaround, but all the momentum was dead by then.

On topic, nobody is under any obligation to explain their decisions regarding their IP, end of story. If you can't put up with that somehow, DIY.

[NathanKell]

While I don't disagree with the General Modder Line (tm) which I think has been ably expounded (though I am sympathetic to the not-opposite-so-much-as-orthogonal points @soundnfury is making, and this is generally the approach I take towards my own mods), I'd like to proceed in a slightly different direction, and perhaps offer a more constructive approach.

 

The best way to encourage open licenses is for you--yes, you, dear reader!--to yourself foster an open community. If you like a mod, help out where you can--and I don't even mean coding or anything big like that per se. But there will be tons of support requests on the thread: try to answer them. The dev may ask for feedback or testing: try to provide it. Someone might get a bit harsh: try to calm them down. Let's look at three effects:

1. The mod dev has an easier, happier experience, thus inducing her to keep working on the mod.

2. The mod dev thinks: "ah, this is a nice, open community, I ought to reflect that in my own behavior and my license."* And, "even if there are a few jerks, well, the community will deal with the fallout of that and less harm will come to me."

3. It makes it much more likely that potential successor-maintainers want to get involved (and do get involved), so if the mod dev does need to step away, there are people there to whom she can turn to continue work (if she hasn't already farmed some out!)

 

This is how RO has managed to go through four main maintainers over its time, and rather seamlessly at that, with many of the same people working on it still, just being more or less active at times.

 

"Be the change you want" is a hackneyed phrase, but particularly in this thread it cannot be overemphasized. If you want to persuade mod devs to behave a certain way, the best way is to model the behavior you want to see. Arguing with someone what they should do with the stuff they have already offered to you is...not usually a recipe for success. Instead of telling people how to behave, show them how.

 

*Note: just because a license isn't open doesn't mean a modder isn't open to a successor taking over; so the main point of 2 is that it leads the mod dev to be open to successors carrying on her work, not necessarily having an open license per se.

[Red Iron Crown]

Pardon this wall of text, there's a TL;DR at the bottom.

I am not a modder nor am I a community-run site operator, but I have benefited greatly from their work for a long time, and have also felt the loss when a mod I like is abandoned or when a good site is shut down. I have three things to say about the relationship between volunteers and the community:

The first is: We have no right to make volunteers obligated to keep volunteering. It's their time, their knowledge, and their talent that makes possible the things that they do. They have near absolute right to do what they please with their work, whether that is to share it openly, share it privately, share it on whatever terms they feel are fair, or not share it at all. If they choose to withdraw their work from the community it is their right to do so in as smooth or abrupt a fashion as they desire, and we have literally no leverage to prevent them from doing so, nor should we. If we load up volunteers with onerous obligations we will get far fewer volunteers. It's nearly impossible to keep someone from quitting a job for which they are not paid, and taking their work with them. It's really as simple as that.

The second thing is: Volunteers should share with the community and make provisions for their work to continue. They are not obligated to do so, but it's bad for the community when they don't. In an ideal world, every modder and site operator would continue volunteering for as long as a project interests them, find a suitable successor if they do move on, and use permissive licensing so that their projects can continue if they get hit by a bus or something. This isn't some legal obligation, it's just a good thing to do. This is a higher standard of behavior than what is required of a volunteer (due to the first point above), but we really want them to follow it. Because it's awful when good things are taken away or allowed to die.

So that brings us to the third thing: We can encourage volunteers to share with the community and make provisions for their work to continue. If we want them to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior, we need to hold ourselves to one, too. By far the best way to make a volunteer want to share their work with a community is to make that community one they want to share with. This goes beyond common civility and the crass stuff covered by the community rules, this is an effort that users must make above and beyond that. So what can we do?

• Contribute. If you have skills that are applicable (modelling, texturing, coding, writing CFGs, web development, etc), help out with your favorite project if you can. Good contributors also often make good successors when a project changes hands.
• Help with support. A lot of mod threads and such are filled with new users asking repetitive questions that can be answered by more experienced users, if you can answer one confidently then do so. That's one small bit of the support workload gone, so the volunteer can focus on more difficult things.
• Give useful, friendly feedback. If a project is good, tell them so and why. If you have criticism, make it constructive and detailed. If you find bugs, make your report thorough and include logs and all other relevant info. Offer useful suggestions on ways their work could be even better.
• Spread the word. Community projects live on word of mouth, if you like one tell others about it.
• Don't nag or pester, ever. Every time someone makes a demand, that's one more straw on the back of the volunteer, one step closer to the day they decide to stop.
• Encourage open licensing. Use and support permissively licensed mods over restrictively licensed ones, where possible. Don't make hostile forks. Honor the wishes of the modder even if they're beyond the letter of the license, lest they choose a license that is more restrictive.
• Buy a volunteer a coffee. If your circumstances allow, throw some cash to those volunteers whose work you enjoy, if they have donate links.

If we want volunteers to treat our community well we have to treat them well. If we want high standards from them we have to hold ourselves to high standards.

TL;DR:
Volunteers can take their ball and go home.
Volunteers shouldn't take their ball and go home.
Volunteers can be encouraged not to take their ball and go home, by making them want to keep the game going. You can help!

[Stone Blue]

11 minutes ago, Andem said:

Do you mean some team of random individuals choosing who gets to maintain/update a mod, or the original modder gets to decide? I mean the latter. If something was bothering me enough to make me quit, I would want to choose someone who was willing to take the challenge of keeping it alive. What I'm creating is a cache of people who have signed up to help in any way they can if they are chosen by a modder. If someone can or will not behave for something they volunteered for, they can get removed from the list.

The modder....exactly... A modder looking to handover their mod will be able to pick and choose, without having a public list thrown at him, and a whole bunch of people clamoring to take over the mod.

 

[NathanKell]

So, @Red Iron Crown just made a much more comprehensive version of the point I was trying to make. Kudos, +1, etc. Agree with every word.

I do want to duck back and try to add a bit of a coda to the continuing impasse, though, because I don't think this has been covered sufficiently (or sufficiently explicitly); apologies if I am repeating.

That point is this: modders don't have the same goals as each other, let alone their users. If you are trying to persuade a modder to do something on the basis of a shared goal (more enjoyment for the community) that is going to blow up in your face because, for many modders, that simply isn't their goal. Ferram, for example, is quite clear even in the name of his mod that FAR is a research project: it's "how to model aerodynamics in an environment without fixed geometry, and over gigantic ranges in freestream properties." Many modders mod because there's something the game lacks for them so they make it for them, and then put it out for general use on the supposition that others might like to use it.

 

That's a far cry from the goal being "for the community to have a great mod." So if your argument is "but then the community won't have a great mod", it's not going to do much swaying.

 

Here's how all this connects to what Red and I are saying above: you can try to make that a goal for a modder. Not by arguing or guilting her into it, but by making the community something to which she wants to give further enjoyment, something she wants to have continual access to her work even after she moves on.

It will not always work. And if you try to make that happen where it's not--by descending into argument with the modder, rather than making a better community by example (and by exhortation, but mostly by example)--then, well, even modders who do  share the goal of a happy, mod-saturated community will start to have second thoughts. So please do bear that in mind.

[regex]

 

38 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Volunteers shouldn't take their ball and go home.

But they can if they want to.  I really want to stress this, no one should ever feel obligated to continue working on something that no longer interests them nor should they be expected to pass on their hard work for someone else to benefit from further.  You can benefit from a volunteer's work only so long as they want their work being available to you.

I would also hesitate to call the above behavior "lower" in standards.  It's just different.  The motivations are not yours and do not concern you, no matter what you have lost.  Whether you like it or not the work is not yours and you have zero expectations of behavior that must be met.  This is simply the transient nature of a not-for-profit creative hobby based around someone else's money-making enterprise.  And also my earnest opinion on the matter.

I say this as a modder who has passed on three mods already and is no longer "officially" modding, who uses a much more permissive license than the GPL, and who is still updating two passed-on mods for their community, and the large package of scripts that defines the community, because he feels like a part of a team.

E: I should also point out that at one point I was modding Minecraft and literally walked away from that community.  Just gone, logged out of the forums and never came back.  Because I used a permissive license someone picked up my abandoned code after a month or so and ran with it; the mod has passed through one additional author already and is still being updated and put into mod packs, including one that I recently downloaded.

This is why I believe that the only real defense against "important" mods going extinct is permissive licensing.

Well, that and people willing to put in their own hard work as needed.

Edited April 14, 2016 by regex

[Vanamonde]

I would just like to make the observation that "a slap in the face" is an extremely personal way to interpret the situation.

Say your neighbor has allowed you to borrow his lawn mower the last few times you asked, but this time he says no. The thing belongs to him and he's within his rights. It's not personal, and he owes you nothing. The fact that you've gotten used to it doesn't mean he's obligated to go on loaning it to you for as long as you want to borrow it. 

Losing access to a mod is like that. It may be frustrating, but you never had a claim on the thing in the first place, and you should have understood that this was a possibility all along. 

[Red Iron Crown]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

But they can if they want to.  I really want to stress this, no one should ever feel obligated to continue working on something that no longer interests them nor should they be expected to pass on their hard work for someone else to benefit from further.  You can benefit from a volunteer's work only so long as they want their work being available to you.

I agree, so much so that I made it my first point and used strong terms like "near absolute right to do what they please with their work". I would never suggest that volunteers be made to feel obligated to do what is best for the community, I am suggesting that we try to make the community one for which they want to do what's best.

7 minutes ago, regex said:

I would also hesitate to call the above behavior "lower" in standards.  It's just different.  The motivations are not yours and do not concern you, no matter what you have lost.  Whether you like it or not the work is not yours and you have zero expectations of behavior that must be met.  This is simply the transient nature of a not-for-profit creative hobby based around someone else's money-making enterprise.  And also my earnest opinion on the matter.

Their motivations most certainly do concern me, because I want them to stay motivated so we can all continue to enjoy their work. I don't have an expectation of behavior, just a desire for certain behavior (which by my own standard as a user is higher, because it benefits the community more). So I do my best to encourage that behavior even if there's no onus on anyone to follow it.

And if we're trading earnest opinions, I think less of modders or site hosts who don't follow that "different but not higher" standard. When a mod is summarily yanked with no option for continuation, or a site closed down without warning or transition plan, it feels like they're giving the finger to the community (and I guess sometimes that is what is intended). And not just the community of users, but also the community of other modders who have likely helped them along the way. Are they within their rights to do so? Absolutely. Will that stop me from thinking less of them? Absolutely not. Do they care what some guy on the forum like me thinks? Almost surely not, but that doesn't change how I feel about it.

For what it's worth I feel the same about users who don't do at least some of the things mentioned in my above post. They are within their rights to say whatever they like to modders (as long as the forum rules are followed), but that doesn't mean I think they should say some things, or that I won't think less of them when they do.

7 minutes ago, regex said:

I say this as a modder who has passed on three mods already and is no longer "officially" modding, who uses a much more permissive license than the GPL, and who is still updating two passed-on mods for their community, and the large package of scripts that defines the community, because he feels like a part of a team.

Good on you for sticking to that "different but not higher" standard. I consider that particular team to be the gold standard for how modding should be conducted, so I support and encourage them as best I can with my modest abilities.

[regex]

6 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I agree, so much so that I made it my first point and used strong terms like "near absolute right to do what they please with their work". I would never suggest that volunteers be made to feel obligated to do what is best for the community, I am suggesting that we try to make the community one for which they want to do what's best.

That post wasn't so much for you as it was for people who may ignore that in favor of the other messages in your post.

[r4pt0r]

Remember when "Flappy bird" blew up and was all the rage (In more ways than one)?

-Everyone wanted to play Flappy Bird.
-The creator of Flappy Bird decided to remove his program from the marketplace so no one could have it.
-He is entitled to do that. Its his to do with as he pleases, it belongs to him, no matter how much some fans wanted it.

Did I skim the thread properly, is this the gist of the controversy here? So and so doesnt/didnt want certain mods/repositories deleted?

Edited April 14, 2016 by r4pt0r

[ferram4]

Note: First paragraph is on a somewhat different subject and tone than the rest of it, JSYK.

@Matuchkin: I'll start off by suggesting that the next time you post you spend a little time thinking about how your analogy functions, considering the last ones you made made no sense.  Any of us taking our "Apple" and going home with it doesn't destroy the Apple, remember, we still have it.  We still keep the source code, the art, the whatever and we can still do whatever we want with it.  Your enjoyment is not our lives, nor our goals, nor is us modders holding on to the rights to our IP something you have to save us from.  I have to admit that of the many arguments I've heard against restrictive licensing and in favor of some form of permissive licensing, your last one has been the least coherent and probably most insulting of all of them I've heard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But anyway, on to more productive discussions.  So, since you don't seem to understand why a modder would want a restrictive license and the consequences of it, I'll try to explain it to you.  It all comes down to one, simple fact: All Rights Reserved results in the least support work for the modder that chooses it.

Choosing an open license means that you will risk hostile forks, version and build lockers being removed, and distribution through methods that are not guaranteed to provide valid installs.  And for many of these situations, support requests will not come back to the forker or to the distributor (even when they're at fault); they will come back to you.  Then those support requests result in valid support requests being buried, hindering tracking down info for bugfixing and just causing general frustration.  And frankly, you don't gain all that much by using an open license; your users might gain a lot, but you aren't your users.  Note that none of these problems will ever show up if you use a restrictive license.

Now, interesting fact: if there weren't hostile forks or CKAN taking the "lol, license says we can, we don't care about your support load and fart in your general direction" approach to this, there would be no compelling workload-related reason to take a restrictive license over a permissive one.  What's the point of defending against something that'll never happen?  Well, that's how things used to be, but not anymore.

Endgame for this though is that there are more restrictively licensed mods, which all fall into the risk that they will be lost to time.  Why wouldn't a modder take the effort to get someone to maintain it?  Well, it takes effort, and not bothering is easier, same reason they picked ARR in the first place.  If you don't plan on coming back, there's no reason to even bother.  If you do, now there are considerations about how to handle it: If you re-license openly, when you come back you'll have the fun of forks and CKAN shenanigans to deal with.  If you simply give modification and redistribution powers to one person, but not the power to change the license or redistribute license rights, then if they decide to quit it's pretty much as bad as if you didn't bother, so why bother?  If you give them the power to change the license or redistribute license rights, then you get the risk of an open license.  Lots of consideration, lots of effort, defeats the purpose of ARR most of the time, not worth it for someone who's lost interest and is burnt out.

So you want to find a way to encourage permissive licenses, and the best way to do that is to first remove the incentives for restrictive licenses.  You want to discourage people from engaging in hostile forks.  You want to discourage people from removing version and build locks.  You want to discourage people from using the terms of the license to do anything that might make more work for a modder.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these problems with open licenses have a common thread besides the license though.  All of them, each and every one, is argued by the forker, or the unlocker, or the distributor, that their motivation is to help users.  To help the "Community."  But ultimately, with no concern about whether their actions harm modders.  This is where all of this comes from, this strange Cult of the Community where any modder interest is sacrificed to users regardless of the long term consequences (for both modders and users alike).  This is where the risk of more restrictive licenses comes from, because that is the only way to have a hope at preventing that.

And funny thing Matuchkin... this thread is basically that; sacrifice modder IP to the users for the sake of the "Community."  If not by force, then at least by providing enough social pressure and hassle until they finally do.  And none of us are falling for it.

If you want to actually help, rather than make things worse, I'd suggest that you drop your current savior ideas and instead look to try and change those that provide downsides for the open source licenses you want.

[Stone Blue]

Wow... How to follow up Ferram's post?

But since so many distinguished modders are responding to this thread, let me ask this question of them:

So say a mod becomes "abandoned" or left in limbo, for whatever reason. Say it even has a closed or restrictive license.
Now say another modder comes along, and likes the idea/feel/theme of the original mod, and then releases their own version of it.

First, legally, how close can you get to the original mod as far as function, theme, visualness, WITHOUT using ANY of the original mods' work, and building the 2nd mod completely from scratch?

ie replicating the idea, theme, method of the mod?

Second, so say legally, there is no issue (building from scratch), what are the ETHICAL ramifications? Especially if the original modder had stated vehemently they didnt want their work replicated or changed, or any other stipulations? (either with a ARR, or a completely open license?)

ie Is it a jerk-move to go ahead and do it no matter what?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Stone Blue

[linuxgurugamer]

18 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Wow... How to follow up Ferram's post?

But since so many distinguished modders are responding to this thread, let me ask this question of them:

So say a mod becomes "abandoned" or left in limbo, for whatever reason. Say it even has a closed or restrictive license.
Now say another modder comes along, and likes the idea/feel/theme of the original mod, and then releases their own version of it.

First, legally, how close can you get to the original mod as far as function, theme, visualness, WITHOUT using ANY of the original mods' work, and building the 2nd mod completely from scratch?

ie replicating the idea, theme, method of the mod?

Second, so say legally, there is no issue (building from scratch), what are the ETHICAL ramifications? Especially if the original modder had stated vehemently they didnt want their work replicated or changed, or any other stipulations? (either with a ARR, or a completely open license?)

ie Is it a jerk-move to go ahead and do it no matter what?

There is nothing preventing you from creating your own version of the functionality of the original mod.  That comes under "idea", which is not protected.  What IS protected by licenses, are the original code, models, and in some (or all???) cases, even the visual appearance.  You could certainly come up with your own models and visuals; for example, a rocket is (usually) long and relatively thin.  That idea cannot be copyrighted, protected, etc.  However, the model of a particular rocket (the .mu file, dds, png, etc) is and you wouldn't be able to copy it.  Now, you could create a model of a new rocket which would have the same general height, width, dimensions, etc of the original.  So far, so good.  You can even create your own graphics.  But if those graphics are too similar to the original, you might have a problem.  Again, regarding the graphics, it will depend on many factors, starting with the license (does the license forbid any recreations?), how similar, etc.  I recall that the percentage of similarity has to be something less than 90% (don't hold me to that) in order to be allowable without any problems, but then you get into the realm of how to measure the similarity, etc

Method is ok, as long as you don't copy code and it isn't patented.

Regarding the ethics, I'm not sure that a modder not wanting their work to be duplicated is a valid concern.  You can't protect ideas, and that is what you are implying the original modder wants to protect.  I would be sure to have a very different name to avoid confusion between the different  mods.

I actually ran into this situation a year ago, and asked for advice from the forum moderators.  The license was vague in one respect, and I didn't want to do the wrong thing.  It was resolved by several long discussions and I was able to release my update to it while keeping in the spirit and text of the original license

Edited April 14, 2016 by linuxgurugamer

[monstah]

This thread has gone for a while, and much the same stuff has been said over and over, and a conclusion doesn't get nearer.

Since this is just repeating, let me dig up some things:

 

18 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.

16 hours ago, RoverDude said:

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

This is where it began and should have ended. Everything that had to be said was said at this point. In fact, it was soon followed by this:

13 hours ago, RoverDude said:

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

13 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

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

Good?

I think that's enough of a conclusion, but it kept on. So, let's see what else has been said already. There was this gem:

11 hours ago, Snark said:

Also:  Not only can't you solve this problem, Matuchkin, but actually, it's a solved problem already.  There is no set of circumstances that isn't accounted for.

• Problem:  Beloved website used by all suddenly goes down without warning.  Solution:  Community cares enough about it that they come together and there's a replacement website up in barely 24 hours!
• Problem:  Beloved mod goes down.  Friendly author is happy to pass the torch.  Solution:  Well, actually, there's no problem!  Move along, nothing to see here.
• Problem:  Beloved mod goes down.  Angry author chooses to pull the plug completely.  Restrictive license.  Solution:  Somebody will write a replacement for it.  Might take a while, but it'll happen.  (If MechJeb went down permanently tomorrow, I guarantee you somebody would be very quickly writing another autopilot mod.)

Good!

Then this passage:

9 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

I meant that I think we can find a way to give modders all the options they want, but just give them a good way of doing things that they would most likely prefer over others.

9 hours ago, soundnfury said:

I think the point is that they already have all the options they need.

I want to ensure my mods can outlive my interest in them, so I GPL them.

stupid_chris finds other considerations more important, so he doesn't.

None of this is a problem.

See the pattern here? There is no problem, only solutions. You're desperate for something which already is here: permissive licenses, and a modding community who can make a replacement for those that are not permissive.

I get it, you feel like this is not enough. You want some action, right? Well, there was this:

15 hours 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. (...)  I would gladly set up a thread with a list of volunteers for modders on permanent leave.

8 hours ago, Andem said:

I don't think you are hearing a very important part of what I'm saying here. IF A MODDER WANTS TO PASS ON HIS WORK, WHY DON'T WE PROVIDE THE RECOURCES FOR THEM TO EASILY DO SO. There. That should do it.

This is a forum! It is a tool! Use it! Make a thread just listing all mods with permissive licenses! Invite modders to post volunteer themselves to carry those torches! Learn some programming and carry on a torch or two yourself! Feel free to be nice and encourage open licensing (by being nice), as said above. It all comes down to that (again).

 

 

 

 

(took me a while to write this, let's see what has ninja'd me.)

[Stone Blue]

@linuxgurugamer Thank you for that clear and thorough explanation.

Now, I can finalize the point of my post:

Based on linux's opinion, (and if this is the general consesus of the majority of modmakers), then it kind of blows away Matuchkin's original concern that important, popular mods will just go away if the original author makes it so.

While the mod may not continue in its original form, (I mean does a mod REALLY continue in its original form, even if it IS handed over to a new maintainer, who will most likely put their OWN twist/changes into new versions?), a popular, must-have mod dropped, REGARDLESS of license, by its author, can and most likely would be replicated in at least idea...

An example was ISA Mapsat... It was unique, pre-cursor to SCANsat... It kind of got left in limbo (and even tho it had an open license, and I could be wrong about the following part), and yet the idea was picked up by another, and out of that came SCANsat... ( I dont recall whether any of the ISA Mapsat code was used for SCANsat, but I think there were large differences between the mods)

My point is, even in the worst case scenario, the torch, the IDEA, at least, of a deceased mod can be picked up by another, and another mod that fills the void of the original is available to all, and there is much rejoicing in the community.

So those that are worried about the disappearance of their favorite, MUST have mod... Dont Worry, Be Happy... If it was that great a mod, it WILL be replaced... Somehow..

Edited April 14, 2016 by Stone Blue

[Matuchkin]

4 hours ago, ferram4 said:

If you want to actually help, rather than make things worse, I'd suggest that you drop your current savior ideas and instead look to try and change those that provide downsides for the open source licenses you want.

Whatever, then. I have nothing to say against that, and everyone still believes I'm insulting modders. @Red Iron Crown, just lock this thread (again).

Besides, the argument is long solved. All we can do is be nice to modders, because if we try to create an idea to help them, we'll be criticized and scolded by everyone on the forums. Apparently "I can do whatever I want, so I just want a harder time getting my mods to have an influence on the community" is logical, and whoever tries to think of ideas to help the community is sarcastically called a "saviour" and viewed as a hubristic egotist. I have half the forum, including all my favourite modders, scolding me right now. I quit.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Matuchkin

[Matuchkin]

3 hours ago, monstah said:

This is a forum! It is a tool! Use it! Make a thread just listing all mods with permissive licenses! Invite modders to post volunteer themselves to carry those torches! Learn some programming and carry on a torch or two yourself! Feel free to be nice and encourage open licensing (by being nice), as said above. It all comes down to that (again).

There we go. Final word.

[regex]

28 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Besides, the argument is long solved. All we can do is be nice to modders, because if we try to create an idea to help them, we'll be criticized and scolded by everyone on the forums. Apparently "I can do whatever I want, so I just want a harder time getting my mods to have an influence on the community" is logical, and whoever tries to think of ideas to help the community is sarcastically called a "saviour" and viewed as a hubristic egotist. I have half the forum, including all my favourite modders, scolding me right now. I quit.

But that's not what's going on here, insofar as I can see.  The criticism has come about because any idea that revolves around saving a mod from "death" is basically an idea to help users, not modders.  What if a modder wants their stuff to go away with them?  Will you help them do that?

Edited April 14, 2016 by regex

[Matuchkin]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

But that's not what's going on here, insofar as I can see.  The criticism has come about because any idea that revolves around saving a mod from "death" is basically an idea to help users, not modders.  What if a modder wants their stuff to go away with them?  Will you help them do that?

Great. Now I know even more how disorganized my topic is. I didn't even think about the issue. If a modder wants their mod to go away with them, it is their right. I haven't even realised how much my topic contradicts this.