Licensing Question

[Murdabenne]

Is there a license out there with a "dead man" switch - as in, "This is copyrighted WayRestricted, but If I do not post an update within 6 months to [link to the repository][link to this thread], this addon reverts to a WayLESSRestricted license and is free to use under those terms"

Perhaps an "Abandoned" rule could be established, at least for code and documentation? Artwork/texture/model components might need something different since it seems that is what most people restrict the most
 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Murdabenne
clarification

[linuxgurugamer]

3 minutes ago, Murdabenne said:

Is there a license out there with a "dead man" switch - as in, "This is copyrighted WayRestricted, but If I do not post an update within 6 months to [link to the repository][link to this thread], this addon reverts to a WayLESSRestricted license and is free to use under those terms"

Yes, look at the RealChutes mod and license

[Murdabenne]

I wonder is it possible to do such a thing retroactively? for example there is no "Real Person" or entity attached to the copyright, can it be invalidated?  Basically if its (c) Bill Gates or (c) Megacorp its valid of course.  But if its (c) I am Rocket Scientist on the Internet and there is no means of validating the existence of a person or legal entity behind it, then its "invalidatable"?  Ugh, lawyers.

Basically I'm looking for a way the community can protect its access to mods from abandonment, without destroying the rights of the authors in the process.  

Edited June 12, 2017 by Murdabenne
clarification

[linuxgurugamer]

Nope.

Caveat:  I am not a lawyer

[Red Iron Crown]

2 hours ago, Murdabenne said:

I wonder is it possible to do such a thing retroactively? for example there is no "Real Person" or entity attached to the copyright, can it be invalidated?  Basically if its (c) Bill Gates or (c) Megacorp its valid of course.  But if its (c) I am Rocket Scientist on the Internet and there is no means of validating the existence of a person or legal entity behind it, then its "invalidatable"?  Ugh, lawyers.

Absolutely not.

2 hours ago, Murdabenne said:

Basically I'm looking for a way the community can protect its access to mods from abandonment, without destroying the rights of the authors in the process.  

Unfortunately we can't have it both ways, so we err on the side of protecting modders' intellectual property rights. After all, they are the ones doing the creative work.

Aside from that, @linuxgurugamer's advice to look at RealChutes' license is good advice, it's a great example of a "time-bombed" license.

[Murdabenne]

Although Sqad (and now Take2) do want to protect the IP, including that of the modder community, the community itself might be considered when giving non-binding licensing advice.  Perhaps in the instruction/directions for modders, where licensing is addresses, the developers of KSP could state

Unless otherwise noted all works will be considered All Rights Reserved by the original authors.  Although we do not mandate its use, the KSP community is best served by licenses which allow for continuation of development after an author no longer maintains the mod or is otherwise unavailable. Examples of this are the Open Source Institute licenses provided here https://opensource.org/licenses , and for non-software components such as artwork or documentation licensing such as those provided by the Creative Commons organization here https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/. If the author wishes to use a restrictive license, we suggest the use of an "abandonment" clause, such as the following: The aforementioned license is withdrawn if I/we are inactive (no login or posts) for a period of 120 days on the official KSP forums, or after 90 days after a KSP version update with no changes in the software repository (Spacedock or GitHub link), whichever comes first. In that case, the license is changed to MIT for the software and all other material is CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 INTL.

This might prevent the things we see every upgrade with authors coming and going - and prevent the user community from losing some marvelous adjunct content that keeps us playing - and encouraging others to play as well. 

Maybe even offer KSP recognition to developers who follows this practice by allowing the use of an unofficial (but reserved) logo in their board signature ("Kommunity Donor"?), and listing in a community "Kommunity Donor Honor Roll" post here on the forums. Cant be all stick, gotta have some carrot too.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Murdabenne
weird formatting

[JPLRepo]

First of, I'm not a lawyer. Second - I'm speaking here as a modder.
I don't see how one entity can dictate a license on another entities creation. There are rules within the EULA for mods for KSP. It states the mod must have a license, and that all source code must be publicly available.
Choice of license for creative work is up to the creator.
By default, no license is considered a Restrictive license as per the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. All rights reserved, isn't technically a license and isn't required under the convention (you can go read about that if you want more info).
Most licenses for mods are open source, freeware. However, not all are. And that is the creators choice.
Having said that, there is a kind of "gentlemans agreement" within the community that forking, modifying and releasing modified mods should only be done when all efforts have been made to contact and discuss with the original author (License permitting).
And yes, I understand this is where your "good will" thinking comes in. But bottom line is a license is a license. You can't change it. Only the creative owner.
There are many threads about this on the forum.
There are also several threads on the forum giving advice, links, and information on how to choose a license.
 

[Murdabenne]

My intent is not to stop restrictive licensing, its that it ought to be an official company (Squad) policy that encourages and promotes permissive licenses.  It benefits squad because they are enhancing and expanding gameplay at no cost to squad, plus it retains people playing the game and thereby buying expansions, etc, and will thereby help maintain downstream revenues after the initial purchase.  It would also help the community by allowing the players to retain use of mods that are needed to retain the playstyle they like and their interest in the game. The use of a "dead man switch" to open the software in the event of abandonment should be highly encouraged officially by squad for the same reasons. Its still voluntary, but that would add more "weight" to it. 

Or be bold and make the legal policy that all mods have a dead-man clause applied to them by default if they are posted to the forum by the author, and do not specifically exclude themselves from that clause. That is, make the dead man clause opt-out instead of opt-in (still allows authors to do ARR, but they have to be specific to exclude their content from abandonment).  By posting here, they agree to licensing as terms of posting, so you do have an enforcement mechanism - but it still allows restrictive, but you make it where they have to be explicit.  The community and the users and Squad all have in interest in the availability of the content, and they do provide a benefit to the authors, so putting conditions on the licensing process is reasonable, especially if you are not restricting it, but instead requiring them to be explicit as a term of publishing here.