Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[Mrcarrot]

13 minutes ago, MOARdV said:

That last sentence from the "SUBMISSIONS" section concerns me: "No purported reservation of rights incorporated in or accompanying any submission shall have any force or effect"  That reads as "your license does not apply".  Considering *all* of my mods incorporate material licensed from elsewhere (open source fonts, MIT or GPL licensed source code, and so forth) and they all either used PartTools or link to KSP DLLs, it seems I'd be setting myself up for legal exposure if TTI decide to exercise their claimed right to exploit a mod I've posted.  Even I waived my rights to claim IP on the mods I create, I can't waive other people's rights.

For this very reason, I'm debating whether to release my In-dev mod on the forums.

Well, not really using external stuff, but still. I don't want Take2 to steal the mod I've worked so hard on and not even credit me for it.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Mrcarrot

[Just Jim]

12 hours ago, Daishi said:

They need time for their legal team to sort this out properly - the last thing Squad wants to do is hastily say something and then have to backpeddle. Give them time

I sort of had the same thought just now... but from a different angle. @JPLRepo said back on page three something about concerns being sent to the legal department... and it suddenly dawned on me... we're expecting a quick answer from a bunch of lawyers???  

Like it or not, this might take a while.

[Gryphon]

13 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

I sort of had the same thought just now... but from a different angle. @JPLRepo said back on page three something about concerns being sent to the legal department... and it suddenly dawned on me... we're expecting a quick answer from a bunch of lawyers???  

Like it or not, this might take a while.

True, but if they're considering any changes or clarifications, I'd hope that they might consider pushing back the implementation of the new EULA to allow for said changes or clarifications to be shared, and perhaps they'd even elicit community response (or at least some community leaders, i.e. influential mod makers) to those changes. That'd be nice, don't you think?

[Just Jim]

1 minute ago, Gryphon said:

That'd be nice, don't you think?

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just speaking from experience, legal stuff tends to take a frustratingly long time. 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

2 hours ago, MOARdV said:

That last sentence from the "SUBMISSIONS" section concerns me: "No purported reservation of rights incorporated in or accompanying any submission shall have any force or effect"  That reads as "your license does not apply".  Considering *all* of my mods incorporate material licensed from elsewhere (open source fonts, MIT or GPL licensed source code, and so forth) and they all either used PartTools or link to KSP DLLs, it seems I'd be setting myself up for legal exposure if TTI decide to exercise their claimed right to exploit a mod I've posted.  Even I waived my rights to claim IP on the mods I create, I can't waive other people's rights.

Yep. This in particular needs clarification because we the modder, can't make agreements on the behalf of others.  Most of they other concerns are mild technicalities that I doubt anyone really expects to ever mean anything real.

[Derb]

7 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

Given Take2's history with modding announcements and the concerns expressed when the acquisition was announced it would have been better if Squad had covered some of the likely questions with the announcement.  It's possible that Take2 didn't give them enough notice to do so?

It would be great, if we could get some plain language explanation.  I totally understand that they need to be able to legally distribute anything you publish to the forums or wiki because they are doing exactly that every time someone loads the page.  I'm also pretty sure that content hosted elsewhere but linked to on here is not covered (Take2 don't own an exclusive right to the NASA logo just because I've linked to the image here) 



However mods created with PartTools absolutely needs some clarification.  If I create a mod with PartTools does Take2 then own the IP of the 3d model which was processed though PartTools or do I retain the rights?

One thing is for sure, I'm very happy we have Spacedock and are not relying on a Squad hosted mod repository.

@Paul Kingtiger , I think you may have answered you own question in a sense. You are absolutely correct that T2 doesn't own the rights to NASA's logo just because it has been posted on these forums. Likewise, if I publish a mod that slaps a big 'ol NASA logo on all 4 sides of every stock park, T2 wouldn't have any right to distribute those texture files themselves, especially for financial gain, as there is no apparent fair use at play. (Technically I wouldn't even be able to publish such textures without NASA's permission, but let's assume I got permission somehow.) Just apply this same legal theory to your own copyright protected material, and the answer is clear.

Before you even get to KSP and PartTools, you have created 3d models and textures which are your intellectual property. Using those models and textures in KSP does not make them any less yours, because you created them using tools not under the T2 EULA. If PartTools is under the same EULA, you can make the same statement - the models and textures that make up the file that PartTools output still belong to you. T2 cannot claim that output for distribution or financial gain because, outside of the formatting of the files, the product is identical to your existing copyrighted work (a textured 3d model of identical appearance). The US Copyright Office itself says that changes to format alone do not give rise to a new, copyright-able work (usually this would be for things like making a play into a movie, but here we are essentially moving from different types of 3d model files, so one could expect this protection to be even stronger). Because your use of PartTools does not give rise to a copyright interest, you retain the rights to the output of PartTools.

[Mako]

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think they can just negate existing copyrights with a blanket, generic ToS or EULA.

So any orginal code and assets would belong to the creator and whatever copyright it has at time publishing would stand. Take-Two can't use licensed or copyrighted material in a commercial product without obtaining the rights to do so.

Fan works, like fanfic and fan art, are much more complicated. Basically, you're using someone else's copyrighted material, and if you do so without permission then the owners of the copyright could take action against you. Typically it would be a Cease and Desist order, but if the owner believes you've damaged their finances in some way they can attempt to recover those damages in court. Fan works will usually fall under a derivative work. The only exception to this is Fair Use, but that is limited in scope and doesn't seem to cover typical fan art or fanfic.

Basically, any mod that is made that uses copyrighted material from souces other than Squad, Take-Two, and the mod author (like using copyrighted fonts) cannot just be taken and put into the game. The most they could do is a Cease and Desist.

If the entire mod can be seen as fully derivative work written/made by one person and published on Squad/Take-Two owned servers then it's likely that Take-Two can do a lot more with it. Especially if you make it after this new EULA goes into effect.

In the case of fan art and fanfic, well, if you're posting it here on the forums and not all on your own server, then just like everything else here Take-Two can edit it or delete it whenever and however they want. If you only post it off site they can probably just Cease and Desist you, or possibly try to use DMCA to issue a  takedown. It cetainly seems that under this new EULA Take-Two could even just use fanfic that's been posted here without permission or accreditation.

All of this being said, it is unlikely that Take-Two would do nefarious things unless they saw potential for more profit than problems. It may be hard for them to do anything nefarious, however, because Squad has shown a history of celebrating fan creations. This new EULA does change things though, and while it's likely to cover the upcoming missions built with the expansion pack, it really should be addressed by Take-Two before it goes into effect.

Scaring away mod makers and the community at large is not in Take-Two's  best interest, but maybe they just don't care. They spent money buying KSP, though, so one would think they care at least enough to keep us around as future customers.

 

TL;DR - I don't think the worst that can happen will come from this, but it is bothering folks because companies aren't your friends and are always acting in their best interests first and foremost. It'd be nice, and probably a good idea, to see Squad and Take-Two be proactive about this and clarify some things in writing before the new EULA goes into effect.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Mako

[StarStreak2109]

While some part of me hopes this all will just desintegrate like a capsule on reentry with heatshield at some point, hopefully being the above mentioned cover-your-ass blanket legalese, I do find it troubling that this is just being dumped into our laps without the least bit of commentary beyond "we have advised our legal team, they will get back to you" (at some point or not). I have not been in this community from the very beginning, having climbed aboard during .23.5, but I have always been awed by this community and the game being so open and supportive. The amount of mods are astonishing, this is a testament to the game's architecture. This is the stuff of which games are being made that will outlast their active development stage.

Now along comes T2, offload this EULA and everybody is uncertain what to make of it.

Come on guys (@ Squad and Take2)! Just throw us a bone here! It shouldn't be too hard actually.  Otherwise I fear that this community will take a severy hit in contributors and followers. Unless that's what's intended (narrow down the amount of user generated content to generate more in-house-profits??!!??). Well that's me being nasty.

Well, worried regards,

Sebastian

[ThirdOfSeven]

Until there is clear change in EULA/Terms in favor of user-created content or clear explanation on any changes from Squad (preferable with guidelines on what we can do and can't do), I doubt I'll create any content related to KSP, will recommend it or buy any DLC. Why? Cause having anything like EULA "doesn't create any issues like for other game" that may someday be used to seize rights and delete any creations (cause it may be) is not acceptable. That's not why I tell people KSP is great game, but because you can make mods, you can use mods and you can create content about brave Kerbals. I bought that game for same reason. We see Squad lied about "acquisition by Take Two means no problem" and "everything will be like before" in the past and here comes - new terms and nobody are already posted and nobody from Squad even has clear explanation yet. T2 just forces to change something and Squad does what they say, and Squad doesn't even have any idea how to explain changes. What is more important for you, community who already supported you or a publisher? If it is not community, then KSP is now just another game you play for a week and forget about. You will never able to make content modders can make, since it is optional stuff anybody can use to create their own experience of a game and enjoy it.

I don't want to insult any developers from Squad and will always appreciate for all the great work they made in the past and making, it is more about management issues.

Edited March 1, 2018 by ThirdOfSeven
(some explanations on what is really missing...)

[Lord Aurelius]

This looks more like Take Two covering their bases for the future of KSP more than anything else since it sounds like it's not too much different from the EULA's for their other games.

However, the wording about content ownership with mods is still extremely troubling. Are contracts like this even legally enforceable since it basically amounts of intellectual property theft on the part of the company if they choose to assert this clause? I've heard of similarly draconian work contracts where everything you do, even in your free time while employed is supposed to be the property of the company, but modders aren't employees of Take Two.

Best case, I hope Take Two is simply applying their standard EULA to KSP with no plans to curtail the modding scene and will clarify (with a legal addenum) this intent. Some modders will understandably leave the KSP scene (a lot have already with all the problems with KSP's development over the last several years), but others will take their place.

I don't want to think about the worst case with KSP being ruined with overly aggressive monetization attempts.

Edit: If they changed the EULA out from under us and we don't agree with the new one, are we technically eligible for a refund since the EULA specifically says that we need to agree to it to continue using the software and the conditions have changed since the original purchase?

Edited February 28, 2018 by Lord Aurelius

[Manwith Noname]

1 hour ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Are contracts like this even legally enforceable since it basically amounts of intellectual property theft on the part of the company if they choose to assert this clause?

In general terms...yes <- That's a time code link to a copyright lawyer saying so.

For specific terms and clauses, if someone wanted to challenge the validity of those they would have to go to court. Something a lot of end users will not choose to do since it generally would cost a lot of money and the ruling might well consider the agreement valid. Laws are in place to protect IP and copyrights but that doesn't mean you cannot then legally agree to transfer those rights via a contract. Much like people working at Squad or Take Two, people create things but their contract will most likely be worded in such a way that the company owns their work. In that instance though they are obviously paying them a salary.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I'm kinda torn on this... Yes, the new Terms and Privacy Policy are not the end of KSP, but they're also something new and not terribly clear as of yet.

 

I'm withholding judgement until such time as Squad and Take Two can clarify some of the issues and respond to the questions.

[RealKerbal3x]

Hopefully, the change to T2’s ToCs will not be too bad.

Here’s an example:

I used to play Minecraft. When Microsoft bought Mojang (the creators of the game) everyone was like ‘oh no, our favourite game is ruined forever’. But then Microsoft ended up adding a bunch of awesome stuff and overall, boosted the popularity of the game. (I don’t play Minecraft anymore because, well, KSP)

So here’s to the continued success of KSP under T2. Hopefully the 1.4 update and Making History pack will be great.

And in response to you guys worrying about modding, I don’t think that T2 will mess with KSP’s massive community, because it’s nothing but a massive credit to the game. It would do them no good to attack the mod or fanfic community. I think because they’re a big game company, it’s easier to create one ToS doc because you’ve got a lot of games to handle. Some of the rules on there won’t be enforced, I think.

I’m no lawyer, so I dunno. But that’s what I think

[StarStreak2109]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

[...]

And in response to you guys worrying about modding, I don’t think that T2 will mess with KSP’s massive community, because it’s nothing but a massive credit to the game. It would do them no good to attack the mod or fanfic community. I think because they’re a big game company, it’s easier to create one ToS doc because you’ve got a lot of games to handle. Some of the rules on there won’t be enforced, I think.

I’m no lawyer, so I dunno. But that’s what I think

Me neither. My problem is that the EULA seems - as others have already stated - a blanket document, that T2 throws over all their software, without regard whether it really is fitty 100% or not. One indication is the mention of "car designs" in the "user created content" section.

Regarding the issue of mods, I thought a bit about this. First of all, I believe that any mods created by the community are "safe". First of all, because they are not hosted on any servers belonging to the "Company". Secondly, because they are your IP. T2 cannot take away something they do not own. It would of course be something else entirely, if mods were uploaded to a T2 server... What's more, I cannot see, why any mod would give rise to these so-called "copyright interests" - especially since no mods I know do directly interfere with the software itself. I believe that this clause refers to the case that applies if I take in-game artwork that has been created by the "Company", modify it and upload it as a mod.

Again, this interpretation comes from the "car design" above - like in a racing game, where I can design various paint jobs for my racing cars. But in this case, users are creating their own artwork and at least my legal understanding states that noone can take your artwork away from you, whether it is a stand-alone piece or a modification to a game (expropriation).

Now to the matter of screenshots. Here I do not see such a clear case. At the end of the day, IMHO it still boils down to what the user created, namely a piece of own artwork, that he himself arranged in a certain way - especially if it contains mod content. Again, if a screenshot contained in-game artwork that has been created by the "Company" and which has been modified by the user, then I could imagine, that this might give rise to "copyright interests". Same applies to fan fiction.

TLDR - IMHO, while being formulated in a very catch-all way, I BELIEVE that the "USER CREATED CONTENT" clause does not really cover the case with mods, screenshots, fan fiction etc. with Kerbal Space Program. All of the above is after again reading the legalese from cover to cover and sleeping a night over it and writing down what I believe to be what is meant. It still would be nice if someone at Squad or T2 would get back to us.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

screenshots

This has come up in court. Generally speaking, screenshots and gameplay videos are property of whoever owns the IPR of the game from which they were taken. 

Things get a bit more complicated with machinima and I believe the same would apply to at least some KSP shots/videos which contain user-created craft. If it is determined that the user-created content is complex and original enough to meet the fairly fuzzy "original work" threshold, then it's been ruled that copyright is owned jointly by the IPR owner and the content creator. This doesn't really help the content creator because the IPR owner can still legally block distribution of the screenies/videos, although they can't use them for their own purposes without the co-owners permission.

(Then there's fair use of course, but that's a whole another story. It has been ruled that spoken commentary on top of a gameplay video does not qualify as fair use, for example. Screenshots used to illustrate a review or article would qualify as fair use.)

----> legally our rights amount to pretty much a big fat zero, regardless of the licence terms and conditions. In practice the power relationship is somewhat more balanced because, obviously, we're the customers and they have a strong incentive to keep their customers happy. Which is why all this hoopla about the license t&c is kind of pointless: the only thing that matters in practice is to what extent, how, and with what kind of motives they intend to enforce it. If they suddenly decide that modders are bad, they will stop mods. If they keep thinking that modders are good, they will support them. Either way, the rights of modders are extremely limited, and rights of us ordinary kerbonauts who just make spaceships and post screenshots are even more limited than that.

[Derb]

4 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

What's more, I cannot see, why any mod would give rise to these so-called "copyright interests" - especially since no mods I know do directly interfere with the software itself. I believe that this clause refers to the case that applies if I take in-game artwork that has been created by the "Company", modify it and upload it as a mod.

Quite a few people are under the impression that mods that use PartTools (a Squad created plugin to convert models to part files usable in KSP) could be owned by T2 because PartTools "created" the file for final use in KSP. The problem with that thinking is that the part file is dependent on the creator's IP, models etc. that were made outside "the Software." So does using "the Software" to convert your 3d models to a different format of 3d model generate a copyright interest? The US Copyright Office's definitions of derivative works directly say that changes to format exclusively do not give rise to a copyrightable derivative (you must add material that is copyrightable in its own right to secure a different copyright for derivative works) , so the original creator's copyright would stand.

You are absolutely right.

[Antstar]

On 2/27/2018 at 4:07 AM, InterplanetJanet said:

 

TAKE TWO INTERACTIVE: seriously, you corporate guys, make some changes in your EULA and elsewhere to reassure your fans. People like Nertea and Eskandare and Just Jim - or, rather, their works - are the reason _I_ play, and are the ONLY reason I'd be willing to pay money in the future for downloadable content and/or future editions. If you scare them away, I won't be happy, and I won't recommend buying this game to other people, and I won't ever spend money again (and I may stop playing and uninstall). I stopped playing World Of Tanks partially because the forums were as vicious as any, and partially because they forbade some mods I was using; it was no longer worth my time to play, and so I stopped spending money. My husband has cut his WoT spending in half because of similar concerns. That is money Wargaming is not making off us. Bottom line, corporate guys.

Everyone else: say something, so that someone in Take Two Interactive can count the posts and say something like "9% of our forum users objected." Say it NOW, theres's not much time left. As planned, I suspect. The more people/posts that can be counted, the more likely it'll change.

I put my name to this petition.  TT: you can have your favourable EULA. Just fix it so that it is appropriate for THIS GAME not some blanket piece of crap. If the modders leave, I leave.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Antstar

[StarStreak2109]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

This has come up in court. Generally speaking, screenshots and gameplay videos are property of whoever owns the IPR of the game from which they were taken. 

Things get a bit more complicated with machinima and I believe the same would apply to at least some KSP shots/videos which contain user-created craft. If it is determined that the user-created content is complex and original enough to meet the fairly fuzzy "original work" threshold, then it's been ruled that copyright is owned jointly by the IPR owner and the content creator. This doesn't really help the content creator because the IPR owner can still legally block distribution of the screenies/videos, although they can't use them for their own purposes without the co-owners permission.

(Then there's fair use of course, but that's a whole another story. It has been ruled that spoken commentary on top of a gameplay video does not qualify as fair use, for example. Screenshots used to illustrate a review or article would qualify as fair use.)

----> legally our rights amount to pretty much a big fat zero, regardless of the licence terms and conditions. In practice the power relationship is somewhat more balanced because, obviously, we're the customers and they have a strong incentive to keep their customers happy. Which is why all this hoopla about the license t&c is kind of pointless: the only thing that matters in practice is to what extent, how, and with what kind of motives they intend to enforce it. If they suddenly decide that modders are bad, they will stop mods. If they keep thinking that modders are good, they will support them. Either way, the rights of modders are extremely limited, and rights of us ordinary kerbonauts who just make spaceships and post screenshots are even more limited than that.

Well, I do not know, what is the general legisation in the US on this matter. In fact, I do not know very much on this subject at all, just what my common sense and past experience tell me. If this is however standard legislation anyway, you are right, then no discussion about this T&Cs will change anything.

 

1 hour ago, Derb said:

Quite a few people are under the impression that mods that use PartTools (a Squad created plugin to convert models to part files usable in KSP) could be owned by T2 because PartTools "created" the file for final use in KSP. The problem with that thinking is that the part file is dependent on the creator's IP, models etc. that were made outside "the Software." So does using "the Software" to convert your 3d models to a different format of 3d model generate a copyright interest? The US Copyright Office's definitions of derivative works directly say that changes to format exclusively do not give rise to a copyrightable derivative (you must add material that is copyrightable in its own right to secure a different copyright for derivative works) , so the original creator's copyright would stand.

You are absolutely right.

This. You will still hold on to whatever it is that you created.

[Paul Kingtiger]

7 hours ago, Derb said:

Quite a few people are under the impression that mods that use PartTools (a Squad created plugin to convert models to part files usable in KSP) could be owned by T2 because PartTools "created" the file for final use in KSP. The problem with that thinking is that the part file is dependent on the creator's IP, models etc. that were made outside "the Software." So does using "the Software" to convert your 3d models to a different format of 3d model generate a copyright interest? The US Copyright Office's definitions of derivative works directly say that changes to format exclusively do not give rise to a copyrightable derivative (you must add material that is copyrightable in its own right to secure a different copyright for derivative works) , so the original creator's copyright would stand.

But if the EULA specified that you agreed to transfer copyright of any files or content processed though PartTools (and I'm not saying that's what it says) then, if you agree to the ELUA the copyright would transfer or at least you would have a fight on your hands to suggest otherwise.  I remember Pirates of the Burning Sea having a slimier situation with user created flags that could be submitted to the game and included as part of the standard (not modded) content.

Ultimately I'm not in a position to speculate, which is why I'd like Squad to clarify these points for us.  Based on take2's history with GTA and the assurances we got from Squad at time of acquisition,  I think it's reasonably to expect some clarification.

[Derb]

3 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

But if the EULA specified that you agreed to transfer copyright of any files or content processed though PartTools (and I'm not saying that's what it says) then, if you agree to the ELUA the copyright would transfer or at least you would have a fight on your hands to suggest otherwise.  I remember Pirates of the Burning Sea having a slimier situation with user created flags that could be submitted to the game and included as part of the standard (not modded) content.

Ultimately I'm not in a position to speculate, which is why I'd like Squad to clarify these points for us.  Based on take2's history with GTA and the assurances we got from Squad at time of acquisition,  I think it's reasonably to expect some clarification.

But are you saying that it could be interpreted that way?

If the EULA stated that you agreed to transfer your existing copyrighted material ... I have no idea how that would play in a courtroom. I can only imagine the headaches of proving the material belonged to you in the first place, that you used PartTools and not some reverse engineered software to create the files, tracking all of the new content T2 'owns'...

But I see no way for it to be interpreted like that.

(sorry for the repetitive bit here, just linking my thinking to what the EULA says)

Quote

In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions.

Your copyright interest arose when you created the models in Blender or whatever program you use, before using "the Software" to convert for use with KSP. Since "the Software" adds no new material that is copyrightable in its own right, the output of PartTools is not a derivative work of your original work as defined by the US Copyright Office, so no copyright interest arises through the use of PartTools. The EULA makes no mention of the transfer of existing copyright.

I agree that it would be nice to get and is reasonable to want reassurances, but everything we need to know is spelled out in very carefully chosen language with specific legal meaning.

GTA they did what, put a cease and desist on OpenIV? Aside from that ill-informed action, I'm not aware of any situation where they actually took original work from modders and published it as their own, so I think people are absolutely safe on that front. Maybe we have to worry about cease and desist actions given the history I'm aware of, but I think the greater concern here is about unauthorized republishing.

At the end of the day, I can only imagine T2's legal team deciding against giving legal advice to people who do business with and could have future legal claims with their client. Their likely suggestion: Ask your lawyer.

Edit: If people think that the new EULA as written gives T2 the rights to your copyrighted material for redistribution and sale in spite of established copyright law regarding derivative works, and they don't want that, they at least may rest easy knowing they are protected and can publish for any version of KSP released under the current EULA, 1.3.1 and under, as the new agreement doesn't apply ex post facto.

Edit2: Note that the above edit only applies to the publication of mods, not the continued use of KSP itself.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Derb

[Just Jim]

I've been rolling this through my head the last couple days... and I suppose, as far as Emiko Station is concerned, I would be willing to give in... a little. I absolutely do not want to get into a case where I sign this thing, then get a pm from Take Two saying I have to re-write and/or delete huge chunks of Emiko. I've talked to a couple people privately and have been assured this will not happen. 

But I do have to admit I already avoid some subjects in compliance to the forum rules, especially swearing and a couple historical subjects that are absolutely forbidden to talk about, or even name. So I can't honestly say I'm not already being limited in what I write.

So if it came down to something like having to remove a quote or two, because they might be questionable... I think I could live with that, rather than see Emiko locked up and never finished. I'm not going to re-write half of it... but I am willing to compromise, if it's reasonable.

Bottom line, I would much rather have TT and @SQUAD's full support, than have problems over it.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Just Jim

[Red Shirt]

I'm not sure why I am so fascinated by this thread. I have no mod or Emiko Station to worry about. My opinion is it is unlikely T2 will offer clarification - because lawyers. It is their ballpark and their ball. They control the game. On the other hand, this is a niche game with a small player base. T2 is extremely unlikely to alienate the core, especially the modders who have made the game more than it was imagined.  There is little precedent to suggest any of the fears will come to pass. There is much history to suggest the work of the modders will continue to be encouraged. I may be totally wrong. I just can't conceive of any reason or financial benefit to T2 by enforcing stuff that destroys the game.  

[klesh]

In terms of them taking stuff, that hasn't really changed.  It was no big deal to me, but a screenshot I posted on Steam of all places, not even on these forums, was taken without permission and used to promote the console port on Playstation webpages (since removed, with the Enhanced Edition's arrival).  This was before Take Two ever entered the picture.  On Steam at least, your "created content" is not owned by you, and Squad (at least just them at that time) had no problem nabbing content and using it for profit etc.

[Just Jim]

35 minutes ago, klesh said:

In terms of them taking stuff, that hasn't really changed.  It was no big deal to me, but a screenshot I posted on Steam of all places, not even on these forums, was taken without permission and used to promote the console port on Playstation webpages (since removed, with the Enhanced Edition's arrival).  This was before Take Two ever entered the picture.  On Steam at least, your "created content" is not owned by you, and Squad (at least just them at that time) had no problem nabbing content and using it for profit etc.

I'm not so worried about profit , or them using it... because realistically I don't see it ever being published one way or the other. 

And I do realize Emiko Station is sort of a unique case. But at this point it's over 2 years old, almost 200,000 words, and well over 3,500 hundred screenshots. To say I've put some work into it is a huge understatement. All I'm worried about is how much they would, or would not, interfere with what I'm doing. 

Oh, so far, for the record, @SQUAD itself, and the forum moderators, have been really, really cool, and never, ever once tried to make me change anything... so long as I abide to the forum rules about profanity and forbidden subjects, which is fine by me. I could not be happier with the friends I've made at @SQUAD, and the freedom they've given me to write.

But I don't know the people at TT... and I just worry about how strict they might, or might not be, concerning all of us writers, not just myself.

Ideally, I'm hoping nothing changes at all, and everything stays the same as it is right now.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Just Jim

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Derb said:

they at least may rest easy knowing they are protected and can publish for any version of KSP released under the current EULA, 1.3.1 and under, as the new agreement doesn't apply ex post facto.

Let's check the actual wording and see how it is "spelled out in very carefully chosen language with specific legal meaning":

 

Quote

Updated Terms Notice

Please note that the EULA, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy (collectively, the “Terms”) will be changed on March 6, 2018. Please read the agreements. Your acceptance of the Terms after March 6th is required in order to retain future access to your purchases, fully participate on kerbalspaceprogram.com, and play Kerbal Space Program.

They are very carefully and specifically telling us that acceptance of the new terms is, in fact, required, to retain access to purchases already made and very generally, to play the game. Nothing in this phrasing excludes any earlier purchased or downloaded versions of the software. This is not simply a matter of my personal interpretation, the EULA is even more specific about this:

Quote

This limited software warranty and license agreement (this “Agreement“) may be periodically updated and the current version will be posted at www.take2games.com/eula (the “Website“). Your continued use of the Software after a revised Agreement has been posted constitutes your acceptance of its terms.

Notice the very carefully added and specific word 'continued' in that phrase, which is there to very specifically include the ex post facto case.

In fact, if you decide you no longer agree with updated terms, and thus are terminating the agreement, you have already agreed in advance to give up the right to use the software you 'purchased' before:

Quote

PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO OPEN, DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.

(...)

Upon any termination of this Agreement, you must destroy or return the physical copy of Software to Licensor, as well as permanently destroy all copies of the Software, accompanying documentation, associated materials, and all of its component parts in your possession or control, including from any client server, computer, gaming unit, or mobile device on which it has been installed. Upon termination of this Agreement, your rights to use the Software, including any VC or VG associated with your User Account, will terminate immediately, and you must cease all use of the Software.

 

And why can they do/say that? Because of the way software 'purchases' are defined by this industry, as quoted from the EULA again:

Quote

The Software is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Software.

 

I think people have a right to be a bit worried and not 'rest easy' when it is worded specifically to retroactively make it illegal continuing to use a legally purchased copy of the software already residing on their computers. Whether it is enforceable or not in court is a side issue; the intention/potential is already in the words, and the fact any party I have dealings with feels they can corner me into 'agreeing' with such terms is what disappoints me.