Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[GoSlash27]

 Just read the legalese in the privacy policy, and it looks pretty draconian to my untrained eye. I would have to agree to the terms in order to access my account starting tomorrow. Should I be concerned to the point where it's better to stay off the forum, or is it not that big a deal?

Thanks,
-Slashy

[PiezPiedPy]

@stibbons Thanks for that, Squad said many years ago that we modders own our own code and I read the USER CREATED CONTENT section from a post on Steam, [snip] I'll just go and hide in a corner now

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Vanamonde
Mind the language, please.

[Cydonian Monk]

4 minutes ago, PiezPiedPy said:

Now I feel like a dick, I'll just go and hide in a corner now

You shouldn’t though. These contracts ARE confusing and often quite vague, as us layfolk are not their intended audience. Don’t feel bad just because somebody else was speaking (or writing) in a language that at first seemed like English yet turned out to be Parseltongue. 

[Fobok]

10 minutes ago, PiezPiedPy said:

I have no problem giving Take2 redistribution rights if that is all that concerns them but I will not give them resale rights, no way jose.

1

Except, you already have. The MIT license you use includes freedom to sell.

Anyway, as has been discussed, I'm pretty sure they could only do that, given the terms listed,  on mods with other licenses if you host your mod on an official first or third-party mod site, which right now I believe is only CurseForge.

(I do hope you don't leave, by the way. Your mod is awesome. )

[PiezPiedPy]

@Fobok I added a section to the License exempting my personal contributions from the MIT terms and added my own terms to my contributions in an attempt to stop resale. Whether it has any weight in court is another matter 

https://github.com/neuoy/KSPTrajectories/blob/master/License.txt

[LameLefty]

2 hours ago, PiezPiedPy said:

@HebaruSan But my contract was with Deported not Take2, contracts can not be changed by a new owner unless all parties agree. As far as I am aware.

You have a *LOT* to learn about contract law. If you want a good place to start, after a 4 year college degree (Bachelor's or equivalent), take 3 more years of graduate law school. Then, and only then, can you really start learning how to apply what you've spent 7 years trying to learn.

But since Professor Google makes everyone a self-proclaimed expert these days, start with these terms "contracts law assignment provisions."

You're welcome.

[PiezPiedPy]

@LameLefty if assignment has been removed in the contract then what? could we use novation.

[LameLefty]

4 minutes ago, PiezPiedPy said:

@LameLefty if assignment has been removed in the contract then what? could we use novation.

To answer this, I'd have to create an attorney-client relationship and you'll have to pay me. I don't work for free.  

That said, threads like this are ridiculous. Read the EULA at the time you pay your money if you care about the terms of your license, and take it up with the company directly if you have a gripe down the line, not in a community forum. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by LameLefty

[PiezPiedPy]

@LameLefty Yawn

[LameLefty]

2 minutes ago, PiezPiedPy said:

@LameLefty Yawn

This whole thread fits that description. Go back to the Google Law School and try again.

[PiezPiedPy]

Just now, LameLefty said:

This whole thread fits that description. Go back to the Google Law School and try again.

So why are you wasting your time replying after things have already been sorted out. 

I have one thing to say to you that begins with F and has Off in it but I would get banned for expletives.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, stibbons said:

That applies to content created in-game, such as videos and missions made using the Making History mission builder. I fail to see how it applies to code written outside of The Software.

It applied according to the old EULA, something they seem to have overlooked with the new one. The old one says this:

Quote

17. SUPPORT SERVICES.
DEPORTED may provide you with support services (e.g., KSP Software Development Kit) related to the Licensed Application (“Support Services”). Any supplemental software code or other materials provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the Licensed Application and subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.

This in essence places PartTools under the same terms as the game itself, so anything created through the use of PartTools falls/fell under 'user created content' for the purposes of the EULA. This may however no longer be the case, since I can't find anything similar in the new terms.

 

1 hour ago, stibbons said:

Where in the current EULA does it state that?

Not in the EULA itself, but it does state:

Quote

All access and use of the Licensed Application is also subject to DEPORTED’s Terms of Service, accessible here WWW.KERBALSPACEPROGRAM.COM/TERMS.PHP, and all terms and conditions of the Terms of Service are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

 

Which means we have to include the text of the ToS as well, they can't be seen/used separately. And that one states:

Quote

DEPORTED grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and display any material that you design, author or create through or in connection with the Service, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the Service (collectively the “Game Content”) and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your noncommercial and personal use.

(...)

Alternatively, if you want to make any commercial use of the Game Content (or any other Content, as defined below), you must obtain the prior written authorization and consent for such specific use from DEPORTED. Such requests may be sent to DEPORTED at the address listed in Section 17.

(...)

DEPORTED does not claim any ownership rights in the Content that you submit or offer through the Service.

 

You will find no such words in TTI's version of the same, where all they talk about is how they assign all-encompassing licenses and rights to themselves (and third parties of their choosing).

 

[stibbons]

8 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Quote

DEPORTED grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and display any material that you design, author or create through or in connection with the Service, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the Service (collectively the “Game Content”) and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your noncommercial and personal use.

 

"incorporated in" could indeed apply to mods, sure.

 

11 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Quote

DEPORTED does not claim any ownership rights in the Content that you submit or offer through the Service.

 

This is not relevant, though.

11 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

You will find no such words in TTI's version of the same, where all they talk about is how they assign all-encompassing licenses and rights to themselves (and third parties of their choosing).

So that means there's no given stance on mods. OK cool.

[Starman4308]

Based on my understanding of IP law (and no, I'm not a lawyer), Take Two could:

Use screenshots, KSP videos, and other media generated in the KSP program in their own materials, unless you informed Take Two that you rejected the new EULA and then cease to ever again play KSP. This is because the EULA grants them an implicit license to content made with KSP.

Ban the use of mods. However, in practice, this would be incredibly difficult to enforce, and I don't think Take Two would try it. Note the precise language: ban the use of mods. KSP is their sandbox; Blender, Visual Studio, etc, are not their sandbox.

Depending on license, incorporate mods into KSP or a DLC.

 

Take Two cannot:

Seize your mod. Ever. The copyright belongs to you. They cannot stop you from distributing the material. Sure, they could forbid end users from using it via EULA, but you would continue to own and have permission to distribute source code and other media that you generated, so long as you didn't use KSP or other Squad/Take Two tools to generate or distribute that material.

Force you to sell the copyright.

 

Now, let me expand a bit on mods and licenses.

If a mod is licensed ARR (All Rights Reserved), Take Two cannot touch it. They cannot create derivative works, they cannot incorporate it into their product, etc. They could produce something similar and incorporate it, but they would need to start from scratch.

If a mod is licensed with GNU GPL or similar non-commercialization-friendly open-source licenses, they cannot incorporate it into their product without your express permission.

If a mod is licensed with MIT, BSD, LGPL, or similar commercialization-friendly open-source licenses, they can incorporate it into their product, distribute it, fork it and sell the fork under ARR, BUT:

They would have to incorporate a copy of the MIT/BSD/LGPL license with their product, and they still couldn't forbid you from distributing your mod under that open-source license. So, if tomorrow, they released the Not-Trajectories DLC forked from Trajectories and charged $10 for it, that Not-Trajectories DLC would incorporate a copy of your MIT license, and they would have no right to forbid you distributing Trajectories under MIT.

Granted, if they added some feature to Not-Trajectories and licensed it ARR, you wouldn't be able to take Not-Trajectories, put it into Trajectories, and license it MIT; you would have to do your own clean-sheet implementation of that feature.

[Jeb12345]

so whats all this fuss about Take2 changing the stuff. I couldn't bother to read it because it hurt my eyes so can someone explain it to me.

 

[panzer1b]

Unless you are actually putting REAL information pertaining to name, address, bank account number, ect in your profile, i dont see how it matters.  Its not like KSP is gonna bypass a firewall specifically set to block it and any other program that isnt whitelisted (and if it does id consider it a virus), so i dont need to worry about that aspect at all.  Only thing im worried about is potential future DRM that may actually require internt or something to run the game.  That said, i have 1.3 and a few older versions on my comp/backup drives, so its not like those are ever gonna go away or anything unless i have 4 drives crash on me simultaneously (or get my house hit by a EMP powerful enough to destroy one of the drives which i keep locked up in a solid metal box).

[Punslinger]

First of all, let's remember the most important advice given out by the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't Panic."

People who are wigging out about the idea of T2 coming along and stealing their mods really need to take a good long look at the Civilization series, which T2 also owns and which also relies HEAVILY on the modding community.  It is also a lot bigger, in terms of both budget and playerbase, than KSP.  Now, has T2 tried to do anything monumentally stupid like banning modding or stealing the best mods to resell as DLC?  No.  Because T2 are not a bunch of freaking idiots.

First: the way KSP is designed, DLC part packs aren't even possible.  Yes, you could sell the files, but there's no DRM on them, so obviously T2 isn't going to bother.  Trying to add DRM to KSP would require so much rewriting that it wouldn't be worth it, because at that point, you're better off just creating KSP2 from the ground up.  I'm a programmer at my day job, so I know what a giant pain in the butt it is to rewrite legacy code.

Second: the only market for KSP mods is KSP players.  Who A) already have the mod for free and B) would instantly know it had been stolen if they see it pop up as paid DLC, either now or in a hypothetical KSP2.  So the market for stolen mods is basically zero.

Third: stealing mods to sell them as DLC is a trick you can only pull once, because the instant you do, nobody will bother creating anything for your game anymore.  You aren't just killing the goose laying your golden eggs, you're nuking that sucker from orbit.

Fourth: there are a lot of mods that add spacecraft from other copyrighted works (e.g. Firefly) into the game.  If T2 were ever to actually try to claim ownership of those, lawyers' heads would explode with the sheer magnitude of joy they'd get from filing the resulting lawsuit.

Fifth: T2 has an army of developers and artists who are already being paid salaries to create lots of stuff for their games.  They don't need to trawl the fora looking for mods to steal.  Bottom line: any organization trusts its own coders more than it trusts the developers of Random Internet Code.

Sixth: AFAIK, there has been no documented case of a game company ever actually stealing fan work and trying to pass it off as their own.  The few times a company has taken an interest in distributing mods, it has taken the form of purchasing the rights to the mod and/or hiring the modders on as full-time developers.  Counter-Strike is probably the most notable example.  But if you want even more proof that modders don't have anything to fear, take a look at DotA.  It has millions of users.  It launched an entire new genre of game.  And it's still a completely free mod that even Activision hasn't tried to steal for themselves.  So even something with that much profit potential, where it would be fairly easy for them to simply slap it on top of Warcraft 3 and call it a new game, hasn't been stolen.

Seventh: If you put an MIT- or BSD-style license on your mod, then you've already given T2 (or anybody else) permission to resell it, because MIT/BSD-style licenses are extremely permissive.  And the fact that T2 isn't already selling a DLC pack consisting of mods distributed under permissive licenses, where there would be absolutely no chance of them losing any lawsuit in court because your license explicitly gives them permission to redistribute without any obligations on their part, should really tell you something about the likelihood of T2 trying to do this.

All of this is to say that people really need to calm down, because the odds of T2 actually trying to steal your work are somewhere between nil and bupkis.

(Also, while we're on the subject of draconian license terms, the clauses that Piez added would technically forbid anybody from using KSPTrajectories in an ad-monetized Twitch stream or YouTube video, because it would be "commercial or personal gain" without "prior written authorization from the copyright holder."  See how easy it is to find the worst-case scenario in any contract clause?)

[Starman4308]

It's about Take Two changing stuff. If you want to be confident about what it means: hire a lawyer. Otherwise, I'd just wait and see: while it gives Take Two a lot of latitude, we have no idea what they plan to do with that latitude: companies tend to be very restrictive with their EULAs because people can be very creative about trying to find grey spots and loopholes in those EULAs.

[Kerbart]

53 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

Now, let me expand a bit on mods and licenses.

If a mod is licensed ARR (All Rights Reserved), Take Two cannot ...

Thank you for the excellent clarification. Aren't there a few FOSS licenses that actually state that if you incorporate the software in your product, it would become subject of the same license? T2 would shoot themselves really in the foot in that case.

Another obstacle in the perceived (non existing) copyrights grab is ownership in the first place. Where does it put T2 legally when it turns out that your mod isn't “your” mod? Because it's public domain and not owned by anyone? Or worse, you pretended it was yours but it turns out it is not? Surely T2 could claim you are on the hook, but by “silently” taking over the copyrights there would probably be some issues with that claim, while meanwhile they have to fight a copyright lawsuit against the original owner. And to my limited knowledge, copyright cases are one of those type of federal lawsuits where a big bag of (corporate) money does not guarantee a favorable outcome (assuming the plaintiff has a semi-decent lawyer), but rather what the law actually says determines the outcome. Not sure T2 wants to roll the dice on that.

It makes more sense for them, if they want to incorporate a mod into the game, to simply reach out to the author, and buy the rights; it saves them from a lot of potential legal trouble later on.

[Starman4308]

Just now, Kerbart said:

Thank you for the excellent clarification. Aren't there a few FOSS licenses that actually state that if you incorporate the software in your product, it would become subject of the same license? T2 would shoot themselves really in the foot in that case.

Another obstacle in the perceived (non existing) copyrights grab is ownership in the first place. Where does it put T2 legally when it turns out that your mod isn't “your” mod? Because it's public domain and not owned by anyone? Or worse, you pretended it was yours but it turns out it is not? Surely T2 could claim you are on the hook, but by “silently” taking over the copyrights there would probably be some issues with that claim, while meanwhile they have to fight a copyright lawsuit against the original owner. And to my limited knowledge, copyright cases are one of those type of federal lawsuits where a big bag of (corporate) money does not guarantee a favorable outcome (assuming the plaintiff has a semi-decent lawyer), but rather what the law actually says determines the outcome. Not sure T2 wants to roll the dice on that.

It makes more sense for them, if they want to incorporate a mod into the game, to simply reach out to the author, and buy the rights; it saves them from a lot of potential legal trouble later on.

The GNU GPL is one of those viral licenses. Unless the software owner incorporates the classpath exception*, anybody seeking to use a GNU GPL library must themselves license under GNU GPL. Should Take Two attempt to use a GNU GPL-licensed mod, they're forced either with a copyright violation lawsuit, or KSP becoming free for everyone.

*The classpath exception, as I understand it, says "you may link to the library as a whole, but you can't modify it if you do this".

Incidentally, this is why I dislike the GNU GPL: I have no problem with open-source software being utilized and expanded upon by businesses. I'd groan if somebody forked something I'd licensed under MIT/BSD and put it in a for-profit, ARR package with nothing on top to justify that ARR license... and gleefully sue them into oblivion if they tried to delete the MIT/BSD license stating where they got that software from originally. I don't buy into the fear and possessiveness that underlies GNU GPL and other anti-commercial licenses.

If you tried to do that: fork open-source software, ARR it, sell it, you're pretty much hoping that your customers don't notice the license for the original software and follow it to the original distributor. What would be more realistic for them is to take an open-source software, add to it by adding elements such as a GUI, and ARR the software package while honestly giving credit to the original, open-source software that yours is based on.

In any event, if Take Two doesn't want to cause a PR furor, they'll do things transparently and above-board: if they want something in a mod, they'd ask the mod developer for permission even if it's under a permissive license.

[Gargamel]

There's a thread just below this one that explains all this..... probably should consider reading at least that..... 

 

EDIT: seeing as we have a couple more threads like this popping up, I'll link to the one I mean:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/171236-updated-terms-notice-privacy-policy-discussion/

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gargamel

[Jeb12345]

ok thanks. Ive been reading around and its getting quite hard to find non-bias responses. mostly what ive heard is some people saying its the end of KSP, some saying its just T2 wanting to make it easier for their legal team, and some saying just to backup your mods. also id find it quite difficult to hire a lawyer considering you kinda have to be over 18 or whatever....

but it think some people are acting like the nerv engine (over reacting, if you didn't get it)

Edited March 6, 2018 by Jeb12345
cuz

[dlrk]

Does the EULA have a gold fringe? That's the important question.

[Brent Kerman]

Well, this is it. The new terms drop in two hours. But, as Dan Blaine said, it's not over: Manifesto, really.

To @SQUAD, you built a great game, and a great fanbase. But you left us down. KSP had great potential. But you decided to go the way of so many gamemakers before. Get all the money you can out of the player. Players don't like that.

Now, it appears the Resistance has lost. The Evil Take-Two Empire is hours from victory. But when given the option between surrender, and not playing KSP, we choose to go underground. The fight is NOT over. We will continue the fight, from the shadows.

If you want to join the Resistance, you can. It may be dangerous. But, if you wish, you can help "make those God-damned b******* pay!"

To talk to us, click here: ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM!

Edited March 6, 2018 by Brent Kerman
Blaine's language caused problems.

[Brent Kerman]

Well, this is it. The new terms drop in two hours. But, as Dan Blaine said, it's not over: Manifesto, really.

To @SQUAD, you built a great game, and a great fanbase. But you left us down. KSP had great potential. But you decided to go the way of so many gamemakers before. Get all the money you can out of the player. Players don't like that.

Now, it appears the Resistance has lost. The Evil Take-Two Empire is hours from victory. But when given the option between surrender, and not playing KSP, we choose to go underground. The fight is NOT over. We will continue the fight, from the shadows.

If you want to join the Resistance, you can. It may be dangerous. But, if you wish, you can help "make those God-damned b******* pay!"

To talk to us, click here: ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM!

Edited March 6, 2018 by Brent Kerman
Blaine's language caused problems.