Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[adsii1970]

10 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

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.

I agree. And what really bothers me is what the end result will be. It could potentially KILL Kerbal Space Program. I know there are a number of users who will walk away from the game and the forum if TT does go this draconian route. Yes, it is their game, they own the rights. But the question becomes what is the intent of the EULA? Do they want to rid themselves of a cult-like following of a stable core user group so they can safely change the focus of the game to a new crowd?

[Derb]

57 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

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

 

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:

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:

 

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

 

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.

Thank you for clarifying this. While it is true that you would have to terminate your use of KSP itself, it is still allowable to continue to publish mods as they can be created without KSP itself. Hard to test, though. PartsTools has no license attached to it from the download I made of it (please point me to its license if it has one, I haven't found it).

Something of note though - nothing in the new terms prevent you from continuing use - they don't hold weight if you don't agree, and can't apply ex post facto. It's the old terms that allow for the updating of terms and your acceptance or discontinuation of the license that matters. Nothing retroactive about the requirement to discontinue use.

Quote

20. MODIFICATIONS.
DEPORTED has the right to modify this license agreement and impose and modify new or additional terms and conditions regarding the use of the Licensed Application at any time. All new and/or modified terms and/or conditions will be effective ten (10) days after publication through the Licensed Application or on WWW.KERBALSPACEPROGRAM.COM. Within five (5) days following the publishing of the modifications and/or additions to the license agreement, the user must inform DEPORTED via e-mail, regarding its non-acceptance of the modifications or additions. Once the five (5) day period has elapsed, your continued use of the Licensed Application will be deemed as the express acceptance of the new or modified terms or conditions. Therefore, if you do not accept the new terms and conditions you must immediately stop using the Licensed Application.

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Derb

[swjr-swis]

9 minutes ago, Derb said:

PartsTools has no license attached to it from the download I made of it (please point me to its license if it has one, I haven't found it).

I haven't seen one either.

Considerng that the PartTools fall within the definition given for 'Add-on' (they don't limit it just to KSP), this ironically creates the interesting situation in which Squad is in breach of their own 'add-on posting rules' by at least two counts: they have not posted a license for it, nor have they published the source code.

Legalese - gotta love it.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Just Jim said:

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 this forum, 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.

Well said Jim.

It's not about the money. I wouldn't turn it down mind, but the chances of making money from any sort of writing is pretty slim, let alone fan-fiction where you're ultimately dependant on somebody else's good graces. That's fine and was understood from the outset - or at least it was once I got past my 'holy moley - people are reading this stuff!' moment and took a slightly more objective look at things.

But if I could offer another example - and to be quite clear, this isn't any sort of competition (you do pictures, I don't. Pictures are hard), I've been writing First Flight for a few months short of five years now and the total word count is somewhere north of 320,000. If folks want a point of comparison with a rather better known series, that's all of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, plus all of Chamber of Secrets, plus all of Prisoner of Azkaban, topped off with well over a quarter of a Goblet of Fire.

That's a lot of work and a lot of free time spent.

Now I don't claim to be making the same impact on people's enjoyment of KSP that the big name mods do. Far from it. On the other hand, some commenters have been kind enough to say that reading First Flight has added to their game and, at the least, I'm kinda hopeful that I've given other folks another reason to stick around the forums and maybe get involved in other aspects of the community, all to the advantage of Squad and/or Take Two.

So yes. I don't think it is very likely but if Take Two did decide they wanted to use First Flight, then in truth I'd be thrilled. However, I'd certainly want to be credited for it - given the time I've put into it I don't think I'm being terribly precious there. And if we disagreed about any necessary edits, I'd hope they'd respect that and simply decide they couldn't use it rather than making the edits themselves and going ahead regardless.

Edited March 1, 2018 by KSK

[RaiderMan]

this entire thread...its like a car wreck happening in slow motion..you want to look away(or not as the case may be) but you just cant...

 

how long does it take for lawyers to decide 'this is what you can say to clarify that issue'.....
my theory? too many cooks in their legal department's kitchen and they cant all agree on the response..

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

But if I could offer another example - and to be quite clear, this isn't any sort of competition (you do pictures, I don't. Pictures are hard), I've been writing First Flight for a few months short of five years now and the total word count is somewhere north of 320,000. If folks want a point of comparison with a rather better known series, that's all of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, plus all of Chamber of Secrets, plus all of Prisoner of Azkaban, topped off with well over a quarter of a Goblet of Fire.

Agreed... and I also want to stress it's not a competition for me, either. I only pointed out how many words and screenshots Emiko Station has for the exact same reason, to try and explain how much work we've put into these, and how important they are to us at this point... and hopefully to our readers as well.

That's why we're making a big deal over this. It's not about profit... It's because after 2 years of writing it, Emiko Kerman and the rest of my characters are almost like family at this point... and I'm pretty sure some other writers feel exactly the same way.

I will probably end up signing it... I don't know what else to do... I just hope everything works out OK

Edited March 1, 2018 by Just Jim

[Manwith Noname]

1 hour ago, Derb said:

Thank you for clarifying this. While it is true that you would have to terminate your use of KSP itself, it is still allowable to continue to publish mods as they can be created without KSP itself. Hard to test, though. PartsTools has no license attached to it from the download I made of it (please point me to its license if it has one, I haven't found it).

Something of note though - nothing in the new terms prevent you from continuing use - they don't hold weight if you don't agree, and can't apply ex post facto. It's the old terms that allow for the updating of terms and your acceptance or discontinuation of the license that matters. Nothing retroactive about the requirement to discontinue use.

 

Anyone who purchased the game on Steam has never agreed to the old EULA to my knowledge. It's not linked to on the store page and it is never shown during installation or running the game. The only licensing information contained within the install pertains to the third party tools / software Squad have used within KSP.

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, Just Jim said:

Agreed... and I also want to stress it's not a competition for me, either. I only pointed out how many words and screenshots Emiko Station has for the exact same reason, to try and explain how much work we've put into these, and how important they are to us at this point... and hopefully to our readers as well.

That's why we're making a big deal over this. It's not about profit... It's because after 2 years of writing it, Emiko Kerman and the rest of my characters are almost like family at this point... and I'm pretty sure some other writers feel exactly the same way.

I will probably end up signing it... I don't know what else to do... I just hope everything works out OK

Agreed...

I just wish that we would hear something soon. If this waiting continues...

[klgraham1013]

40 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

If this waiting continues...

...what will happen?  Honestly, this type of EULA has been in the gaming industry for a long time, and until it hurts someone's pocket book, they'll only get more draconian.  Perhaps they're even hoping with enough silence this will all be forgotten.

[Ultimate Steve]

Okay, I've seen multiple varying answers to this, not sure if anyone knows for sure, but...

Everything we post on the forum belongs to TTI after the new rules come into effect, right? Or is it everything on the forums, period? If I were to remove something from the forums before the update would it still belong to me?

[Mako]

11 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, I've seen multiple varying answers to this, not sure if anyone knows for sure, but...

Everything we post on the forum belongs to TTI after the new rules come into effect, right? Or is it everything on the forums, period? If I were to remove something from the forums before the update would it still belong to me?

From the Terms of Service on kerbalspaceprogram.com (where this forum resides)

Quote

7.4 Your Grant of Rights
If you submit Content to the Service, you acknowledge that you are the owner of any Intellectual Property rights in such Content, or have sufficient rights to submit the Content to the Service without infringing any third-party rights. DEPORTED does not claim any ownership rights in the Content that you submit or offer through the Service. However, to the extent you submit any Content you acknowledge and agree that you automatically grant (and represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to DEPORTED to:
• use, reproduce, distribute, remove, and analyze any of your Content as DEPORTED may deem necessary or desirable for any purpose in connection with the operation of the Service, and
• copy, modify, and reproduce your Content for marketing, promotional and/or other purposes in connection with DEPORTED or the Service in any media, and
• use, edit, modify, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, post or otherwise make available to any other user in connection with any feature of the Service, and
• delete any or all of your Content from the Service, whether intentionally or unintentionally, for any reason or no reason, without any liability of any kind to you or to any other party, and
• enable users of the Service to share or post your Content on third party sites, such as, without limitation, on social networking sites.

So, it seems you own whatever you post or have posted here, but also give Deported (aka Squad) full rights to do whatever they want with/to whatever you post here. The main thing that will change with the new EULA/ToS in regards to what you post on the forums is that now instead of Squad saying this it'll be Take-Two saying this.

[swjr-swis]

13 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

not sure if anyone knows for sure, but...

We're all just practicing armchair law here, and until tried in court, no one can known for sure.

 

5 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Everything we post on the forum belongs to TTI after the new rules come into effect, right? Or is it everything on the forums, period?

 

The new terms state the following:

Quote

LICENSE TO THE COMPANY

By creating UGC, posting messages, uploading files, creating files, inputting data, or engaging in any form of communication with or through the Online Services, you are granting the Company a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to: (1) use, copy, sublicense, adapt, transmit, publicly perform, or display any such material; and (2) sublicense to third-parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the material. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such material, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark, or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. Please consult the EULA at www.take2games.com/eula for additional license terms related to our software.

So I'd say that is 'everything, period'. It is not excluding anything already created before. In fact, both the forum announcement and the link on the store page now warn that to even keep access to your account, and by extension to anything posted previously through that account, acceptance of the new agreement is required.

 

9 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

If I were to remove something from the forums before the update would it still belong to me?

If it was once on their forum, and they made a backup/copy of it at any point, they still reserve themselves a perpetual right to it, according to this agreement. Note that neither the terms nor the EULA have any article in it clarifying how to terminate THEIR rights... only ours.

[Lord Aurelius]

From thinking more about this issue, it seems more than anything else like there's a general trend in companies to reserve as many rights as they possibly can with the EULA "just in case", knowing that most people don't read it or otherwise don't care.

Seems ridiculous, but I suppose the same thing happens everywhere people can get away with doing it (including government).

Most of the time it doesn't really have any bearing on the company's behavior since if they really tried to enforce the more controversial points, it would be such a PR nightmare that it wouldn't be worth it.

[Yakuzi]

On 2/25/2018 at 8:57 AM, JPLRepo said:

No I can't comment on this; but have passed on all the concerns to the Comms and Legal Teams who hopefully can provide you with a clearer response next week when their offices are open.

Any news on a response by any chance @JPLRepo? Since the new EULA will go into effect in 4 days, it'd be great if we would get more info soon. Particularly if we want to communicate through these forums, which will require accepting the new EULA from the 6th of March if I'm not mistaken.

[shdwlrd]

I generally don't like getting into these types debates, but everyone is making a mountain out of an ant mound. After reading the EULA, it's striking similar to the EULA's I've seen for many games and other software I've bought and used over the years. It reads similar to anything that needs software to operate. You must agree to the EULA to use your phone, pc, console, car, smart watch, GPS, Facebook, Imgur, etc., and they all read virtually the same.

As for the copyright stuff, it's for Take Two and Squads protection. It allows them to defend themselves legally. Say someone claims that Squad used something posted on the forum for purposes other than the user intended and tries to sue, or if an user starts demanding payment for something that they created and posted on the forum and Squad uses it. (Think of the fan art that Squad posts. I know the images come from 3rd party sites, but that is my example.) They need a way to legally defend themselves. Legalese like that wouldn't have been added if somebody hasn't already tried to sue a company in the past for both reasons and probably more I can't think of. Also you have to remember that Take Two is a U.S. company and Squad is a subsidiary. They can have a lawsuit filed against them for virtually anything in the U.S. (Anyone remember the whole McDonald's spilled coffee lawsuit. I still smh at that one.) But you also have to remember, they have to follow the copyright and trademark laws too. That's why they will always credit the content creator when they post something for the whole community to see. And if they are wrong, will credit the correct person when it's brought to their attention.

As other people have posted, the changes to the EULA is just a stick to beat back fraudulent and frivolous lawsuits and to spell out what rights you do have. (Obviously the your rights can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from country to country.) As long as you are not doing anything that is detrimental to a companies business model, most companies usually will ignore infractions of their EULA. (Don't cite GTA5 as a counter point. The program that was used to mod the game was reversed engineered from the base code. That is a clear violation of most, if not all, EULA's I've read. Rockstar/Take Two had full right to force the creator to disable and remove the program. It doesn't matter how long it wasn't noticed or ignored.)

Now the privacy changes concerns me. I already get enough spam, I would like to opt out of all info sharing beyond Take Two and Squad.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

13 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

As other people have posted, the changes to the EULA is just a stick to beat back fraudulent and frivolous lawsuits and to spell out what rights you do have. (Obviously the your rights can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from country to country.) As long as you are not doing anything that is detrimental to a companies business model, most companies usually will ignore infractions of their EULA. (Don't cite GTA5 as a counter point. The program that was used to mod the game was reversed engineered from the base code. That is a clear violation of most, if not all, EULA's I've read. Rockstar/Take Two had full right to force the creator to disable and remove the program. It doesn't matter how long it wasn't noticed or ignored.)

Now the privacy changes concerns me. I already get enough spam, I would like to opt out of all info sharing beyond Take Two and Squad.

As you say, the cases being brought up aren't generally relevant.  For things like the GTA case, that was obviously a breach.  And, as much as I'd like to be anti-corporate and all, the only cases tend to be obvious breaches.  And, in KSP's case, modding has been actively encouraged, and the tools to do so have been made available.  There's a whole bunch of "implied" that extends off that.  I don't think for a second that Take2/Squad are going to try to stop modders, or steal all their stuff.  

The questions arise because Squad have been so good.  In two ways.  1: They made their own Unity tool available, PartTools, and thiscould possibly be construed to be part of the "Software".  It's a hazy possibility.  There's been plenty of arguments around that.  Point 2: Squad were good people and told us all about software licenses, and we should all have them for our mods, and they should all be some sort of open license (which includes things like non-commercial licenses).  This I think could cause an issue, because those licenses are contradictory with the new EULA for what is obviously, and should be, commercial software.  What's more, how much of an issue depends upon point 1.  The issue doesn't necessarily arise just from modders needing to change their licenses either.  But from the content used in mods, that's covered by licenses that allows their use, in the open licenses that were previously being used.  Basically, Modder A can't accept the new EULA on the behalf of content producer B that produced works used in Modder A's mod.

If, however, mods are not included, and Squad/Take2 say this doesn't apply to content parsed through Part Tools, then I think the issue goes away.  Or, that's my reading of it.

[MOARdV]

47 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Basically, Modder A can't accept the new EULA on the behalf of content producer B that produced works used in Modder A's mod.

This pretty much sums up the problem I see with the new ToS / EULA.

[shdwlrd]

6 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Basically, Modder A can't accept the new EULA on the behalf of content producer B that produced works used in Modder A's mod.

I've been chewing on this for awhile now. It shouldn't matter, but it will depend on the agreement between the parties. The new EULA doesn't change the initial licensing for the content nor does it change method or limitations of delivery of said content. The models, assets and code are not shared through KSP directly, they are only shared through 3rd party services where the new EULA has no effect. The only thing I can see being transmitted through the stated online services would be the settings for the missions and craft files. Transmitting the models and assets through KSP would make really large files and can create problems with the file structure and no one wants that. Now if modder A or content creator B want to revoke the right for their work to be used or shared, that is their prerogative. Abandoned mods that are open, free use, the licensing says it all.

10 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

If, however, mods are not included, and Squad/Take2 say this doesn't apply to content parsed through Part Tools, then I think the issue goes away.  Or, that's my reading of it.

I agree with you on this point. But here is the thing, part tools isn't distributed with the core KSP software. It's a free 3rd party tool for Unity only available through the forum. (duh) It would be bad, if not fatal, practice to revoke any copyrights by using a tool created for some other companies software. That type of behavior may even breach Unity's EULA and Squad wouldn't what to do that. If KSP had an internal part tools like importer, then I would be very worried.

10 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Squad were good people and told us all about software licenses, and we should all have them for our mods, and they should all be some sort of open license (which includes things like non-commercial licenses).  This I think could cause an issue, because those licenses are contradictory with the new EULA for what is obviously, and should be, commercial software.

I don't think the open non commercial licenses will be an issue. Even Squad and TTI have to respect them. Basically, if you chose the correct license for both the art, models and any code you may have, it shouldn't be a problem. But if you think it will be a problem, you can always change your license to ARR and not worry about anyone using parts of your mod without your knowledge. But this can explain why several mods switched their licensing to something more strict over the past year.

[Delay]

What would happen to mods like Principia, which completely replaces the way gravity is computed in the game?

[klgraham1013]

One week.  No response.  No surprise.

Edited March 3, 2018 by klgraham1013

[swjr-swis]

17 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

By reading this post, you have accepted the terms of my EULA.

I mean... heeeeey!

Edited March 3, 2018 by swjr-swis

[panzer1b]

Im really not that concerned myself.  i dont really do mods anymore, but if it ever becomes an issue to do mods, well we can always go somewhere beyond the forums like reddit or whatever to post mods and distribute em.

 

As for privacy, good luck getting anything past my firewall without explicit permission which im not going to give any singleplayer game (only exception was back in DPM days, but that mod sorta died off so ive blocked KSP and havent ever let anything through my firewall).

 

Anyways, all that aside, if it really comes down to it, i still have like 3 backups of KSP 1.3.1 on various hard drives, and noones gonna stop me from playing something ive legally bought EULA or not (worst case i just wont get the recent updates)...

[Benjamin Kerman]

I feel like they're waiting it out until it takes effect, then give clarification, forcing us to agree with it by simply viewing it.  

[adsii1970]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

I feel like they're waiting it out until it takes effect, then give clarification, forcing us to agree with it by simply viewing it.  

Yup. You are probably right.

[klgraham1013]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Kerman said:

I feel like they're waiting it out until it takes effect, then give clarification, forcing us to agree with it by simply viewing it.  

That's how EULAs work.  You accept them without even knowing it.