Mod licensing and "etiquette"

[MaxPeck]

Edit: nothing to see here, move along. 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by MaxPeck

[Lisias]

I'm moving this discussion here, as this subject is way offtopic and I don't want to keep it on the original thread.

@Angstinator , this is the sole reason - please don't think I think you did something bad or wrong!

@OPBlue  the same goes to you.

Please understand, guys.

 

Spoiler

from the original:

 

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:21 PM, Angstinator said:

On 5/6/2019 at 2:33 AM, Lisias said:

Most of his Add'Ons are all ARR, no one are allowed to legally keep them going.

Why any mod author would ever use this kind of bloody useless licensing is beyond me.

There're a lot of reasons, some good, some not too much. What follows is a free brainstorming on the subject, i don't have the slightest clue about the real reasons from the author mentioned on the original thread.

1. The guy/gal is a 3D Modeler, he/she wants to share some of his/her work but don't want someone using his/her work commercially to compete with him/her. So he/she shares it under a restrictive license to allow him/her to legally respond if someone tries the stunt
2. He/she used third-parties work, and these third-party didn't mind to allow him/her to use the work (friendship or commercial partnership), but that other guy/gal doesn't want that anyone else use the work
3. The guy/gal invested a huge amount of his/her free time, and hope to get some revenue from it later.
4. The guy/gal had bought the art from someone else, and the original author made it clear that he/she is the only licensed user of such material
5. The guy/gal did a huge emotional investment on the work, and he/she is finding a hard time to allow anyone else to handle it.
   1. Perhaps he/she is just jealousy, perhaps he/she just don't thrust anyone available to handle the work
   2. Perhaps anything else
6. Nobody helped the guy/gal when he/she needed, so he/she doesn't feel compelled do give his/her work for free.

And a huge amount of more reasons exists. I just scratched the surface of the matter.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:40 PM, Angstinator said:

Nothing's stopping those same people from re-releasing on another site, though.

You are somewhat wrong. The Law cannot prevent someone of doing that, but it can surely make the guy/gal (and the site!) to regret deeply he/she did that - you can waste some serious money on the matter, even by not being guilty. Please be cautious.

Some of us rely on that very same copyright law to make a living. I'm one of that guys. And I'm one that would probably file a complain if I see someone abusing the author's work.

I'm not telling that I don't use that loopholes on law myself - I do. But I do it on a way that doesn't causes prejudice to the original author of the work. Everybody needs to make a living, you know. And some of us can be very vocal (and sometimes, even vicious) while trying to protect that incoming (or to prevent someone else making such a incoming at their expenses).

That said, there're indeed some loopholes on the law that could be used to protected user's rights. But I don't intent to discuss such matter on this forum - this is private land, and they (Moderators) choose not to allow such discussion here. And for me, this is enough.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:40 PM, Angstinator said:

Why any other mod author would ever respect this kind of bloody useless licensing - well, not beyond me, but honestly I don't see why.

Rights are not an individual effort. You can only have your own rights secured by helping to secure other people's rights.

That said, I don't get why people uses ARR material without any kind of guarantee at first place. We, users, had drawn ourselves to a corner, and we are the only ones to be blamed.

Yes, I'm including me on the equation. I got attached to some of ARR Add'Ons myself. I'm also somewhat heart broken with the situation, and I'm trying to figure out a reasonable and legal way to cope with the mess.

However, sed lex dura lex. I cannot protect my rights at the same time I violate other people's. And had I mentioned that I make a living doing software?

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:40 PM, Angstinator said:

Besides, with a mod author who quit, presumably permanently, what's the point of not opening up all his mods? It's like that kid who'd rather toss his cookies than share them when he's full.

We don't know if it's permanently. But it's irrelevant anyway. The "cookies" belong to him, and he is free to do whatever he wants with his "cookies". It's his right.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:28 PM, OPBlue said:

Some people want to have their designs to be associated with their name. Also some people copy mods and re-release them as their own, and to have that protection keeps them from doing that. And even if they do copy it; moderators will shut their thread down and give them a warning. Besides that copyright is indeed "bloody useless.".

Well said, sir. I just don't agree with the "useless". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - we just don't know the author's mind on the subject - there're some very good reasons to do so, see above.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:52 PM, OPBlue said:

We don't know why <redacted by Lisias> quit because one day he asked the moderators to close his threads and then he vanished. He never let anyone know (that we know of) ahead of time that he was quitting so he never gave the mods to anyone. I don't really know legal stuff so don't quote me on this but if he did leave forever his copyright license will expire and then someone will pick it up eventually. 

The copyright expires in 70 years [after author's death - 50 in some countries]. A long time to wait, if you ask me.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 9:52 PM, OPBlue said:

I'm not trying to be rude but this isn't really the right thread to be discussing this because there's no real relation that i know of between the discussion and the thread it is being discussed on. But maintaining the thread isn't my responsibility (yet?).

Thanks for the consideration, I moved the discussion to this thread for this reason, and I will ask moderators to move your posts to this too. It will be somewhat weird to publish a response before the questions, but… Whatever.

This is KSP, we are used to space-time anomalies!  

Edited May 15, 2019 by Lisias
uh.. fixing a statement. italics, in brackets.

[Flibble]

On 5/14/2019 at 2:34 AM, Lisias said:

The copyright expires in 70 years. A long time to wait, if you ask me.

70 years after the author's death... Could be a lot longer than that.

[Superfluous J]

37 minutes ago, Flibble said:

70 years after the author's death... Could be a lot longer than that.

You mean X+Y years after the Author's death, where X is the number of years since Walt Disney's death and Y is a number between 5 and 20.

[Loskene]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

You mean X+Y years after the Author's death, where X is the number of years since Walt Disney's death and Y is a number between 5 and 20.

With Y exponentially increasing every time X + Y approaches Z (the current date). All of modern copyright law is just Disney's protectionism racket.

[DStaal]

49 minutes ago, Loskene said:

With Y exponentially increasing every time X + Y approaches Z (the current date). All of modern copyright law is just Disney's protectionism racket.

Actually... Disney didn't push this time when X+Y equaled Z.  Everyone was expecting them to, but it didn't happen.  (Likely because everyone was expecting them to, and ready for a fight.)  Copyright actually expired on works this January.  (Though Mickey Mouse is still covered for a couple of years.)

News coverage: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/

[Lisias]

I'm moving the discussion here, as this was getting way offttopic on the main thead.

Link to the original post. Link to the thread's OP.

17 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Only the art assets are ARR.

The configs are under the MIT License and the plugins are under LGPL.

Saying (all of)Restock is ARR is therefore not exactly factually correct 

ReStock having MIT and LGPL artifacts don't change the fact that I can't redistribute it later, as MIT and LGPL allows.

Saying Restock are licensed in a way similar to CC BY NC ND is factually incorrect (in fact, can be legally unsafe), besides having embedded artifacts by Porkjet PartOverhaul licensed under CC-BY-NC 3.0 - so they choose not to allow future artists to use their material the same way Porkjet and Squad allowed them to use theirs. What's a perfectly legal and fine choice to be made - but yet, it's not CC BY NC ND so you can't expect any if the rights a CC grants you.

On the long run KSP's license grants me more rights and does it explicitly, so they are more dependable.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Lisias
Hit "save" too soon.

[Lisias]

Moving the discussion here, by the same reasons. Link to the original post.

17 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

It is owned by M$, and a pretty darn big development platform. The chances of something happened to it are incredibly slim, to say the least, and ReStock would be among the least important casualties. There are people whose entire livelihood depends on stuff that's being done through GitHub.

Besides, if we're talking facts, then the facts are that someone is gonna to ignore legal stuff and reupload it anyway. If the authors truly move on, nobody is gonna care. The fact is, once you release something on the internet, it should be considered impossible to remove. 

Probably. Buy yet, one would be doing it while breaking the law, and he/she must be perfectly aware of it.

There're a lot of loopholes on the Copyright Act that would protect you on such event, but yet, they are loopholes and not available to the whole World. Australians are ones that should be cautious about, Copyright Laws there are terribly harsh - American Law applies only to Americans, and in America.

Fact is: copyright bites. You are caught distributing ARR material on some parts of the World, you are fined (on mine, it can be a felony if money are involved somehow). I'm not remotely worried about the licensor's right, I'm concerned about the users. I know that most users will not refrain themselves from using it (legally or not) - the presence of some ARR material on the torrents around the World makes this clear - but yet, you must know you are downloading ARR material by… non exactly authorized, heterodox means… and take the proper precautions.

Copyright Trolling is a reality. Ok, about 1 between 1.000 are caught by a troll - but yet, no one wants to be that one.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Lisias
Hit "save" too soon.

[Nertea]

Our licensing choices are absolutely made with the full knowledge of the exact implications of the license used. The art is licensed in that way because we care about our art and realistically, it will be fairly static without the source files. If the entire team were to suddenly disappear without passing on the mod to a new curator, there is a clear ability for the community to maintain the non-ARR portions of the mod by shipping updated versions of configs and plugins.

[DoctorDavinci]

On 5/15/2019 at 8:36 AM, Loskene said:

<snip> All of modern copyright law is just Disney's protectionism racket.

So I figured that I would add a bit of clarity to this concept of 'protectionism' for copyrighted works

Basically, according to US copyright law (which many countries have signed onto or instituted something similar) a company who holds the rights MUST take action to protect their intellectual property or else they can lose the rights to said intellectual property ... So no, it isn't a protectionism racket as you put it but rather what is expected by the law as written

The only choice they have is to protect their IP or risk losing it ... This is not to say that a company can give permission for the use of their IP but this still isn't a protectionism racket, it is their resposibility under the law

Don't hate the player ... Hate the game (although there is quite a bit of stuff to not like Disney for)

Edited October 4, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Basically, according to US copyright law (which many countries have signed onto or instituted something similar)

The Berne Convention is the "Rule to rule them all". It happens that USA implements the Berne Convention minimally, with few addictions.

Countries are free to add more restrictions to their citizens, but are not allowed to wave any of the Berne Convention rules.

Some countries make the mere presence of a copyright infringement material on the computer as a crime (in the USA, it's using the problem, not the possession.)

And so it goes on.

 

8 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

 The only choice they have is to protect their IP or risk losing it ... This is not to say that a company can give permission for the use of their IP but this still isn't a protectionism racket, it is their resposibility under the law

Nops. This is a common misunderstanding. Copyrights only expires by age (70 years after the creator's death). Trademarks are the thing you risk losing if you don't defend it.

 

10 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Don't hate the player ... Hate the game (although there is quite a bit of stuff to not like Disney for)

And, by all means, protect your SAS.

[DoctorDavinci]

50 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Nops. This is a common misunderstanding. Copyrights only expires by age (70 years after the creator's death). Trademarks are the thing you risk losing if you don't defend it.

I had to look that up and discovered you are totally right ... Learn something new every day

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Lisias said:

Copyrights only expires by age (70 years after the creator's death).

You mean (Current Year) - (Walt Disney's Death year) + X where X is between 10 and 30.

[Lisias]

5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

You mean (Current Year) - (Walt Disney's Death year) + X where X is between 10 and 30.

Not exactly:

Quote

Works created on or after January 1, 1978, are not subject to renewal registration. As to works published or registered prior to January 1, 1978, renewal registration is optional after 28 years but does provide certain legal advantages. For information on how to file a renewal application as well as the legal benefit for doing so, see Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright, and Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright.

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

Since everything Walt Disney did, he did before 1978 (he died on 1966), Disney (the Company) is able to renew the copyrights using the USA legal system.

Everything from 1978 to nowadays are subjected to the author's death + 70 years, no renewal. At least on USA, obviously.

[paul23]

On 11/12/2018 at 12:49 AM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

There's having a legal ok and there's not being a <redacted>

There are other licenses to pick when you do not wish others to extend it.

 

GPL is on purpose made to force people not having to ask for permission to derive. (As long as they give back derivations or keep the derivations to themselves). If you do not wish this to happen you should pick another license. Copyleft is not what you want then.

[Lisias]

I choose to move the convesation from the TweakScale to avoid derailing it with not exactly unrelated , but with huge potential to trigger a off-topic fest.

From this post from TweakScale's Thread:

 

10 hours ago, viperwolf said:

All we can do is say thank you for your work and patience. Really seems like a little thing compared to the time you put in this.  How do we donate to you, do you have paypal?

Welcome. And thanks, dude.

However, I still have some Legal Mambo Jambo work to do. Copyright laws here are somewhat different from USA's - and things can go down through the tubes pretty fast when money is involved. Our laws here have some resemblance with UK's on some aspects, i.e., the claimer can use the State to file a criminal complain on some situations and this makes things hairy for me.

I don't want to scare anyone, besides ending up doing that - but I need to secure things to avoid risking what happened to "Octav1us Kitten" on YouTube. Accepting money for this can open this door around here - but granted, I don't know the legislation enough to be absolutely sure. Loopholes does exist. But yet, I choose to play safe on this.

Again, thanks, dude. You are appreciated.

[zer0Kerbal]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

I choose to move the convesation from the TweakScale to avoid derailing it with not exactly unrelated , but with huge potential to trigger a off-topic fest.

From this post from TweakScale's Thread:

 

Welcome. And thanks, dude.

However, I still have some Legal Mambo Jambo work to do. Copyright laws here are somewhat different from USA's - and things can go down through the tubes pretty fast when money is involved. Our laws here have some resemblance with UK's on some aspects, i.e., the claimer can use the State to file a criminal complain on some situations and this makes things hairy for me.

I don't want to scare anyone, besides ending up doing that - but I need to secure things to avoid risking what happened to "Octav1us Kitten" on YouTube. Accepting money for this can open this door around here - but granted, I don't know the legislation enough to be absolutely sure. Loopholes does exist. But yet, I choose to play safe on this.

Again, thanks, dude. You are appreciated.

non-related "buy a chap a beer just for the heck of it" thingee eh?

Edited October 18, 2019 by zer0Kerbal

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, zer0Kerbal said:

non-related "buy a chap a beer just for the heck of it" thingee eh?

That's the catch! Someone buys me a beer, it's ok. Someone sends me money so I buy the beer myself, configures revenue around here. And being struck by a copyright infringement (with or without merit) while getting revenue is near suicidal here, because it's exactly what configures a criminal offense, instead of a civil misdemeanor (I'm not sure if I used correctly the words - there're so many different offenses around here, not all of them having a direct relation to USA's laws).

A lawyer for civil matters costs me something as 100USD for starters, and I can make a deal with the guy to share the damages on the aftermath. In fact, the last stand-up guy I had to sue cost me nothing, but I gave 40% of the earnings to the lawyer - half for her, half for the judicial costs. had I loose, both parts would end with empty hands and some processual costs.

A lawyer for criminal matters starts on 1000USD. And paid in advance, the guy will charge me everything in advance - unless I manage to get someone willing to do pro bono on me.

Too much at stake for a beer.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Lisias
Tyops! Good thing they're not a crime!

[Jacke]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

That's the catch!

Everyone always thinks legal problems are nothing until they get a painful lesson in their country's legal system the hard way.

[Lisias]

Moved from another thread.

1 hour ago, sarbian said:

Is the required change "Author should make themselves available 5 minutes after a KSP release and drop all their other commitments to update their mods" ? 

Only when the changes can help to identify what's borking. Looking into KSP 1.8 ready Add'Ons help on that, and since I'm there, why not update the thing? There's a reason I fork things.

[snip]

Edited October 19, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed.  Folks, let's please remember that we're all friends here, and avoid making personal remarks about each other.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Galileo]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Moved from another thread.

Only when the changes can help to identify what's borking. Looking into KSP 1.8 ready Add'Ons help on that, and since I'm there, why not update the thing? There's a reason I fork things.

[snip]

Every single mod that was "updated" by RBT was in active development over the last 30 days. Impatience at its finest.

Create a pull request and move on and be patient. If you update it for yourself, so be it. Releasing it to everyone, historically on these forums, has not been good for the end user, and especially not good to the original devs. 

[B15hop]

I'm shocked at how many people are crying about this guy doing something helpful that the license ALLOWS.. The rules are made..

People take the responsibility apon themselves who MOD. If you use MODS, you know the risks, you back up saves. Hell most of us have the entire game directory backed up.. Let the man help... Jeeze..

Edited October 19, 2019 by B15hop

[Lisias]

12 hours ago, Galileo said:

Every single mod that was "updated" by RBT was in active development over the last 30 days. Impatience at its finest.

Trust your users. The best single thing that can happen to you is some people trying the competition, and then coming back to you. And telling everybody how you are way better. And they will, also, tell you why they though it could be a good idea to try them, and you will have an opportunity to improve your service with the feedback.

 

12 hours ago, Galileo said:

Create a pull request and move on and be patient. If you update it for yourself, so be it. Releasing it to everyone, historically on these forums, has not been good for the end user, and especially not good to the original devs. 

No argument on that. Forum policies are forum policies, my argument is that it's ok to to that (and with some hints about how to better do it). I have no restrictions about where, and if it's better for the Forum to do that "out there", so be it. It's my personal policy anyway - kinda of "broke" only twice, one of them I ended up supporting a fellow Author that choose to take over the project.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Lisias
Yeah. I was meaning trust! =P

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, B15hop said:

I'm shocked at how many people are crying about this guy doing something helpful that the license ALLOWS.. The rules are made..

People take the responsibility apon themselves who MOD. If you use MODS, you know the risks, you back up saves. Hell most of us have the entire agme directory backed up..  Stop crying and let the man help. 

Not everyone thinks like you and would instead go "crying" for help from the original dev, possibly resulting in the dev taking his ball and going home, forever.

Sound good? It has happened before and will happen again. Mark my words.