Mod licensing and "etiquette"

[King Arthur]

19 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

For what little my experience as a coder is worth:

This is the only game I have ever modded for, or code project I have ever forked that has been met with so much hostility.

Aparently, your licenses have diverged from your authors actual wishes for the code.  This is an issue, and it is unique to the environment here from what I can tell.  I suggest and submit, humbly, that you simply pick a license in line with your actual wishes/intent and quit wondering why people end up confused and disenchanted like me.

I'm only bothering to write this because I still care about this game and I do not believe what you have going here will encourage development as "fresh ideas" dry up.  This will become more of an issue, not less, if you don't think about this soon, and hard.

Peace.

Any mod release must be accompanied by a license named in the forum post, this has been the case for as long as I can remember and most people can accomodate this whether their mod is original or a fork.

As for "hostility", I presume my suggestion to not fork Planetshine was among them. I brought that up because the original dev for Planetshine had mentioned interest in continuing support himself once 1.8 landed. It is simple courtesy to not fork mods willy-nilly, especially one that hasn't been abandoned or discontinued. Usually a fork arises to address abandonment/discontinuation (eg: Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Next from Kerbal Joint Reinforcement) or because the fork incorporates significant design or policy changes (eg: DiRT forked from Texture Replacer).

Obviously the permissions and blessings from any mod devs involved will supercede courtesy, and you absolutely do not need any permissions if the license already permits it, but showing courtesy goes a long way towards maintaining a cohesive community.

[Nertea]

@R-T-B I gotta say I wasn't terribly active when you did... what you did, but I think you managed to drop in at a very bad point in time. After a new KSP release is when the whole community tends to be frustrated - the users because their stuff isn't working and the modders from scrambling to find time to try to update their hobbyist projects as the ravenous user base clamours for it. 

As a lot of the content has been edited/deleted it's not clear to me what precisely went on, but I'm not certain forking then immediately releasing is really going to go over well in any situation with a project that has a large user base, much less in a community at a high stress time. Much better to fork, then PR the original to help support the author getting stuff pushed out, no? I don't think anyone would be unhappy with the forking, and probably wouldn't say no to the fixes. If what I'm seeing is true, the immediate releasing, particularly when the authors were working through the process of getting stuff ready, is what ruffled feathers. Regardless of what the actual license allows, doing that seems to fall under the 'legally correct but questionably wise' statement that has come up in this thread before (and yeah, both sides have their worth ,see the last 6 pages etc). 

Unlike a lot of 'proper' FOSS communities, we work with a fragile, poorly documented, constantly changing API and platform. We work together to discover solutions and solve problems. If you'd forked and released my stuff, I would have asked you politely to instead push your fixes to my repos to help speed up the process of getting stuff and to build that understanding. In some cases, I would have implored you more specifically to not make releases as I'm working on specific improvements in the background and I'm mindful of users' saves. There's good reason for being slow and methodical in some cases!

[Poodmund]

40 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

Aparently, your licenses have diverged from your authors actual wishes for the code.  This is an issue, and it is unique to the environment here from what I can tell.  I suggest and submit, humbly, that you simply pick a license in line with your actual wishes/intent and quit wondering why people end up confused and disenchanted like me.

In some situations there are projects with multiple contributors that are no longer active or contactable and therefore the licenses of said projects cannot become more restrictive or more open because they need unanimous agreement on change, or some of the ex-developers that are no longer contributing are against a license change. This should also be considered but obviously it cannot be if not known as it is impossible to gauge without being informed.

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, R-T-B said:

 

This is the only game I have ever modded for, or code project I have ever forked that has been met with so much hostility.

 

The hostility on this Forum is the lesser of the problems we have.

Code being licensed under improper licenses are a problem. Not to mention projects with contributions being relicensed without securing permission from all the contributors.

The absolutely lack of understanding of Licenses, and the complete and uterly disregard on user's legal safety on the "ARR" licensing terms (where no effective rights are granted, rendering every single user that published something using the work subject to a copyright strike in the next 70 years) are also a huge problem.

Not to mention plain harrasment outside the Forum.

[R-T-B]

5 hours ago, King Arthur said:

Any mod release must be accompanied by a license named in the forum post, this has been the case for as long as I can remember and most people can accomodate this whether their mod is original or a fork.

This was not even a factor and I completely understand that, nor was your other comment though again, if you don't want forks with binary builds there are licensing means to attain that.

23 minutes ago, Lisias said:

The hostility on this Forum is the lesser of the problems we have.

Code being licensed under improper licenses are a problem. Not to mention projects with contributions being relicensed without securing permission from all the contributors.

The absolutely lack of understanding of Licenses, and the complete and uterly disregard on user's legal safety on the "ARR" licensing terms (where no effective rights are granted, rendering every single user that published something using the work subject to a copyright strike in the next 70 years) are also a huge problem.

Not to mention plain harrasment outside the Forum.

Indeed, I noticed that as well.  You guys really need to evaluate licensing.

5 hours ago, Poodmund said:

In some situations there are projects with multiple contributors that are no longer active or contactable and therefore the licenses of said projects cannot become more restrictive or more open because they need unanimous agreement on change, or some of the ex-developers that are no longer contributing are against a license change. This should also be considered but obviously it cannot be if not known as it is impossible to gauge without being informed.

This really means you just should not use the code if you object to the license.

5 hours ago, Nertea said:

Much better to fork, then PR the original to help support the author getting stuff pushed out, no?

This was my intention.  I explicitly stated they were testing builds to discover and fix bugs.

And at the end, it was only a broken, renamed Scatterer (broken largely from the rename) and it still garnered me plenty of hostility.  There really is no justificatio for that in my eyes.

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by R-T-B

[*MajorTom*]

Etiquette, licenses ... is any of the mod creators selling anything here? No? Then what is the problem that people fix old game mods? Or do not play in 1.8 because 1.7.3 scatterer is corny more beautiful than any stock innovations in 1.8! Yeah..., throw me rotten tomatoes...., kiss a Squad..., but it's SO!

ps: i return  my version to 1.7.3. till scattere not updated

Edited October 20, 2019 by *MajorTom*

[R-T-B]

[snip]

I've updated a lot of mods from numerous communities and games over the years and I can't think of one that "went commercial" or even thought of changing licenses because people were forking their open source licensed mods.  If you really feel possesive of your mod, license it as such.  Don't wait for people to actually use your license as intended, just be clear from the start.

In the case of my fairly famous mod in the early days of Minecraft beta, my fork of BiomeTerrainMod (PhoenixTerrainMod, check out the old source madness of obfuscated code yo) had the original creator return and write a letter of gratitude that I had picked up and continued his work.  This was very complicated, very unlicensed, reverse engineered, injected code mind, so much more to worry about and plenty to complain about had anyone wanted to.  Not one person did.  Contrast that to here.

This attitude is unique to here, and a complete strawman argument.  This is NOT how a healthy modding community functions.  You may not feel the impact of such an attitude yet, but you certainly will given time.

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[sarbian]

Clearly, after all we only have been doing this for 8 years. Way too soon to see the errors of our misguided ways.

[R-T-B]

20 minutes ago, sarbian said:

Clearly, after all we only have been doing this for 8 years. Way too soon to see the errors of our misguided ways.

It's exactly why you are seeing them.  I've been modding games over 20.  You've developed a abnormal group think attitude that flies in the face of every established OSS convention (things that have been established as "good" since the early days of computers, like the early 90s).  To get like that, you need some kind of local history.  I can only theorize some negative catalyst must've thrown you here, but still, any software dev will tell you it's unusual if not straight toxic.

It is very much a product of social attitudes on this forum and, well, if you don't believe it's negative, fine.  Good luck with that.

Edited October 20, 2019 by R-T-B

[sarbian]

You can rant all you want about license but releasing a fork of an actively developed Minecraft mod without changing anything would get you ion exactly the same murky water. Nobody claims you can't fork but what we keep explaining is that forking and releasing on the forum a simple copy of an active mod without contacting the author is disrespectful. I had to deal with bug reports of such fork in the past and it is exactly the kind of behaviour that just make me want to stop modding. So get off your high horse and try to understand why we came up we those policies instead of using simple authority arguments.

And let me laugh at your affirmation that OSS project work better when you fork instead of submitting a PR and actually contributing to the project.

Also, I gave been modding for over 242 years. How is that for proof that I know better ?

[R-T-B]

7 minutes ago, sarbian said:

You can rant all you want about license but releasing a fork of an actively developed Minecraft mod without changing anything would get you ion exactly the same murky water.

PhoenixTerrainMod was launched initially when the author had been gone only 10 days, to enable a rapid update.

It's really exactly the same.

7 minutes ago, sarbian said:

And let me laugh at your affirmation that OSS project work better when you fork instead of submitting a PR and actually contributing to the project.

You know Chromium project?  The one that builds Chrome browser.  You MIGHT want to look into how they were born of WebKit, and replaced it ultimately as a better product for all.

There are other examples.  Laugh at them all you want, but these are established concepts based on a long history.

 

7 minutes ago, sarbian said:

Also, I gave been modding for over 242 years. How is that for proof that I know better ?

It's not.  But I can dig out my original mod for Tie Fighter Collectors Edition if you really need proof.

Still, no one should take my word or your word for it as inherent proof.  They should look at other OSS conventions, look at history, and they'll realize there is thought behind them.  It has nothing at all to do with my or your experience really.

Edited October 20, 2019 by R-T-B

[sarbian]

Do you notice the difference between Chromium and Webkit. They only share 1 common letter.

[Gargamel]

Right.    Some posts have been edited or removed.    You can disagree with the argument, but don't attack the person.    Let's try to remain civil. 

[King Arthur]

4 hours ago, R-T-B said:

PhoenixTerrainMod was launched initially when the author had been gone only 10 days, to enable a rapid update.

It's really exactly the same.

----------------------

You know Chromium project?  The one that builds Chrome browser.  You MIGHT want to look into how they were born of WebKit, and replaced it ultimately as a better product for all.

There are other examples.  Laugh at them all you want, but these are established concepts based on a long history.

Forking and releasing a mod that has been stale for merely 10 days is fine if the license permits it, but the community at large may or may not appreciate it depending on how it's executed. Most people around here who do re-releases like that usually do it as an interim measure in direct support of the original mod, rather than a full-blown fork.

To reiterate, the only rule you actually infringed was the lack of a license visible on your forum post. If you chose to continue developing your forks, noone will have stopped you provided you were in compliance with licenses.

As for Chromium, first of all you're comparing things that shouldn't be compared. What you should be comparing are KHTML, WebKit (which was forked from KHTML), and Blink (which was forked from WebKit). All three rendering engines are seeing continued development as far as I know, so judging which is "better" will depend on the eyes of the beholder. Also consider Linux branches like Ubuntu and Android, whose relevant developments are fed back upstream to things such as the Linux kernel for the entire Linux ecosystem's benefit.

[R-T-B]

15 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

Forking and releasing a mod that has been stale for merely 10 days is fine if the license permits it, but the community at large may or may not appreciate it depending on how it's executed.

*sighs*

That's pretty aparrent, isn't it?

15 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

To reiterate, the only rule you actually infringed was the lack of a license visible on your forum post. If you chose to continue developing your forks, noone will have stopped you provided you were in compliance with licenses.

I know that now.

15 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

As for Chromium, first of all you're comparing things that shouldn't be compared. What you should be comparing are KHTML, WebKit (which was forked from KHTML), and Blink (which was forked from WebKit). All three rendering engines are seeing continued development as far as I know, so judging which is "better" will depend on the eyes of the beholder. Also consider Linux branches like Ubuntu and Android, whose relevant developments are fed back upstream to things such as the Linux kernel for the entire Linux ecosystem's benefit.

You just sort of made my point without knowing it.  The point is we now have three quality rendering engines and that is a good thing.  They all feed each other pull requests.  They all have different names.  Skedaddle wasn't different enough from scatterer?  Or what?

Your real issue (that your community isn't expressing it's actual will in licensing, and in some cases, is using actually illegal licenses for the context) isn't one I have an answer to, so I'm going to drop this.  It's falling on deaf ears anyhow.  It's easy to play the "hey there's a problem card"  but if no one has an answer what good does it do?  It's giving me a headache anyways.

15 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

If you chose to continue developing your forks, noone will have stopped you provided you were in compliance with licenses.

It's not about being stopped.  My rebuilds had testers and users that were happy to help when I abruptly closed up shop.  You have no idea the amount of flack I've got and continue to get for the audacity of even TRYING what I did.  In my other thread, I've been told my apology isn't even sincere because I was still there saying the licensing issue should be talked about to avoid further confusion.

I'm not going to name names or post links (sure you can find it anyways), but that's...  bonkers.

Edited October 20, 2019 by R-T-B

[DoctorDavinci]

20 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

<snip> You have no idea the amount of flack I've got and continue to get for the audacity of even TRYING what I did.   <snip>

As stated to you a number of times, it wasn't what you wanted to do but how you went about it ... the community here are a fairly helpful bunch

So no, it wasn't the 'Audacity to even try' as you put it but rather the attitude around the whole fiasco

There's a word in the title of this thread ... Etiquette

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[King Arthur]

37 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

You just sort of made my point without knowing it.  The point is we now have three quality rendering engines and that is a good thing.  They all feed each other pull requests.  They all have different names.  Skedaddle wasn't different enough from scatterer?  Or what?

It's not about being stopped.  My rebuilds had testers and users that were happy to help when I abruptly closed up shop.  You have no idea the amount of flack I've got and continue to get for the audacity of even TRYING what I did.  In my other thread, I've been told my apology isn't even sincere because I was still there saying the licensing issue should be talked about to avoid further confusion.

Consider how positively this 1.8 recompile of Planetshine was received (which you're aware of already):

The mod was forked because a swift update didn't seem forthcoming, Valerian's earlier post notwithstanding.

What prestja and you did are fundamentally the same, but what was different was the execution. Prestja's fork is presented in such a way that it is in support of the original mod, rather than a wholly separate fork. Courtesy and consideration was paid to both Valerian and Papa_Joe by making it clear that they have the right of way should they decide to follow up on further developments, and incompatibilities between the branches were kept to a minimum (if any) so both the devs and end-users aren't unnecessarily hassled.

52 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

Your real issue (that your community isn't expressing it's actual will in licensing, and in some cases, is using actually illegal licenses for the context) isn't one I have an answer to, so I'm going to drop this.  It's falling on deaf ears anyhow.  It's easy to play the "hey there's a problem card"  but if no one has an answer what good does it do?  It's giving me a headache anyways.

Personally, I feel the claims of license misuse are overblown. KSP modding has been around for 8 years, of which I've witnessed ~6 years on and off and I can't recall any significant instances where license misuse was a problem. Most of it is common sense anyway, with attribution, share-alike, and non-commercial being the primary things everyone is concerned about which is covered in some form or another by basically any GPL/MIT/Apache/Creative Commons license.

Actual cases of license misuse and the problems it created within the KSP community likely need to be cited if this so-called problem really does need addressing. Simply talking about it doesn't do much when the community at large does not actually see any negative effects.

[R-T-B]

46 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

What prestja and you did are fundamentally the same, but what was different was the execution. Prestja's fork is presented in such a way that it is in support of the original mod, rather than a wholly separate fork.

The mods can see edit history.  They know and I hope one can confirm that my whole thread was a giant statement about how it solely existed to support scatterer, was to act as a bleeding edge release for bugtesting, and would never be fully stable.

So...  what again?

46 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

Courtesy and consideration was paid to both Valerian and Papa_Joe by making it clear that they have the right of way should they decide to follow up on further developments, and incompatibilities between the branches were kept to a minimum (if any) so both the devs and end-users aren't unnecessarily hassled.

Funny, I made a template for Planetshine (and others) that credited "author," original author (if applicable) and links to threads of all the mods history, which i had to research.

What again?

Oh, by the way, no fork forthcoming on planetshine?  I had beaten him by literal hours.  Where's my defenders?  Oh right, I don't get any because I'm new here and have a "history."

46 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

Actual cases of license misuse and the problems it created within the KSP community likely need to be cited if this so-called problem really does need addressing. Simply talking about it doesn't do much when the community at large does not actually see any negative effects.

I'm not a citation or something?

Would you prefer me do a DMCA takedown of Kopernicus?

Too bad I'm not as evil as people think.  My point is you are one spiteful forum ban away from bye bye lotsa content.

Even your forum staff warn people away from the GPLv3, you may want to read:

Quote

Please be aware that if you are using a different license and do decide to package a mod that is licensed GPL (or any other license that may be incompatible with yours), you open yourself to the possibility that others can take legal action against you for doing so.

Kopernicus is LGPLv3 and includes as well as links against a MIT library (ModularFlightIntegrator).

It's a problem.  Also, reading material:

http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/

tl;dr If someone gets mad, they can make your code go away and it won't come back.  It doesn't even cost more than a few hundred dollars.  Yes, it applies to code you link against to, making it even worse (they are wrong on that and there is fairly recent legal precedent).

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

As stated to you a number of times, it wasn't what you wanted to do but how you went about it ... the community here are a fairly helpful bunch

So no, it wasn't the 'Audacity to even try' as you put it but rather the attitude around the whole fiasco

There's a word in the title of this thread ... Etiquette

 

Dude, I'm sorry.  If you someday acknowledge that, you'll literally make me smile.

In the meantime that's irrelevant though because this turned over real issues you need to deal with.  That's way more important than my or your feelings.

Edited October 21, 2019 by R-T-B

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, R-T-B said:

Your real issue (that your community isn't expressing it's actual will in licensing, and in some cases, is using actually illegal licenses for the context) isn't one I have an answer to, so I'm going to drop this.  It's falling on deaf ears anyhow.  It's easy to play the "hey there's a problem card"  but if no one has an answer what good does it do?  It's giving me a headache anyways.

This thing started right - on the beginning, I was told that it was demanded that the Add'Ons would be licensed under an OSI approved Open Source license. I don't know when this changed, as I'm relatively new to this scene - got here on Forum only a few days before 1.4.1 , besides had bought KSP still on the 1.3.1 era.

The problem I see here, and what can cause some bad press on the Open Source world (not to mention the legal issues), is that the projects are stated as Open Source, get collaboration under an Open Source license (and by collaboration, I also mean bug tracking, testing and even articles on the WIKI), but if anyone exercises the License, gets what you get besides some licenses explicitly forbidding any additional terms. The last thing someone wants is someone from the Free Software Foundation getting here is seeing a GPL code getting this handling - we are talking the guys that withhold the Microsoft on the 90s and 2000s.

To me, it is becoming clear that this will not change until something really bad happens, and TTI would end spending some serious money on PR to extinguish the fire. Until there, all that can be done is to avoid being the target of the potential legal storm that can happen due the licensing issues around here.

[R-T-B]

9 minutes ago, Lisias said:

This thing started right - on the beginning, I was told that it was demanded that the Add'Ons would be licensed under an OSI approved Open Source license. I don't know when this changed, as I'm relatively new to this scene - got here on Forum only a few days before 1.4.1 , besides had bought KSP still on the 1.3.1 era.

The problem I see here, and what can cause some bad press on the Open Source world (not to mention the legal issues), is that the projects are stated as Open Source, get collaboration under an Open Source license (and by collaboration, I also mean bug tracking, testing and even articles on the WIKI), but if anyone exercises the License, gets what you get besides some licenses explicitly forbidding any additional terms. The last thing someone wants is someone from the Free Software Foundation getting here is seeing a GPL code getting this handling - we are talking the guys that withhold the Microsoft on the 90s and 2000s.

To me, it is becoming clear that this will not change until something really bad happens, and TTI would end spending some serious money on PR to extinguish the fire. Until there, all that can be done is to avoid being the target of the potential legal storm that can happen due the licensing issues around here.

If you ask me, the unfortuante thing I forsee happening if TT has an "incident" and has to deal with modding DMCAs, is they will completely kill the mod API in KS2.

That's fearmongering of course.  But it's not entirely impossible either.  If I was in their shoes and "mods" caused me to have to settle legally in any form, I'd kill them immediately.  They probably don't even really know what mods are, they just want to know why they exist and are causing them trouble.

11 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Until there, all that can be done is to avoid being the target of the potential legal storm that can happen due the licensing issues around here.

Yeah, I thought of PMng all the noncompliant authors to you know, actually be helpful.

But that sounds like being a lawyer and right now, I just am tired.  Maybe tomorrow.

[Lisias]

5 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

That's fearmongering of course.  But it's not entirely impossible either. 

Less of the former, more on the latter. Imagine this happening with an KSP user. And it happened, how ironic, on the same day KSP 1.8 gone into the wild.

The strike issuer? A low life founded one, that had bought by peanuts every copyright he could on British retrocomputing. I'm taking a company that should had an enterprise value of about 1 day of TTI's daily net revenue. Probably less.

Google for "mod copyright strike".

[King Arthur]

12 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

The mods can see edit history.  They know and I hope one can confirm that my whole thread was a giant statement about how it solely existed to support scatterer, was to act as a bleeding edge release for bugtesting, and would never be fully stable.

So...  what again?

Funny, I made a template for Planetshine (and others) that credited "author," original author (if applicable) and links to threads of all the mods history, which i had to research.What again?

Duplication of effort.

To rephrase what Nertea already brought up, why not directly contribute to the master branch if you're interested in working on the bleeding edge and the "never be fully stable"? You said yourself that you would "send bugs upstream" in your original post, if I remember correctly, implying your code would be written primarily separately from the master branch. Why not just work together with the original devs in the first place? At least with regards to Scatterer, I'm of the understanding it is being actively developed and maintained (I don't actually follow Scatterer's developments as I don't use it myself, so I could be wrong). Even if the master branch is stale (eg: Planetshine), your fork could have been presented like how prestja did with his fork.

Most, if not all, of the mod devs here are just hobbyists who do what they do in their free time, I've always gotten the impression the modding community here hates work duplication because it is inefficient and wastes precious time that could have been spent on something else. Consider how, for example, Blue Dog and Tantares offload Soviet and American rocketry parts to each other because otherwise it would be duplicated effort, and working together on collaborative projects such as Restock and Community Resource Pack where they can each contribute their specialties.

You are absolutely within your right to fork a mod if the license permits it, and nobody will stop you in your endeavour. If a mod dev asks you to stop in violation of their own license, you have a right to just ignore their demands and continue. However, the community appreciates mod devs being considerate of each other, so a mod that eschews such considerations will receive some backlash regardless of whether you are legally correct; even moreso in a high-stress time like right now where the dust from 1.8's release hasn't settled yet.

24 minutes ago, R-T-B said:

I'm not a citation or something?

Would you prefer me do a DMCA takedown of Kopernicus?

Too bad I'm not as evil as people think.  My point is you are one spiteful forum ban away from bye bye lotsa content.

Even your forum staff warn people away from the GPLv3, you may want to read:

  Quote

Please be aware that if you are using a different license and do decide to package a mod that is licensed GPL (or any other license that may be incompatible with yours), you open yourself to the possibility that others can take legal action against you for doing so.

Kopernicus is LGPLv3 and includes as well as links against a MIT library (ModularFlightIntegrator).

It's a problem.  Also, reading material:

http://rdwl.xyz/blog/the-bukkit-implosion/

tl;dr If someone gets mad, they can make your code go away and it won't come back.  It doesn't even cost more than a few hundred dollars.  Yes, it applies to code you link against to, making it even worse (they are wrong on that and there is fairly recent legal precedent).

So a license infraction results in the work getting axed? Sounds perfectly fine to me, working as intended. A GPL licensed work getting used and redistributed in a closed-source product should result in copyright strikes and takedowns unless correction measures are taken by the offending party. Hell, this is the entire point behind the GPL; to ensure all GPL licensed works remain permanently accessible by anyone and everyone under threat of legalese. Mojang dun goofed, and they got served for it; all is well.

So to your query of issuing a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus? Go for it. Granted I'm not sure on what legal grounds you specifically have to be issuing copyright strikes against them, but I say go for it (or ask someone who has the legal basis to do so). Make a gigantic fuss, that's how problems get fixed. In the immortal words of Hachiman from Oregairu: A problem isn't a problem until someone makes it a problem.

[R-T-B]

5 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

So to your query of issuing a DMCA takedown against Kopernicus? Go for it. Granted I'm not sure on what legal grounds you specifically have to be issuing copyright strikes against them, but I say go for it

Good job not reading any of the above.

First off, no, I REALLY DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN so I won't be "going for it."  This is not a joke, however, and I won't be happy when it ends bad.

As for your lack of reading:  Mojang didn't get served, Bukkit did.

GPLv3 code must link with GPLv3 code.  It cannot and shall not link to anything else but a (x)GPLv3 license

Guess what Kopernicus isn't doing?

5 minutes ago, King Arthur said:

To rephrase what Nertea already brought up, why not directly contribute to the master branch if you're interested in working on the bleeding edge and the "never be fully stable"?

That's a cool idea!  Oh wait...  the whole point was to generate bugs.  Users aren't going to compile and test the master branch, now are they?

You can follow my thought process if you actually try.

Edited October 21, 2019 by R-T-B

[DoctorDavinci]

Just now, R-T-B said:

Good job not reading any of the above.

Mojang didn't get served, Bukkit did.

GPL code must link with GPL code.

Guess what Kopernicus isn't doing?

So do a DMCA takedown like you keep threatening and be done with it

Chirp chirp chirping away ... less talk more action

Do what you say your gonna do 

See where that gets you

[R-T-B]

3 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

So do a DMCA takedown like you keep threatening and be done with it

Chirp chirp chirping away ... less talk more action

Do what you say your gonna do 

See where that gets you

Sorry, I'm not an ass and have literally said I'm not going to do that.  Just read history dude.  Don't shoot the messenger for pointing out you have an issue (especially when your own mods point it out, too).  Your well is leaking, don't accuse me of stealing water for pointing it out.

I'm really done here.  If I wanted to be mean to you guys, I could cause so much trouble.

But I'm not mean.  Some day, you'll figure that out.  I may be liquided off, and that's probably because rather than playing kerbal, I've been responding to attacks on my person all day. 

Please.  Just.  Stop.

Edited October 21, 2019 by R-T-B