Please, give the community KSP1's source code

[AtomicTech]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

You will probably fly crafts with 4 or 5 parts only, however.

Or a 20 part craft at five minutes per frame!

Edited May 16, 2023 by AtomicTech

[WhatALovelyNick]

6 hours ago, Lisias said:

You will probably fly crafts with 4 or 5 parts only, however.

Still enough!

[Davidian1024]

I love this idea.

But, I can't help but wonder if it would make more sense to make this ask of the KSP2 source code.

They're focusing on allocating resources towards KSP2 now.  Why put free community development resources towards KSP1 when that project is essentially finished from their perspective.  Not to mention KSP1 is essentially in competition with KSP2.  Why put effort into improving a legacy product while you're actively developing it's successor?

And I think the ask needs to be more specific.  Unity's license is a reference only license.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm convinced that it's meant to ensure that Unity Software Inc. doesn't lose ownership or control.  I'm also sure it's written in such a way that Unity as a brand doesn't become diluted.  If there's any chance of any KSP source code (1 or 2) ever being open sourced, a license needs to be created that provides these protections to the current owners of KSP.

So I think it might make more sense to ask that the KSP2 source code be publicly released under a license similar to Unity's reference only license.

Food for thought.

[Lisias]

On 5/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Davidian1024 said:

I love this idea.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

humm… perhaps this is too much….

 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Davidian1024 said:

But, I can't help but wonder if it would make more sense to make this ask of the KSP2 source code.

Of course we can. But of course they will deny it for sure. I surely would.

These are two completely different situations:

KSP(1) is currently in life support at best, I doubt there's a single developer allocated on it for debugging or fixing things. It's on a dead end right now.

KSP2 is an ongoing, live effort with a team of developers working on it. And they are capable developers, they will deliver it unless some corporate <piiiii> screw them up: the sad state of the code at launch is not their fault.

I'm not telling you I don't want it - of course I want it! . I'm telling that it makes absolutely no sense for them to do it.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Davidian1024 said:

They're focusing on allocating resources towards KSP2 now.  Why put free community development resources towards KSP1 when that project is essentially finished from their perspective.  Not to mention KSP1 is essentially in competition with KSP2.  Why put effort into improving a legacy product while you're actively developing it's successor?

Because KSP2 is not cutting it yet, and KSP1 is far from being in an acceptable state and they need to get some revenue from KSP(1) to keep funding KSP2 (as you can bet your Staging Button KSP2 will not be able to fund itself for some time).

KSP(1) is not a competitor, KSP(1) is a source of incoming to fund KSP2. Anything they do in order to get revenue from KSP will benefit KSP2 in the end.

You need to take in account that the legacy is currently doing 6 to 8x more online players on SteamCharts than the new thing - if you are in need of milk some cash, where you would try it?

https://steamcharts.com/cmp/220200,954850

Besides, it's a mistake on believing that KSP(1) wil compete to KSP2 - Doom 1, Doom 2, Quake, Quake 2 had their source published and even made OSI - and it only helped to promote (and, so, indirectly funded) Doom 3. And Doom Eternal is doing pretty well, IMHO:

https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=doom

 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Davidian1024 said:

And I think the ask needs to be more specific.  Unity's license is a reference only license.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm convinced that it's meant to ensure that Unity Software Inc. doesn't lose ownership or control.  I'm also sure it's written in such a way that Unity as a brand doesn't become diluted.  If there's any chance of any KSP source code (1 or 2) ever being open sourced, a license needs to be created that provides these protections to the current owners of KSP.

An OSI style license is what I really want, but I concede that P.D. may have plans that may be hindered by it (my opinion is that it will not, but they are the ones in need to be sure about it, not me). So going Unity style may be a compromise solution in the near term (and it doesn't prevent going OSI later, they are not mutually exclusive solutions).

Additionally: only the source code needs the be licensed, not the assets or the Intelectual Property. Again, check the Doom and Quake licenses: you are not allowed to publish a derivative of the game. Not even Doom1 coders are doing that, what they do is publish the compilated binaries, that so need to be complemented by the shareware version of Doom in order to be tested. Of course, nothing prevents the user to use a full release version of Doom if they own it - and, let me tell you something, I have bought Doom, Quake et all to be able to legally play them nowadays on these new, opensourced binaries.

Going this way may increase a bit the KSP(1) revenue for some time.

But this discussion is only valid pertinent if they are considering going OSI. If they go Unity licensing style, they can buy time to consider all of this and still collect some benefits in the short term, as allowing us, authors, to know exactly what we are doing without the need of relying on shady practices that we aren't even sure is really legal in all countries in the World.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Davidian1024 said:

So I think it might make more sense to ask that the KSP2 source code be publicly released under a license similar to Unity's reference only license.

I already answered it above, but I will do it again: no, it makes absolutely no sense at all opening KSP2 source code.

We are not asking P.D. to go the Mozilla way - to try to make money on OSI products by donations or whatever. I'm not telling you I would not like to have "intimate"  access to KSP2 development process, but I really doubt this will be a successful development model for them. P.D. is not a Non Profit Foundation neither are going to be, they are on this business to make money, not to promote a better Society somehow.

KSP(1) is a completely different animal, however. It's a product that had ran its course, but is still loved by the users and has the potential to give them some incoming to help funding KSP2, that will be unavoidably the next cash cow for them - if they manage to keep it alive until there.

What it's being proposed is a deal where we, people that already had paid for the thing, would be willing to hunt and fix problems in order to have the game we had paid for at first place - and if these efforts are going to help fund KSP2 indirectly, it's not a problem for us.

Not every Kerbal enthusiast is going to buy KSP2 on the foreseeable future (perhaps too much for KSP2's good), so it makes sense to keep KSP(1) healthy and sound.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Lisias
Eternal typos from the englishless mind.

[Davidian1024]

First off, I doubt it's likely they'll do it of course.  Just trying to explore the possibilities of what might actually makes sense from a business perspective.  I'm not a business man either by the way. 

Quote

it makes absolutely no sense at all opening KSP2 source code.

So, I actually think it really might be in their best interest to do it.  To be clear, I mean do essentially what Unity did.  Which is release the source on a very restrictive basis.

My main justification for this is that It amounts to free labor for them.  Beyond that I think it would go over extremely well with their fans.  I imagine the modders would love it.

Quote

KSP2 is an ongoing, live effort with a team of developers working on it.

Unity is also an ongoing, live effort.  I think that's what makes it an interesting example.  And why their license is important.

I fully agree and would also love to see them go full OSI.  But, then I know that the business needs to turn a profit.  And going full OSI seems to mean that you can't make money directly selling the software itself anymore.  I think that's the key distinction here.  I'm not suggesting they follow in Mozilla's footsteps.

So would a Unity-reference-only-style license still allow them to make money selling copies of the game?  I don't see why not.  And then they would also have the benefit of passionate KSP fans being able to do alot more than just file bug reports when it comes to improving the game.

I think your mention of the Doom and Quake licenses gets right at my point.  As you say, you are not allowed to publish a derivative of those games.

As far as the argument that opening the KSP1 source as a way to ultimately generate more funds for KSP2 development goes.  I think that rests on the notion that opening the KSP1 source will make them more money.  Does it mean that?

Quote

KSP(1) is not a competitor, KSP(1) is a source of incoming to fund KSP2. Anything they do in order to get revenue from KSP will benefit KSP2 in the end.

I feel pretty strongly that KSP1 and KSP2 are in competition.  They provide very similar experiences.  They can both be played essentially forever because at their core they are sandbox games.  And they will probably both have an endless supply of new content due to modders.  Alot of prominent KSP1 players like Scott Manley have been saying new players should get KSP1 instead of KSP2 until it's improved.  And once KSP2 surpasses KSP1 in terms of quality etc. I imagine KSP1 sales will decline sharply.

[AtomicTech]

4 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

But, I can't help but wonder if it would make more sense to make this ask of the KSP2 source code.

We'll ask that question in 11 years

28 minutes ago, Davidian1024 said:

I imagine KSP1 sales will decline sharply.

Would not be a bad thing

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

First off, I doubt it's likely they'll do it of course.  Just trying to explore the possibilities of what might actually makes sense from a business perspective.  I'm not a business man either by the way. 

Well, I am. A bit.., I'm the "low level" specialist on my Company. I have some background on management, enough to realize I would be a crappy manager -  but learnt a lot about how to keep them happy and out of my neck!

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

So, I actually think it really might be in their best interest to do it.  To be clear, I mean do essentially what Unity did.  Which is release the source on a very restrictive basis.

My main justification for this is that It amounts to free labor for them.

That's the point: you get what you pays for, there's no free lunch. "Free" labour comes in essentially two variants:

• Unskilled labour by people willing to try their teeth on the thing
  • They are really cheap and willing to work for free to get experience. But that's all we can say for them.
• Skilled labour with a lot of strings attached
  • They are really good, but they are not cheap - they may wave the money, but they are taking something back in exchange and if you don't know what it is, you have a problem.

And I don't know of a single company (Mozilla included) that managed to get away only with these ones. Fast; cheap; good: pick two.

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

Beyond that I think it would go over extremely well with their fans.  I imagine the modders would love it.

About that, there's no doubt!!!  

Unfortunately, happiness can't be used to pay bills - I never managed to convince my Power Company to accept it for my Electricity Bills.

I think it's the same for P.D.  

We need to reach a compromise that would be good enough for both sides.

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

Unity is also an ongoing, live effort.  I think that's what makes it an interesting example.  And why their license is important.

But they are also a commodity, not a full featured product. That's the difference.

You don't sell Unity to the end users, you sell them games made on Unity.  So it makes sense to open their source so every game developer can give a peek and use the knowledge to make better games - at least, it's the theory: the infinite amount of annoyances, bad decisions or plain crappyness on this thing is an example that Open Source will not solve problems by itself. Open Source is a path, not a destination.

That's the reason I don't think it's the P.D.'s best interest to open source KSP2, they are planning to sell this thingy as a product, not as a service.

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

I fully agree and would also love to see them go full OSI.  But, then I know that the business needs to turn a profit.  And going full OSI seems to mean that you can't make money directly selling the software itself anymore.  I think that's the key distinction here.  I'm not suggesting they follow in Mozilla's footsteps.

So would a Unity-reference-only-style license still allow them to make money selling copies of the game?  I don't see why not.  And then they would also have the benefit of passionate KSP fans being able to do alot more than just file bug reports when it comes to improving the game.

I see we are getting into the same page, except by a detail or two.

I think that opening KSP2 source may harm the incoming more than they would benefit it - once you open your source, smart people is able to get a grasp on where you are going to be in the future, and then your competition will have time to try to get it the market first.

There's still a competition for the user's money out there, and being the first to deliver a nice feature usually pays off. Going open source makes hard to hide your intentions from the competition.

Unity doesn't have this problem because they are, well, a commodity. There's nothing to hide on a commodity.

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

I think your mention of the Doom and Quake licenses gets right at my point.  As you say, you are not allowed to publish a derivative of those games.

As far as the argument that opening the KSP1 source as a way to ultimately generate more funds for KSP2 development goes.  I think that rests on the notion that opening the KSP1 source will make them more money.  Does it mean that?

Yes. This is exactly my point.

 

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

I feel pretty strongly that KSP1 and KSP2 are in competition.  They provide very similar experiences.  They can both be played essentially forever because at their core they are sandbox games.  And they will probably both have an endless supply of new content due to modders.  Alot of prominent KSP1 players like Scott Manley have been saying new players should get KSP1 instead of KSP2 until it's improved.  And once KSP2 surpasses KSP1 in terms of quality etc. I imagine KSP1 sales will decline sharply.

The niches overlap, but I would not call it a direct competition because:

• People willing to buy KSP2 had already bought KSP1, or are not going to buy it at all.
• People willing to buy KSP1 are people that are not going to buy KSP2 for a reason or another.

Using Doom and Quake as an argument right now is stretching things a bit , because even my crappiest device with a screen is able to run these two nowadays. Damn, there're people running Doom on pregnancy testers, by Turing's Sake!!

But the fact is that KSP2 is a resource hungry game, and not everybody is prone to replace their perfectly fine old machines just for it (not mention being a Windows only game). And not only that, can you imagine running KSP2 on a Steam Deck? You can run KSP1 perfectly on it, not to mention the 8th generation Consoles owners that still wants to play KSP on their consoles but have a terribly buggy product right now. There's life beyound AAA gaming, and these people also spends some money on it.

On the long term, I think it's unavoidable that KSP2 will outmatch KSP1 by a mile (just like Doom Eternal outmatches all the other Dooms combined). But this is not happening right now, and I think it's suicidal to fail on taking advantage of this still favourable times; this is not going to last forever.

 

2 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

2 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

I imagine KSP1 sales will decline sharply.

Would not be a bad thing

If and only if KSP2 sells take off!

Edited May 17, 2023 by Lisias
Brute force post merging

[AtomicTech]

T H E

S O U R C E

M U S T

F L O W

Edited May 22, 2023 by Vanamonde
Don't get carried away with the font sizes, please.

[Nazalassa]

Should we write a mail to Stallman?

Spoiler

Just kidding :P

[Reusables]

How is it going? Did you take a proper first step?

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, Reusables said:

How is it going? Did you take a proper first step?

Did you?

This is not a single person battle, he needs support. Help to promote the post on reddit (how about a reward?), talk about it on your social networks, spam your twitter with it. Help him to be heard.

Talking about the benefits of the ordeal is just part of the solution, we need to be heard by enough people so P.D. would perceive the initiative as a positive move for their customers (and not only a caprice from a few code monkeys).

Even if they like the idea, they will not consider opening the source just because a bunch of KSP enthusiasts are asking fot it - they need to see value on move (they have a company to run, and bills to be paid), and with more people talking about, the perception of value increases, and so increases the chances they consider it.

Think on it as a very nice feature you want the developers to add to the game: you talking about how nice would be such feature is just the first step, you need more people talking about how nice would be the feature, so the developers would consider implementing it.

This is not different, except that now we are proposing a "feature" to P.D.'s management instead to developers.

[Reusables]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

Did you?

This is not a single person battle, he needs support. Help to promote the post on reddit (how about a reward?), talk about it on your social networks, spam your twitter with it. Help him to be heard.

Talking about the benefits of the ordeal is just part of the solution, we need to be heard by enough people so P.D. would perceive the initiative as a positive move for their customers (and not only a caprice from a few code monkeys).

Even if they like the idea, they will not consider opening the source just because a bunch of KSP enthusiasts are asking fot it - they need to see value on move (they have a company to run, and bills to be paid), and with more people talking about, the perception of value increases, and so increases the chances they consider it.

Think on it as a very nice feature you want the developers to add to the game: you talking about how nice would be such feature is just the first step, you need more people talking about how nice would be the feature, so the developers would consider implementing it.

This is not different, except that now we are proposing a "feature" to P.D.'s management instead to developers.

I see, I just wanted to know if the initiative has started - did someone share it on the reddit, twitter or somewhere else recently (1~2 days ago)? Because I did not see any posts about this matter. I want to get involved, but not so much to support a movement with zero momentum.

[darthgently]

What was the last big game to open its source?  I'm way out of the loop, but all I remember is Quake.  Not optimistic about "Open-KSP1" happening.  Would be stellar though

[AtomicTech]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

What was the last big game to open its source?  I'm way out of the loop, but all I remember is Quake.  Not optimistic about "Open-KSP1" happening.  Would be stellar though

That's why we've got to try!

For starters, you could add "The Source Must Flow" to your signature

(Also, Orbiter is open source ) 

[Lisias]

7 hours ago, Reusables said:

Because I did not see any posts about this matter. I want to get involved, but not so much to support a movement with zero momentum.

It's understandable, but also the reason P.D. would not be prone to consider this without some public pressu encouragement.  

This is some crazy idea of some code monkeys, or there're public support for the stunt? People are really willing to get their paws dirty, or they are just taking the cool aid?

Whatever they are going to choose, they will have to live with the consequences forever - so they need to know if the idea worths the shot. Having people supporting the idea is one of the criteria exactly because of this.

Please consider being the one that creates the momentum, we surely need the help!

 

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

What was the last big game to open its source?  I'm way out of the loop, but all I remember is Quake.

Flight Gear is Open Source, and it predates all the features used on X-Plane to the point I really think X-Plane helped to fund this in the past in order to test ideas and algorithms for their product. FG is really impressive, by the way - it lacks some polishing, but the game itself is solid (I play it now and then).

Thanks for the question, I had forgotten about it and remembered about it while thinking how to answer you!

You will find a somewhat extensive list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games . And something I didn't knew about, Space Engineers is listed as having the Source available!!!

Boys, we have another Study Case of Success to advertise!

 

5 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

(Also, Orbiter is open source ) 

Yes, but I have some bitter-sweet remembrances about this ordeal. 

I want to think that I had helped a bit to inspire the move, but this is also an example on how things can get harsh in the process (and, also, why I'm conceding that P.D. would prefer a "Share Source" model initially).

I had some bad moments on Orbiter Forum due licensing, it was really nasty (second to none). Things got really harsh when I realised than since the source code being used as base for almost all the add'ons on the scene was ARR at that time, a lot (if not almost all) the add'ons published at that moment were in copyright infringement and that was pretty hairy.

And I was right, by the way - and, yes, they shoot the messenger. A lot.

Things got ugly to the point a somewhat influential author tried to push his weight on me using exactly the copyright laws - essentially proving my point.

The only reason I got involved on KSP modding is exactly because the Add'On's Publishing Guidelines. That allowed me to use OSI licenses on my work, and that had paid off more than once, I need to say. Copyright trolling is a thing.

So, in essence, going Open Source is not an easy solution for all their problems - and it may create some new ones. The point I want to stress, however, is that on the medium and long run it will worth it, and it will worth it a lot not only to us, but also for them (see the Flight Gear example above!).

Our job, right now, is to get their attention and openly and frankly talk about the possibilities - and we also need to be open minded to hear a counter-proposal that could be something completely different, but it would also solve our problems. We can lose a battle and still win the war:

Our main goal is the wellbeing of the KSP Scene, and having access to the Source is the best way I know to achieve this.

But if something better is proposed, hell, we should jump in the same.

 

6 hours ago, darthgently said:

Not optimistic about "Open-KSP1" happening.  Would be stellar though

I'm cautiously optimistic about we having a chance, but there's a lot of pitfalls we need to avoid - we need to focus on our goals, and not on the path we think will leads us to such a goal.

I'm convinced that opening the Source is the best way to accomplish what WE (us, as users; us, as authors, and they, as publishers) need to keep things tight - but we should be willing to hear any counter-proposals, someone can have a better idea.

But, until such better idea is proposed, The Source Must Flow!  

Edited May 20, 2023 by Lisias
Eternal typos from the englishless mind.

[AtomicTech]

10 hours ago, Lisias said:

Our job, right now, is to get their attention and openly and frankly talk about the possibilities - and we also need to be open minded to hear a counter-proposal that could be something completely different, but it would also solve our problems. We can lose a battle and still win the war:

Our main goal is the wellbeing of the KSP Scene, and having access to the Source is the best way I know to achieve this.

But if something better is proposed, hell, we should jump in the same.

 

Sounds like a plan

[WhatALovelyNick]

19 hours ago, Reusables said:

I just wanted to know if the initiative has started - did someone share it on the reddit, twitter or somewhere else recently (1~2 days ago)?

I did a thread there 12 days ago.

And I don't think, that spamming "it" will help us.

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, WhatALovelyNick said:

I did a thread there 12 days ago.

And I don't think, that spamming "it" will help us.

"Advertising" is the right word.

We need to gather support, and to convince people to support it we need them to know about. And to make people be aware of that, we need to advertise it.

[Rutabaga22]

I completely agree with the idea of them releasing the source code.  It could lead to a better ksp for everyone.

[AtomicTech]

I think what we need to do is compile a complete proposal of why we want the source code and what we're going to do with it. 

I'd venture a guess that if we can come up with something reasonable then it's more likely that T2, PD, and Intercept will be willing to bargain with us.

[The Aziz]

Oh wow.

It's probably been said before but it's not gonna happen while the game is still selling. Maybe in 10 years.

The reason is very simple, it just isn't good business.

[AtomicTech]

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh wow.

It's probably been said before but it's not gonna happen while the game is still selling. Maybe in 10 years.

The reason is very simple, it just isn't good business.

We're aware that it's unlikely.

Assuming that KSP 2 gets its act together in the next few years, then this may start to become a real possibility but until then we'll keep pushing for it, slowly changing hearts and minds in favor of our cause.

Also, one of the proposals we have is to open up the source code for us to fix bugs in KSP's code and then allow PD to publish them to the rest of the community. We want to continue to make KSP a great game while KSP 2 is taking its first steps to keep the franchise alive and happy. 

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, The Aziz said:

The reason is very simple, it just isn't good business.

Space Engineers doesn't agree with you.

There're approximately 8550 online players right now, 3 (THREE) times more than KSP and KSP2 combined.

Source code for the game: https://github.com/KeenSoftwareHouse

Edited May 21, 2023 by Lisias
typing from the mobile on the W/C is not exactly a efficient way to post information, you know? :D

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Lisias said:

Space Engineers doesn't agree with you.

[AtomicTech]

2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Space Engineers doesn't agree with you.

We can make the source flowing a good business