Licensing questions

[0Kev]

If a person or group of persons makes an addon/modification for this early-development game, and chooses not to license any part of their work to anyone else at all, is Squad then not allowed to implement the specific functionality or content into the game itself?

Or, does Squad retain the right to implement any feature contained in third-party modifications, as long as they're not simply copying the code?

[Greys]

I know that as part of the SpacePort ToS they're allowed to, but keep in mind a copyright is not a patent/trademark, you withhold the rights to what you made, the work and assets. Not the idea. Because of how these things work Squad is very unlikely to straight integrate a plugin's code as its probably not efficient given how plugins must be, and it's not designed to /not/ be a plugin. If Squad wanted to impliment say, MechJeb, they would build the concept from scratch. Which MechJeb's owners cant say anything about.

As far as nonplugin addons, there are some parts that have been brought in, and Im sure they worked that out with the owner, but if its not on spaceport and the owner cant be found, Squad has as little right to the assets as you or I.

Its really irritating now because prior to .20 there were a bunch of abandonware addons that just continued to work more or less, and now they dont, and it's against the rules/law to distribute an altered version without permission.

Edit: tl;dr

It is not within squads rights to make the blanket claim that all your mod belong to us.

Without a license saying otherwise all works by law default to All Rights Reserved, without a document stating otherwise nobody can do anything with your stuff for about 125 years.

With a license stating no, there is no argument.

With a license that does not say absolutely not, maybe, depending on the rules laid out. If you have cc-by, yes they can as long as they credit you, though i don't remember if cc-by is non-commercial

Edited July 2, 2013 by Greys

[pizzaoverhead]

Concepts aren't protected by licencing, specific implementations are. You can't make your own Kerbal Space Program but you can make your own rocket building simulator.

[0Kev]

Thanks for the thorough answers.

I understand *some* of the basics about copyright, patent, trademark laws - at least in the USA (And Squad is in Mexico?). But they can get tricky in situations like this one.

[Kimberly]

Actually, mods are considered derivative works; they build on Kerbal Space Program, rather than existing independently. Ordinarily, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make derivative works, and you can not claim copyright protection an illegally-created derivative work. The copyright holder can authorize people to make derivative works, however. This means that mods may be subject to any condition Squad wants to impose on them. Squad can, in fact, say "all your mods are belong to us" if the mod was created without authorization or without following the limitations placed on such authorization.

(The EULA does not seem to contain anything granting permission to make mods. Does Squad have such a policy up elsewhere, or are we simply relying on their continued goodwill?)

[Rich]

Which definition of derivative works are you using? My understanding indicates that mods are not derivative works, because they do not modify the original source (only extend).

[Kimberly]

17 USC § 101: A “derivative work†is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative workâ€Â.

Much like the way an annotated book is a derivative work, I believe a mod would also be considered a derivative work. It does not modify the original, but it is reliant upon it. Without a Kerbal Space program, there can be no Kerbal Space Program mod.

(This may only apply to code and not to textures and other artistic assets in mods.)

Edited July 2, 2013 by Kimberly

[pizzaoverhead]

The annotated book is a derivative work, but the annotations themselves are not the property of the book author. They are the property of whoever created them.

A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative workâ€Â.

This means that you can't change the colours of the planets and then release it as your own work. It doesn't mean that Squad owns your custom colour definition code.

[Greys]

The key aspect binding all the examples of that section together, "Editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications" is that they are all some portion of the original with additional or altered content. With the exception of parts using stock models and cfg edits, addons do not contain any portion of KSP. The content whether models, textures, or code, is wholly original and designed to be compatible with KSP based on the standards presented, but it is not derived from KSP. As such I do not believe that interpretation is appropriate. It would be as if to say that any part designed to work in a ford vehicle, belongs to ford.

[Kimberly]

The annotated book is a derivative work, but the annotations themselves are not the property of the book author. They are the property of whoever created them.

This means that you can't change the colours of the planets and then release it as your own work. It doesn't mean that Squad owns your custom colour definition code.

I suppose that's true, if the code does not include any of the original KSP code. But there is potential for other IP issues, still. I think it'd be nice if Squad could write up something properly for the EULA, rather than letting us wait until a conflict occurs and seeing how that turns out.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Kimberly

[pizzaoverhead]

I think it'd be nice if Squad could write up something properly for the EULA, rather than letting us wait until a conflict occurs and seeing how that turns out.

More clarity is always a good thing.

[Greys]

There are many complaints to be had about the various legal documents Squad has on things, we'd all really like them to hire a proper lawyer to write one up for them, instead of assembling one Clippy style

So I see you're making a game, perhaps you would like a no-decompile clause

To be clear, I'm not complaining that there is a no-decompile clause

I'm expressing annoyance that the no-decompile clause appears to

have been added via a checkbox in babbies first EULA generator

Edited July 3, 2013 by Greys

[Sandworm]

(1) Not all mods are derivative works. If incorporate Squad material (ie modified parts models/paintjobs or code) then they are derivative. But a newly-written chunk of code is not a derivative simply because it interacts with KSP. If it were, then everything that ran on Windows would be derivative. Microsoft or Squad may take that stance, but it isn;t law.

(2) Functionality or "ideas" are covered by patent law, not copyright. So basic concepts behind mods (ie Kethane's drilling for resources) can be "taken" by Squad without permission. (So long as the modder hasn't received or at least applied for a patent). Modders are therefore not limiting Squad's latitude when it comes to new features. Some developers include language about this in EULAs to prevent anger and misunderstanding but that does not mean they must do so.

(3) Squad does own may trademarks (ie "kerbal space program"). Registered or not, these marks are protected by very different laws than copyright/patent. Many mods do imho violate trademarks (ie SpaceX) but it is up to the trademark owner (ie Space Exploration Technologies Corp) to take action.

(4) Squad may be in mexico, but that does not bind intellectual property law to that jurisdiction. And Mexico's intellectual property laws are not dissimilar those of the US/Canada anyway.

(5) Squad's TOS/Eulas are lacking. Squad appears to have used stock legal forms and boilerplate. That does not necessarily reduce the strength of those documents. Give them a break. Lawyers are not cheap... neither is law school.

(6) Most of the "licenses" being thrown around by mod creators are not worth the paper they aren't printed on. Their authors do not understand copyrights nor do they have a grasp of basic contract law. In short: writing a contact is one thing, writing one that a court can enforce is another.

(7) Do not listen to or rely on the legal rantings of people on the internet, especially those with names like "Sandworm". I am not your lawyer. I'm not squad's lawyer. I'm probably not anyone's lawyer. I'm almost certainly absolutely wrong about everything said above.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Sandworm