License Selection Guide

[regex]

I think, especialy the GPL licences is the best for mods. Here are my thoughts:

There's also the CC BY-NC-SA or CC BY-SA, which are free from pseudo-religious dogma and do pretty much the same thing.

[Jasmir]

There's also the CC BY-NC-SA or CC BY-SA, which are free from pseudo-religious dogma and do pretty much the same thing.

Thanks for the info, i've added the "CC BY-SA" as example in the "stay free" - section. I've _not_ added the "CC BY-NC-SA" to this section, because of the "non commercial"-constraint. (In fact, i'll sort the "CC BY-NC-SA" license somewhere between "stay free" and "restrictive".

PS: The GPL is only a license. A tool to achieve something. Same as the Microsoft EULA oder the MIT-License. No need to worship it

[regex]

No need to worship it

I don't. Have you read the GNU GPL? Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

[6677]

No open-source license that I know of does this. There are licenses out there that simply prevent derivatives from being made, you might want to look into that.

There is no existing license, but you can write specifications for your own license and several small software projects have done, there is nothing stopping a person from creating a no derivatives license with an exception for a certain named party.

[Majiir]

Does anyone know of a software license which allows use (as in linking/referencing) and distribution of source, but requires attribution and does not allow derivatives? (Basically CC-BY-ND, but CC recommends not using their licenses for source code.)

[blizzy78]

This site might also be helpful when deciding for a license: http://choosealicense.com/

[Camacha]

What about kOS code? It seems a bit silly the use licences for that, but I included one just to be sure, mainly because I like to be credited for the work I did.

[blizzy78]

mainly because I like to be credited for the work I did.

That alone is a perfectly valid reason to put a license on your code.

[Camacha]

That alone is a perfectly valid reason to put a license on your code.

I fully agree

However, I was wondering about the legal status of kOS code, as it technically is code. It seems silly to require everyone to add a license to their kOS code examples and snippets, but I can not rationalize the difference between it and the C code KSP mods are written in, which requires a license.

[Majiir]

However, I was wondering about the legal status of kOS code, as it technically is code. It seems silly to require everyone to add a license to their kOS code examples and snippets, but I can not rationalize the difference between it and the C code KSP mods are written in, which requires a license.

You may license your kOS programs, but you are not required to by the forum rules because they only govern plugin source code.

[Greys]

Specifically addressing snippets and examples, these are usually small bits of indistinct code that isnt operable or useful on it's own, and can be taken in good faith to be public domain. You cant copyright a sentence like "He was a good dog", but you can a story about a dog containing that text, for the same reason you cant copyright a word, it would lend to abuse of the IP protection system. An entire kOS script is well within the bounds of reason for claiming ownership

[Camacha]

I"ll chime in and add that you can't claim the BSD license and limit usage. Depending on the version the requirements are to keep the copyright notice and that you can't use the authors name for advertisement(3-clause). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

I do not see why I can not impose additional restrictions. I am free to compile any license I see fit.

[regex]

I do not see why I can not impose additional restrictions. I am free to compile any license I see fit.

Certainly, but then it is no longer the BSD license. The distinction is important because people expect certain things from the BSD license. Were you to call it a "BSD-derived" license or something it becomes clear that it has changed in some way.

[Camacha]

Certainly, but then it is no longer the BSD license. The distinction is important because people expect certain things from the BSD license. Were you to call it a "BSD-derived" license or something it becomes clear that it has changed in some way.

It still is that license, I just set two additional conditions. Quite clearly, I would think, it is on the same line. In the interest of being concise I did not want to add a small essay in the form of a comment to the code.

I am unsure of a better way to do this. Adding a link to a post containing a license could be possible, but I feel putting webadresses in your code is kind of nasty.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Camacha

[regex]

It still is that license, I just set two additional conditions.

That makes it not that license because it contains additional restrictions. Were I to see "BSD license" I would expect a two-, three-, or four-clause traditional Berkeley Software Distribution license, not "Camancha's modified BSD license" with additional clauses. While it behooves me to actually read the license terms, it also behooves you to not deliberately mislead the users of your code.

I am unsure of a better way to do this. Adding a link to a post containing a license could be possible, but I feel putting webadresses in your code is kind of nasty.

A BSD license, even a derivative with two extra clauses, is not really that big; it's more of a disclaimer and a requirement of attribution in some form. Just paste the entire thing at the top of your source code. If that's not really something people want to see in their in-game kOS, they can strip it out.

E: Alternatively, a good way to do that with a script would be to specify "Under the terms of the BSD license found here (URL) with the following additional clauses:" It's not really that much of a problem to put a URL into source code, people do it all the time in comment headers.

Edited November 21, 2013 by regex

[a1270]

It still is that license, I just set two additional conditions. Quite clearly, I might add, it is on the same line. In the interest of being concise I did not want to add a small essay in the form of a comment to the code.

I am unsure of a better way to do this. Adding a link to a post containing a license could be possible, but I feel putting webadresses in your code is kind of nasty.

I suggest you give your license a new name and define it, else you will cause confusion and people will just use it under the terms of any BSD license as you didn't state which one.

[Nuke]

i kinda like the beerware license

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware

[Mr. Me]

Do the stock parts have a license?

If so, are we allowed to edit them at will?

[Nuke]

id presume they are covered by the game's eula.

[Jeff Bird]

If a take a stock part like the PPD-10 Hitchhiker, only change the interior and release it as a mod. Is that okay?

[Greys]

Official Squad Stance on the matter is that all assets contained within the GameData folder are A-O-K for use and distribution by modders; modification is a bit of a convoluted topic but in this context modification means decompiling the mesh or textures and altering what already exists. So far as I have seen CFG files appear to exempt from any limiting intentions so modifying the organization of props in an IVA is unregulated. I'm not immediately familiar with the PPD-10 by name, but I was unaware that there were any stock crew can parts that had IVA.

If you mean that you intend to add an IVA to a part, appending wholly new content onto existing content does not generally incur the terms of that existing content's license, there may be distribution clauses but you can get around this with ModuleManager patches so that you do not need to redistribute other people's stuff.

Tentitive all clear on that Jeff Bird, but you may want to elaborate, and that may justify making a new thread for your question.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Something to point out to people selecting licenses, especially thinking about restricting derivative works or commercial use: a video featuring a mod is a derivative work. If the videomaker is paid for the video (as many popular KSP videomakers like Scott Manley et al. are), it's a commercial derivative work.

We could quibble (we could be paid to quibble, if we were lawyers ) about how "derivative" a video showcasing a mod is (vs. being a "performance" or "display", which the CC license permits for any verbatim copy of a work, potentially subject to non-commercial restrictions) or whether fair use applies, but most content hosts are biased in favor of removing or suspending content and accounts when there is a report (valid or not) of a license violation, and leave the deep questions to the courts (which requires deep pockets). This means that a suitably litigious and/or malicious (but I repeat myself...) individual could cause our favorite channels a lot of trouble if they found a video that featured a mod whose license forbids commercial use.

I suppose those who don't want any videos made featuring their efforts will find the CC-NC-ND license perfectly suitable, but I suspect most of us would not be bothered (and would in fact be very honored) to have videos made about our work, so use those restrictive licenses with care! If I were a video maker, I'd start hunting down mod licenses and check for compliance, or get permission from mod authors for exceptions (and if I had released a restrictively-licensed mod that was featured in a video, I'd be inclined to be forgiving and permissive for the video maker).

[Astrofox]

So, how do I use them, do I just put the name in the description of the mod, or what?

[sarbian]

Put the type of license in the mod description and put a license.txt file with the license text in your mod zip.

[Astrofox]

Ok, how do I get a txt, or do I have to type it out in notepad/word?