Danger of popular mods dying off?

[sharpspoonful]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember you can alter GNU-formated licenses and customize them to support your own works. It would imply require you to partially write your own licenses, but it would be your best bet.

[Guest]

- is pretty much "all rights reserved"

I'm pretty sure copyright law already handles that for the original author. The problem with derivatives comes from the fact that the person making the derivative also has rights to their own work. This is where the license steps in to handle the terms of derivatives.

- handles abandonment, by e.g. allowing people to share compatibility updates for my mod if don't do so within a specific timespan

- it may even makes it freely available once i am gone for a long timespan (yes, finding a clear way of measuring this isn't easy :/ )

The problem with this, legally, (AFAIK) is that it requires an incredibly arbitrary set of conditions that may or may be testable. This is why you don't see widely-used licenses try to handle that situation. It is better to simply allow something or not.

- allows me to change my license as long as its not yet freely available

The original author can always do this. What you can't do is take away rights on an older version that you had already given to someone. You could re-license an older version but if someone had a copy under a less-restrictive license that you had previously released, they can still use it under the terms of that license.

I would personally advise anyone without any experience in licensing software to simply write "Copyright <name>, <year>. No derivatives allowed." for their mod licensing to begin with. Then, once they feel comfortable with the idea of others using their code/assets, find a license that works best for them. The reason for this is that it is very hard to take away rights to your project, but it is very easy to give them.

Edited October 5, 2013 by regex

[PolecatEZ]

Does anyone more experienced with licensing know such a license or can create sth like that?

An EULA in place by Squad for the KSP game or EULA agreement for using Spaceport can cover can do this. Like I alluded to in another thread, other games where the modding community grew to out-sized proportions eventually went this route when the whole licensing silliness got out of hand. This game is still very niche and may not ever hit a concurrent user base of 3-5 million, but two general trends will work against the current licensing system:

(1) An increasing base of users that may actually out-grow what can be contained in the KSP forums, and

(2) User friendly tools development along with an increasingly educated community that will let regular joe users make their own mods of increasingly professional quality.

I like to give the TS2/3 example because it shows how the modding community evolves as a niche game suddenly becomes very popular, and EA's hamfisted response to this lead them to throwing up their hands and saying basically "f*** it." This was the cumulative result of popular modders trying to sell their mods, pirate groups popping up to steal them, modders "borrowing" code/textures/models from each other with and without permission, a plethora of unofficial patches, sexy stuff, lots of "Lawyer Letters" thrown around between websites with takedown notices and lawsuits, modder flame wars, etc. This was all done with the basic "modders license their own stuff" scheme we have here. The whole circus eventually ended with the following when EA updated their EULA in 2009 (relevant part here):

In exchange for the right to use content contributed by other users
through the Software, when you contribute content through the
Software, you expressly grant to other users of the Software the nonexclusive,
perpetual, transferable, worldwide, irrevocable right to
access and use, copy, modify, display, perform, and create and
distribute derivative works from, your contributed content in connection
with the Software, and to distribute and otherwise communicate your
contributed content as a component of works that they create using the
Software, for example, The Sims lots or The Sims videos, without
further notice, attribution or compensation to you. You hereby waive
any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution
under applicable law with respect to EA’s and other players’ use and
enjoyment of such content contributions in connection with the
Software.

This is through their equivalent of the "Spaceport". It told users "we can't mess with you, and you're only making stuff for fun...ever."

I'm sure the "modder bourgeoisie" can think of a million arguments why this won't apply, and so long as you stay inside the gated KSP forum community it may indeed stay true forever. But, when the player base starts branching outside of these forums and bypass the "Thar be dragons!" warnings, the cat will be out of the bag, chickens will come home to roost, and other barnyard metaphors will take place. If you aren't prepared for this kind of freedom from the proletariat, then I don't know how to help you. Going Galt may be an option (take your toys and go hide in the mountains), but it would be nicer if a more mature approach was taken that prepared for a more open future society.

I found how Valve handles modders through the Workshop as well...very interesting approach. Basically, a nicer way of wording that "we can do what we want, even if you delete or abandon your stuff". Note how they say "only in these situations" and then proceed to say two cases that could justify just about anything. The words "improve game play" covers a lot of ground. Also note the very cute "you can take your stuff down and we can't do anything about it, except if any other user is using the mod currently."

Workshop Contributions are Subscriptions, and therefore you agree that any Subscriber receiving distribution of your Workshop Contribution will have the same rights to use your Workshop Contribution (and will be subject to the same restrictions) as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions.
Notwithstanding the license described in Section 6.A., Valve will only have the right to modify or create derivative works from your Workshop Contribution in the following cases: (a) Valve may make modifications necessary to make your Contribution compatible with Steam and the Workshop functionality or user interface, and ( Valve or the applicable developer may make modifications to Workshop Contributions that are accepted for in-Application distribution as it deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay.
You may, in your sole discretion, choose to remove a Workshop Contribution from the applicable Workshop pages. If you do so, Valve will no longer have the right to use, distribute, transmit, communicate, publicly display or publicly perform the Workshop Contribution, except that (a) Valve may continue to exercise these rights for any Workshop Contribution that is accepted for distribution in-game or distributed in a manner that allows it to be used in-game, and ( your removal will not affect the rights of any Subscriber who has already obtained access to a copy of the Workshop Contribution.
Except where otherwise provided in App-Specific Terms, you agree that Valve’s consideration of your Workshop Contribution is your full compensation, and you are not entitled to any other rights or compensation in connection with the rights granted to Valve and to other Subscribers.

Edited October 5, 2013 by PolecatEZ

[Greys]

GNU and the like are very strong licenses built to survive in the courtroom, which is a problem if you want to change them yourself. Because they're so dang big and comprehensive, if you want to change it and not invalidate it, you need to be completely familiar with the entire thing. That's totally possible, but depending on your needs it's probably easier to write something yourself and have it reviewed publically that it says what you want; and not worry so much about taking people to court with it. It is a good idea to take the structure and considerations of major prebuilt licenses into consideration, they're generally written by smart people who don't want them to be any more confusing than they have to be.

[Majiir]

I'm sure the "modder bourgeoisie" can think of a million arguments why this won't apply, and so long as you stay inside the gated KSP forum community it may indeed stay true forever. But, when the player base starts branching outside of these forums and bypass the "Thar be dragons!" warnings, the cat will be out of the bag, chickens will come home to roost, and other barnyard metaphors will take place. If you aren't prepared for this kind of freedom from the proletariat, then I don't know how to help you. Going Galt may be an option (take your toys and go hide in the mountains), but it would be nicer if a more mature approach was taken that prepared for a more open future society.

This is an eloquent way of drooling at the idea of killing mod licensing rights. We don't have a problem with mod licenses right now. What we have is a regular crop of threads with entitled users demanding mod updates. Given many of the most popular mods have relatively restrictive licenses, there's little incentive for Squad to flip the tables. If there's anyone else in the community familiar with entitled users when it comes to updates, it's Squad itself.*

*Of course, Squad's users actually bought the game, so I'd argue they are legitimately entitled... but that's tangential to my point.

[Garoad]

I'm not reading this entire thread, but IP and copyright are obviously the main problem (or at least a major one). Mandate a mod community friendly license like GPL or similar for upload to Spaceport and this forum, and anyone who disagrees can GTFO. It's the only way to end this unproductive waste of time and resources. Guaranteed the overall mod community will barely notice any downside. And if a few modders quit, oh well - it's better than inevitably having dozens of "unsupported" mods breaking people's save games simply because the original author got bored.

[jfx]

Forcing someone to publish content under a licence that suits your own needs best shows an incredible self-entitled mindset.

Modders create content you can use without compensation - in their free time. And you want to dictate them the terms on which they may do so? Even EA or Activision would think thrice before pulling a move like this.

[Majiir]

Guaranteed the overall mod community will barely notice any downside. And if a few modders quit, oh well - it's better than inevitably having dozens of "unsupported" mods breaking people's save games simply because the original author got bored.

Yeah! Who cares about Kethane, KAS, KerbTown, Universe Replacer, Pwings, and all the other restrictively licensed mods? Losing those is way better than the inevitable loss of mods like ISA and... um... yeah, ISA. /s

Mod abandonment is an overblown problem. Most works are permissively licensed, and the ones that aren't are often handed from developer to developer.

[PolecatEZ]

I'm not reading this entire thread, but IP and copyright are obviously the main problem (or at least a major one). Mandate a mod community friendly license like GPL or similar for upload to Spaceport and this forum, and anyone who disagrees can GTFO. It's the only way to end this unproductive waste of time and resources. Guaranteed the overall mod community will barely notice any downside. And if a few modders quit, oh well - it's better than inevitably having dozens of "unsupported" mods breaking people's save games simply because the original author got bored.

That would be peachy, but you would still run into the same issue where there is also some "unwritten" and undocumented rules whereby the license is still meaningless. The user voluntarily places a license, and then panics and throws a tantrum at the mention that the rights granted in that license might be exercised by someone they disagree with.

If someone were to use only the Spaceport and never visit the forum, and go by only the licensing rights he/she saw on a particular mod, how would these "unwritten rules" ever be enforced or even known? If you want to counter this with something about respect or courtesy, I'll show you plenty of examples of unbridled elitism or absurdity in this regard. RaW vs. RoI arguments are their own can of worms.

Now, I'm made to believe that this licensing thing is just common sense or common practice, like, isn't it obvious this is the way of things? Seriously, I'm frantically searching for examples right now of a popular game with many mods that uses this particular scheme (where mod creators pick their license and the game developer -Squad- will happily enforce it) when it comes to handling mods and add-ons.

Warcraft III and WoW
EA (Sims series specifically)
Ubisoft (I can't find a game good enough that people cared to mod it though)
Any game through Valve's workshop, including TF2 and Civ V Arma III, Skyrim, etc.
CA with Total War series

All of them have basic standards in their EULA either claiming ownership themselves of any mods made or saying any mods made necessarily have NO ownership. It was so common to handle it this way that it was quite bizarre for me to not find this clause in the Spaceport EULA - until I looked I had just assumed it was there, such was my "common sense" frame of reference given my years in the gaming industry.

I have seen cases where popular mods were covered under their own licenses, but these were specific deals cut with the original game creators on a case-by-case basis. This isn't merely some argumentum ad populum, there are real reasons why corporate lawyers choose to handle things in such a way - not that I have much love for them either.

I also haven't seen an articulation of exactly what is being protected. If there isn't any money involved, now or in the future, what's the point of having such an elaborate gate-keeping mechanism, especially where not every wannabe mod necessarily understands the intricacies of Unix programming licensing?

Side-point - If your work is derived from a another work that carried an "SA" (share-alike) clause in the license, you cannot put a more restrictive license on it in any successive iteration of that work.

That's about every argument on this subject I can think of and freely mention on the boards.

Call whomever you want "entitled" brats, but the 99% still have to live here with you in the same community.

One thing I never wish to see or experience again myself is that when I do my own modding-like things while fully adhering to the rules of the current scheme, I do not want to hear a peep from anyone about how I choose to do it. I could care less what kind of meds you need to be on. If I want to do something, and I am fully within my rights to do it, and the community would benefit (this is my own rubric, yours may vary), then you can either cooperate, inform me that you're doing it yourself, or simply refrain from crapping on my threads with whiny BS (especially if, ironically, you want to lecture me on courtesy). Don't misunderstand me, if you have technical advice on what I'm doing, or if you catch an error, then please contribute any way you feel. If you wish to completely fork my work, go ahead. If you wish to revamp my work, let me help you. I can honestly say I do this 40% to improve my own enjoyment of the game, 50% to share something cool with the community and feeling like I made people's experience better, and 10% for the little rise I get out of watching my download ticker increase every time I hit refresh on Spaceport (admit it, its fun). License or no license, I would still get that same satisfaction from my own work.

If you don't like what I just wrote, then change the rules of the game. I personally don't agree with them, but I am more than happy to play by them and will do so. I don't think I can be flamed any worse than I already have been.

Edited October 5, 2013 by PolecatEZ

[Majiir]

One thing I never wish to see or experience again myself is that when I do my own modding-like things while fully adhering to the rules of the current scheme, I do not want to hear a peep from anyone about how I choose to do it. I could care less what kind of meds you need to be on. If I want to do something, and I am fully within my rights to do it, and the community would benefit (this is my own rubric, yours may vary), then you can either cooperate, inform me that you're doing it yourself, or simply refrain from crapping on my threads with whiny BS (especially if, ironically, you want to lecture me on courtesy).

"Inform me that you're doing it yourself" is precisely what happened in your situation. There's no problem with licensing practices here. Nobody is preventing you from doing anything; they're just asking. You sound butthurt over "unwritten rules" but those have nothing whatsoever to do with how mods can be licensed. As things are now, mods released under GPL at least made the conscious choice to allow derivatives. Shoehorning mods into GPL when they'd prefer a more restrictive license will create an explosion of "unwritten rules" on who should be allowed to distribute certain works.

[PolecatEZ]

You're right, that was badly worded. The point of asking to be informed is that perhaps I would be happy to aid you in your endeavor. If you don't wish to inform me, there's no need and I won't be "butthurt", so to speak. It would be for your own benefit and not a particular courtesy to me. I simply list it as an available option. I don't seek to give or receive implied permission or endorsement, but I would be happy to give you one if requested. That is all, glad I could make that clear.

As for explosion of unwritten rules, in the cold darkness of faceless mod exchanges, no one can hear you scream anyways. If Squad were to go the route of EA or Valve, I would argue that fewer "unwritten rules" would apply.

[Faark]

What you can't do is take away rights on an older version that you had already given to someone. You could re-license an older version but if someone had a copy under a less-restrictive license that you had previously released, they can still use it under the terms of that license.

I can't take away permissions i have already granted for a released product, that is correct. But i might be able to specify a process (the abandonment clause) to grant rights but including a way to "disable" this process as long as no rights where granted from it, yet. At least sth like that being possible would be nice and my very very limited knowledge about licensing does not see a reason why it should not be possible. At that point, no one else ever had the permission to create derivatives, so why no one would be "harmed" anyway.

So whats wrong with sh like "In case of [inactivity condition] and the release with these license is the latest version of [name of mod] by [author], these latest version will become [other license]"? A bunch of conditions to make this clause invalid, but no one ever looses rights.

I would personally advise anyone without any experience in licensing software to simply write "Copyright <name>, <year>. No derivatives allowed." for their mod licensing to begin with. Then, once they feel comfortable with the idea of others using their code/assets, find a license that works best for them.

What about all the people who won't change it? Thats why i would like being able to suggest sth that has some kind of abandonment clause but does not give away rights and is changeable, if somehow possible...

[Guest]

What about all the people who won't change it?

As owners of their own copyrighted work, they're perfectly within their rights to not change it. Ever. If someone abandons their work and leaves without a trace, and the license isn't permissive, and you want to see it revived, then you should get to work making your own. No one is beholden to you, or anyone else, to release their creative output just so you can continue using it.

E: As for this license you want to see, I suggest you write it and submit it to this community for review. If it's any good, I'm sure some modders would be willing to use it.

Edited October 5, 2013 by regex

[Tiberion]

Wow.

If certain attitudes shown in this thread become pervasive, I can see a watershed movement towards licenses with strict No-Derivatives clauses included. Making a derivative of an active project is not something to be done lightly, mostly because you have an extra responsibility to keep things updated and not cause the end users to be confused. You can cause compatibility issues, and in KSP you can actually break save files if you are not responsible in how you handle a derivative mod.

Add on top of that actually being in conflict with the original author? I think at that point you really need to take a step back and ask if you're actually accomplishing anything worthwhile, or are you just being a twit?

So if permissive licenses are abused enough by people to make conflicting projects, you'll see those permissions just dry up.

The TL:DR version is thus: You better have a really good reason to make a derivative of an active mod, if its not something the active author is interested in. If you think the community needs such a thing so bad, make your own. It's not about a license or if you CAN do something, its about being a decent human being and thinking if you SHOULD do something.

Also; please stop referencing Valve, EA or Blizzard's practices, they are wholly irrelevant and frankly not something anyone should hold in esteem anyway.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Tiberion

[PolecatEZ]

Wow.

If certain attitudes shown in this thread become pervasive, I can see a watershed movement towards licenses with strict No-Derivatives clauses included. Making a derivative of an active project is not something to be done lightly, mostly because you have an extra responsibility to keep things updated and not cause the end users to be confused. You can cause compatibility issues, and in KSP you can actually break save files if you are not responsible in how you handle a derivative mod.

Add on top of that actually being in conflict with the original author? I think at that point you really need to take a step back and ask if you're actually accomplishing anything worthwhile, or are you just being a twit?

So if permissive licenses are abused enough by people to make conflicting projects, you'll see those permissions just dry up.

The TL:DR version is thus: You better have a really good reason to make a derivative of an active mod, if its not something the active author is interested in. If you think the community needs such a thing so bad, make your own. It's not about a license or if you CAN do something, its about being a decent human being and thinking if you SHOULD do something.

Also; please stop referencing Valve, EA or Blizzard's practices, they are wholly irrelevant and frankly not something anyone should hold in esteem anyway.

So then explain the difference between having an open license where someone else still needs explicit permission to use those assets and having a no derivatives license where someone would need explicit permission to use those assets...and then tell me again who is the "twit" as you succinctly put it.

Doing something heavily and lightly are also some very arbitrary words. I'm sure everyone thinks they're doing God's work. Some of us are even told that

If the trend would go towards closed licenses, then let the honesty begin please.

I'm trying to figure out if 101 possibly conflicting mods is really better than Master-Slave plugin mod architecture, and puzzled why you would want the former.

As well, I don't think new parts or texture packs have broken a save game yet, even if made from old ones. Modders that screw up their configs and create conflicts probably won't last long with the pitchfork and torch crew. I do see a definite niche for some very concise basic tutorials...

As for the EA/Valve thing, I really hope you're kidding about that...actually, given that you already showed your brilliance by using directly ad hominum, I suppose not. The fallacy would be that hating a bottom-rated corporation or Gabe Newell should automatically translate to them having bad practices in everything. A broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. Both are examples of passionate mod communities that had people wanting to create for the game(s) at various skill levels and in many different ways. In Valve's example, a modder that abandoned his project or ragequit could theoretically have his mod maintained in his absence under Valve's authority so long as other players continued to use it. In EA's example, the question of ownership and who can do what with what was settled with a big fat hammer. In both cases the mod community continues to thrive brilliantly. Yes, a few elitist modders slinked off and went Galt, but someone will always pop up where there's a need and life will go on. Ayn Rand would have been proud, or not (I could never understand the point of Atlas Shrugged, very contradictory). Why you would think that this game is "speshul snoflake" and not subject to the same forces as any game with a diverse mod community?

This is just the beginning guys, this game is only going to get bigger. Squad will need to hire full time people to enforce the use of 15+ variable licenses spread across tens of thousands of active mods. The writing was on the wall long before I shrank my first texture.

=========================================

Honestly though, I just learned how to follow directions and shrink some files - that's about my limit with Powerpoint. My expertise was game design and project management, something that doesn't translate easily to making graphical and coded add-ons. I did see a need, and I filled it, while following the rules, both written and unwritten. I couldn't have predicted the freak-out in my thread, but I'm actually glad it happened. It exposed some very real rot and ugliness from a select few of those that make some of the mods we love, and the sycophants that just like to pile on when they see a fight. I'll keep plugging away supporting this game how I can, and I guess those opposed to this messenger can do what they will. Whaddyagonnadoaboudit, eh?

=========================================

Edited October 6, 2013 by PolecatEZ

[Tiberion]

"having an open license where someone else still needs explicit permission to use those assets"

No one has claimed that, so your argument is a non-starter. It's not about permission its about making a choice whether you SHOULD do something. I know its a weird concept these days to exercise self-control, but it's still a valid choice.

You see, there is a world of difference between someone 'taking a few tank or engine models or a simple plugin and adapting them to work in another mod project' and 'taking a whole mod and making 'fixes' and releasing it as a separate project' - the latter is much more likely to disrupt the original and cause confusion among the users and cause the aforementioned strife.

I don't think its unreasonable for an author to release under a license allowing the first example while still not being thrilled about the latter. Nor do I think its unreasonable of me to suggest that the 2nd example is only a good idea under some pretty extreme conditions.

Relaxed permissions only works when there is an expectation of basic human decency, and when abused you usually hear "this is why we can't have nice things"

[Guest]

Relaxed permissions only works when there is an expectation of basic human decency, and when abused you usually hear "this is why we can't have nice things"

No. There should be no expectation of "human decency", that's the whole reason for putting a license in place. Mod authors should be held responsible for their choice of permissiveness, not in the sense that they must be punished, but that they should expect people to take advantage of that permissiveness for whatever reason, noble or otherwise, at some point in time. If you don't want people to modify/release your creative output, then you should license appropriately.

[Tiberion]

Then all roads lead to the worst, most restrictive place, which is Not Good.

I absolutely reject the notion that there is no place to expect humans to not be assholes. Its okay to expect people USING the licenses to make good choices too.

[Guest]

While the idea of open licensing seems nice from my point as a user, I am not a mod developer, nor an expert on licensing and its effects on communities. So I simply request if anybody is willing to explain who having closed/open licenses benefits, and how it benefits them. Hopefully with this can get an idea of peoples stance and better understand the issue at hand.

[PolecatEZ]

I absolutely reject the notion that there is no place to expect humans to not be assholes.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Weren't you paying attention in Disney class, I mean history class, in high school?

A man walks down the street in a quiet neighborhood and spots a table with neatly arranged glasses of lemonade on the edge of the sidewalk in someone's yard. The sign next to the cups reads "If you are thirsty, please help yourself." The man thinks, "Gosh, I am a bit parched on this hot day," and begins to reach for a glass. As he does so, a woman bursts from the house that accompanies the yard. The woman begins to scream at him, "Don't take my lemonade! You don't look thirsty to me! I'm going to drink it later!" A next door neighbor is watching this and remarks, "That's why I don't put lemonade out, too many assholes like that taking it." The woman replies back to him, "Well, I'll know better next time."

As the thirsty man, what would your reaction be?

a) Calmly walk away as you facepalm.

Yell back at the woman for being absurd and/or nuts.

c) Calmly sip the lemonade and glare at her.

d) All of the above in any order.

e) Return with gas and matches and burn down her house.

f) OMG, I'm totally gonna turn this story into something religous or racist and post it to Facebook and say it really happened to me, then see how many likes I get from my redneck relatives.

While the idea of open licensing seems nice from my point as a user, I am not a mod developer, nor an expert on licensing and its effects on communities. So I simply request if anybody is willing to explain who having closed/open licenses benefits, and how it benefits them. Hopefully with this can get an idea of peoples stance and better understand the issue at hand.

Open Licensing (assuming mandated, free-for-all style) benefits:

- Beginning level modders don't need to re-invent the wheel when they want to create something, this means a shorter learning curve as they can study and play with what was done, and possibly gain some "kudos" for doing so.

- Knowledge when creating your works that it will be widely shared and used.

- No dead mods so long as someone wants to maintain them.

- Generally no need to use resources to police anything, no armchair lawyers, no tattletales/rats creating bad blood among the mod community.

- No ability for mod creators to charge for their work (this can be good or bad as mod projects become more time consuming).

- Better competition leads to higher quality mods with faster improvement release schedule.

- Subtle improvements and add-on variations for mods can be done without hassle and enjoyed by the community.

Drawbacks of Open Licensing (assuming same mandate, free-for-all):

- Some mods that should die never will.

- Popular mods could get multiple variations that may not necessarily be compatible, especially with creators that are unwilling to coordinate with others.

- No ability for mod creators to charge for their work, meaning really good mods which turn into a full time job for the creator may not be possible.

- Continuous pressure from competition may lead to the original mod creator burning out.

- Annoyance from/for users that don't know who is supporting which version of the mod they have and ask for help from the wrong places.

Hard Copyright (assuming mandated) Benefits:

- Modders could charge for their stuff, meaning full time jobs are created for them and more elaborate mods for the community.

- Modders would enjoy elite rockstar status, which is a powerful motivator to continue to create good stuff.

- More stability for the status quo, more choice in the market is not necessarily better (the "90% of everything is crap" rule).

Hard Copyright Drawbacks (assuming yada yada):

- Mods can and will die out without notice.

- The bar for becoming a beginning modder would be set very high, leading to very few new modders stepping up.

- Modders could charge for their stuff, turning Spaceport into an iPhone App store.

- Pirate and side communities would spring up, spreading the community outside of heavily policed forums. If a vacuum is created, it will be filled.

- Both Squad and modders would need to expend extensive resources to enforce their mod copyrights. Lawyer letters, takedown notices, full-time forum and Spaceport police, etc. These resources could have been expended in another way.

- Heated arguments detailing exactly what is allowed with restrictive licenses would pop up and cause butthurt.

- Zero-tolerance policies can lead to a lot of bans for minor infractions or no infraction at all, with little recourse.

Edited October 6, 2013 by PolecatEZ

[Greys]

We can safetly say that the "bar for entry" into modding KSP is set quite low. Regardless of licensing this forum has a rule that all plugin releases must be made source-visible, whether they're opensource or not.

In this context it means that if I make a plugin and I don't want you to use my code, that's fine; but I still have to SHOW you my code, so you can learn from what I've done and how I did it, you just can't copy/paste my stuff.

This is a concrete improvement over many systems, I still recall being in the middle of the RedPower2 troll wars in the minecraft community, in which a number of users berated RP2's creator, Eloraam, for her extremely locked down license which forbid decompiling; and eventually lead to Eloraam leaving entirely and in my opinion is a rather strong factor leading to minecraft mods getting boring and the whole King Lex thing that put off so many potential modders including myself. RIP Eloraam, we miss you, Lex is a boner, mods are boring now.

This won't happen on the KSP forums because if you post it here you must post the source as well. That does not mean it's open source but it makes it a lot easier for people to learn.

As far as assets go, .mu and .mbm can be opened with minimal expertise these days but it doesn't help all that much. We really need improved documentation to help people make their own stuff and have it be good.

[PolecatEZ]

In this context it means that if I make a plugin and I don't want you to use my code, that's fine; but I still have to SHOW you my code, so you can learn from what I've done and how I did it, you just can't copy/paste my stuff.

And if I wanted to create a competing mod to yours, which does similar or the same thing, and the code were particularly complex or specific - the difference between cut and paste and re-typing your code would be what exactly?

This is a concrete improvement over many systems, I still recall being in the middle of the RedPower2 troll wars in the minecraft community, ... Lex is a boner, mods are boring now.

This won't happen on the KSP forums because if you post it here you must post the source as well. That does not mean it's open source but it makes it a lot easier for people to learn.

So imagine that licenses were fully open from the get-go for Minecraft. Do you think Eloram would not have made the mod? If not, do you think someone else wouldn't have seen the need and done something similar? Do you think 1500+ pages of forum butthurt would have exploded like that? Would the mod have died after she left for whatever reason and made mods "boring now."?

You say this hybrid system is different, but I see the potential for the exact same thing to happen here. A lot of mental energy is expended when being paranoid and protective of your stuff, and it does wear a person down. Its also a major source of negativity in any community. Its why capitalism is being considered a mental disease in some circles, because hoarding, accumulating, and worrying about protecting your stuff is a major source of stress. It is one of the baseline motivator for how we treat each other in society, especially negatively. "I don't trust him, because he just wants my stuff." "I must carry a gun to protect my stuff." "(Fill in the blank) just want to come into this country/neighborhood because they want our stuff." "Taxes is just stealing my stuff." "I must go to med school and make good grades so I can make money and buy more stuff." "She didn't love me for me, she had ulterior motives (wanted my stuff)." "I'm a better person because I have more stuff than (x)" "That advertisement says I need better stuff." - Its sort of illustrated in the scene in Fight Club where the dude blows up his own apartment to free himself.

Open sharing is freedom, and liberating for everyone.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

As far as assets go, .mu and .mbm can be opened with minimal expertise these days but it doesn't help all that much. We really need improved documentation to help people make their own stuff and have it be good.

Absolutely valid points, there's definitely a niche for someone to make or update user-friendly documentation, as well as try to establish some kind of minimal quality standards that beginning modders should aim for. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any kind of standardization among the "elite" either, and most seem violently opposed to it, so asking the little guys to fall in line would be hypocritical.

Edited October 6, 2013 by PolecatEZ

[Greys]

So imagine that licenses were fully open from the get-go for Minecraft. Do you think Eloram would not have made the mod?

I know that she would not have.

Absolutely valid points, there's definitely a niche for someone to make or update user-friendly documentation, as well as try to establish some kind of minimal quality standards that beginning modders should aim for. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any kind of standardization among the "elite" either, and most seem violently opposed to it, so asking the little guys to fall in line would be hypocritical.

Standardization is pretty much a pipe dream. Even with best-practices rely on a baseline amount of competence, and the people who would theoretically benefit the most might not have that. The people who are good enough won't really need them and Nobody needs standardization in visual styles. Diversity is the whole point of add-ons

[Majiir]

Then all roads lead to the worst, most restrictive place, which is Not Good.

I think you're overestimating the reactions of content creators. For example, Kethane is a mostly closed license in terms of derivatives, but it does allow you to create your own mods that leverage Kethane code. There's a project in the works that wants to use Kethane to replace Kethane. Am I getting mad and changing my license to stop them? No, because I knew what I was getting myself into when I added that clause.

Open Licensing (assuming mandated, free-for-all style) benefits:

- Beginning level modders don't need to re-invent the wheel when they want to create something, this means a shorter learning curve as they can study and play with what was done, and possibly gain some "kudos" for doing so.

- Knowledge when creating your works that it will be widely shared and used.

- No dead mods so long as someone wants to maintain them.

- Generally no need to use resources to police anything, no armchair lawyers, no tattletales/rats creating bad blood among the mod community.

- No ability for mod creators to charge for their work (this can be good or bad as mod projects become more time consuming).

- Better competition leads to higher quality mods with faster improvement release schedule.

- Subtle improvements and add-on variations for mods can be done without hassle and enjoyed by the community.

Drawbacks of Open Licensing (assuming same mandate, free-for-all):

- Some mods that should die never will.

- Popular mods could get multiple variations that may not necessarily be compatible, especially with creators that are unwilling to coordinate with others.

- No ability for mod creators to charge for their work, meaning really good mods which turn into a full time job for the creator may not be possible.

- Continuous pressure from competition may lead to the original mod creator burning out.

- Annoyance from/for users that don't know who is supporting which version of the mod they have and ask for help from the wrong places.

Hard Copyright (assuming mandated) Benefits:

- Modders could charge for their stuff, meaning full time jobs are created for them and more elaborate mods for the community.

- Modders would enjoy elite rockstar status, which is a powerful motivator to continue to create good stuff.

- More stability for the status quo, more choice in the market is not necessarily better (the "90% of everything is crap" rule).

Hard Copyright Drawbacks (assuming yada yada):

- Mods can and will die out without notice.

- The bar for becoming a beginning modder would be set very high, leading to very few new modders stepping up.

- Modders could charge for their stuff, turning Spaceport into an iPhone App store.

- Pirate and side communities would spring up, spreading the community outside of heavily policed forums. If a vacuum is created, it will be filled.

- Both Squad and modders would need to expend extensive resources to enforce their mod copyrights. Lawyer letters, takedown notices, full-time forum and Spaceport police, etc. These resources could have been expended in another way.

- Heated arguments detailing exactly what is allowed with restrictive licenses would pop up and cause butthurt.

- Zero-tolerance policies can lead to a lot of bans for minor infractions or no infraction at all, with little recourse.

I think a few of your items miss the mark, and as someone publishing under a restrictive license, I find all of my concerns missing from your second set of lists.

The choice of a mod's license doesn't impact anyone's ability to learn or start modding. Source code must accompany mods on the KSP network, and it's generally accepted that modifications for personal use are allowed; some licenses, like Kethane's, even explicitly allow it. Even if one mod's license choice did prevent someone from learning, there are a large number of mods licensed permissively. Your list assumes it's a binary choice where every mod goes one way or the other. Even then, if every mod were restrictively licensed, nothing stops an aspiring modder from reading the resources available in Addon Development or reading source code from successful mods.

Open licensing doesn't provide any guarantee that people will actually use your work. (It could simply be unpopular.) It also doesn't necessarily increase quality; Kethane was restrictively licensed precisely for quality purposes. It's developed slowly as a result, but it's undeniably a high-quality mod. If Kethane were openly licensed, it'd have become bloated with lower-quality content that nobody wants to remove for fear of hurting someone's feelings. (I'm guessing on the feelings part, but I have seen content built for Kethane that I decided not to include.)

Monetizing mods isn't really on the table. Spaceport was built for selling content (just take a look around the site and legal agreements) and modders overwhelmingly resist that idea.

I'm not sure why you think "extensive resources" are required to enforce mod licenses. In Kethane's history, I've had to deal with fewer than ten license violations, and usually I just IM a link to the offending thread to a forum moderator. You can ask the forum staff if they find licensing to be a big drain, and I suspect they'll say policing threads like this one takes far more work than policing the actual mods.

Here's why Kethane is restrictively licensed:

• The art assets were restrictively licensed from the get-go, and the new modeler who joined the project also wanted his works protected. You'd have to ask them why, but at the very least I'm bound to respect their wishes. I'm simply a user of their work.
  
• For a time, technical support for Kethane was a part-time job. I've been able to reduce that load through a combination of control over the codebase (restrictive license), some unusual preventative measures (incorrect install detector) and lots of bugfixing iterations (the current version is 0.7.7). There was a brief experiment where I authorized the release of a single Kethane fork, after I personally reviewed the code, and even then it was a complete disaster.
  
• Shortly after taking over the project, I made it a goal to make Kethane among the highest-quality mods available. I already had access to some of the best part assets of the time, and I could tackle the code. Open licensing is great for high-quality security software; it's not so great for game mods.
  
• I derive very little real-world value from working on Kethane. The best I can do is track download counts over time, and this is exactly why I don't allow redistribution.

There are drawbacks, like slower development cycles and a lot more personal responsibility for the mod. I don't have a team of people willing to contribute patches. I choose the license terms with all of this in mind.

Absolutely valid points, there's definitely a niche for someone to make or update user-friendly documentation, as well as try to establish some kind of minimal quality standards that beginning modders should aim for. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any kind of standardization among the "elite" either, and most seem violently opposed to it, so asking the little guys to fall in line would be hypocritical.

There's really no "modding elite" in KSP. Take a look at the most popular mod threads and you have a few candidates, but among the top four, two were created by people who were/are developers at Squad, and the other two actively work to better the modding community with documentation, community building, lobbying for policy changes, et cetera. There's little standardization among KSP mods because there's just not much to standardize. The best example I can think of is the folder structure of mod downloads; you'll find some have GameData/ in the root, and others simply have the mod folder; a few bad apples will have {modname}/GameData/{modname}, which can cause quite a few problems! We've had discussions in modding channels about the best approach, and I'm personally happy it seems many have settled on the first approach. This is a decision that affects users and the choice isn't arbitrary, so it's a good candidate for standardization. There just aren't many similar opportunities. I'm interested to hear where you think the "modding elite" are resistant to standardization, and just who those elite are.

Standardization is pretty much a pipe dream. Even with best-practices rely on a baseline amount of competence, and the people who would theoretically benefit the most might not have that. The people who are good enough won't really need them and Nobody needs standardization in visual styles. Diversity is the whole point of add-ons

There's also the problem of KSP shifting underneath us. (Note: I'm not complaining about that shifting, I love it. We're happy to patch our mods every update.) It can be harmful to settle on some kind of standard if the technique becomes obsolete in just a few months. Again, I'd have to ask just what should be standardized. PolecatEZ, you mentioned "minimal quality standards" but that sounds extraordinarily elitist. I prefer to lead by example when it comes to mod quality.

[HeadHunter67]

I know that she would not have.

I agree 100%. I know a lot of her disenchantment arose from feeling like her mod might not remain "her" mod. Even after she made her position crystal-clear, there were still people who tried to distribute add-ons or plugins based on Redpower, and I would not be surprised if that's what made her not want to put the effort into doing it any more. So, in the end, the very people who claimed that they were "helping" keep Redpower on the scene are the ones who harmed it.

I cannot imagine anyone logically defending the premise that limiting a creator's right to control over his or her own work would ever, possibly, somehow encourage mod development. All it does is enable hangers-on to succeed on someone else's hard work - because leaving full control in the hands of the creator doesn't, in any way, limit the ability for others to create original content.

In other words, those who can, do... those who can't, redo what someone else has done.

Open sharing is freedom, and liberating for everyone.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

Please don't go quoting Jefferson in some attempt to justify appropriation of intellectual property in the name of "liberty". Do you honestly think a Libertarian would advocate taking someone else's work for another's personal gain? Where's the "liberty" in being told one must "share" with others; in being told how one must allow others to benefit from one's own effort?

Edited October 7, 2013 by HeadHunter67