[0.23.5] TreeLoader - Custom Career Tech-tree Loader 1.1.5

[TavishThomas]

I was questioning that as well yankee. somebody should just go ahead and attempt to make a replacement for a week, and if it can't be done, then just make a derivative and cite that. they'd technically be in the clear even if all these licenses are just an in-community thing that don't hold water legally.

that and this is really messing up my interstellar save. it basically did over 20,000 science for me by destroying the node system and reactor upgrades.

[Poofer]

i just gave up on my save; started a hard career with every mod up to date except kspil, which in turn doesn't work as intended because of this. i figure if i take it slow and since it's already 50% science penalty it's gonna be a while before i reach the interstellar parts that have custom nodes by which time i hope this matter is resolved one way or another.

[AetherGoddess]

[..]I personally believe that a modder cannot hold copyright over information about how Squad's code works, because the modder didn't create that information; Squad did by writing the code in the way it did. If you were trying to get creation of new nodes working in ATC and you compared your code to TreeLoader to figure out what about Squad's code was causing your code to fail, you could revise your code based on what you learned about Squad's work without violating the TreeLoader copyright because you wouldn't be using any information that the author of TreeLoader actually created. As long as any similarities in the final code were necessarily dictated by the interfaces that Squad provided, you would be legal.

He Doesn't. What he does hold is rights to his method to use Squad's code, which is where this part of Tfin's summary kick's in:

[...]

If you paste the important parts of treeloader into a new mod, that's a license violation.

If you write a new mod, based on what you find by looking at the treeloader source, that's a license violation.

If you look at the source, figure out what does the stuff you need, and DON'T write a mod, that's fine.

If you tell someone what you found by looking in the code, and they write a mod, that might be a license violation.

If someone tells you how to do it, but never says where they got the information, and doesn't give you any code... well, no one can tell if it is or isn't from treeloader, can they?[...].

a similar thing happened with Microsoft's leaked source. a lot of coders looked at MS's source and figured out how to do things based on how microsoft was doing things, and got their projects into hot water about unlicenced reuse.

[TavishThomas]

but the issue we're debating at the moment has to do with "is there any other way to do it," and if not, does his copyright then become invalid due to practical concerns and because that's how copyrights actually work.

[AetherGoddess]

but the issue we're debating at the moment has to do with "is there any other way to do it," and if not, does his copyright then become invalid due to practical concerns and because that's how copyrights actually work.

uh, no, that's not how copyright works. if practical considerations overrode copyright, then no one would ever claim copyright, because any practical consideration would invalidate it.

there is a concept called a "clean room" re-implementation, i.e. you find a programmer (or group) who hasn't been exposed to the existing code, give them the functional requirements (i.e. find a way to convert these config files into this tech tree) and lock them in a room. the clean part is that you are preventing the old code getting in, in physical fact, or by peventing people who have been exposed to the old code from get involved with the project, so you have some form of protection when the inevitable copyright or patent claim comes from the old code's maintainers. This is what Tfin was proposing, but it means, to abuse an apt colloquialism, reinventing the wheel.

Edited October 25, 2014 by AetherGoddess
phrasing edits the bad

[Poofer]

it means beating around the bush and jumping trough unnecessary hoops for an issue that frankly is way beneath it. it is a mod that is outdated, abandoned, locked for no good reason other than bragging rights since it pulls no money (nor it should), it provides for better or worse a key element into more deep gameplay and right now is doing more harm to the community by tying everyone's hands with legal jargon that is never gonna see a courtroom.

Seriously...

[AetherGoddess]

it means beating around the bush and jumping trough unnecessary hoops for an issue that frankly is way beneath it. it is a mod that is outdated, abandoned, locked for no good reason other than bragging rights since it pulls no money (nor it should), it provides for better or worse a key element into more deep gameplay and right now is doing more harm to the community by tying everyone's hands with legal jargon that is never gonna see a courtroom.

Seriously...

Welcome to life^tm, the unfairest thing.

[TavishThomas]

uh, no, that's not how copyright works. if practical considerations overrode copyright, then no one would ever claim copyright, because any practical consideration would invalidate it.

there is a concept called a "clean room" re-implementation, i.e. you find a programmer (or group) who hasn't been exposed to the existing code, give them the functional requirements (i.e. find a way to convert these config files into this tech tree) and lock them in a room. the clean part is that you are preventing the old code getting in, in physical fact, or by peventing people who have been exposed to the old code from get involved with the project, so you have some form of protection when the inevitable copyright or patent claim comes from the old code's maintainers. This is what Tfin was proposing, but it means, to abuse an apt colloquialism, reinventing the wheel.

actually...

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf

the thing about law is that there are no practical absolutes.

Edited October 25, 2014 by TavishThomas

[AetherGoddess]

actually...

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf

the thing about law is that there are no practical absolutes.

yes, you are technically correct. copyright is for art; patent is for an idea, method or system. code exists in a weird middle ground between those two, and is subject to both.

[undercoveryankee]

but the issue we're debating at the moment has to do with "is there any other way to do it," and if not, does his copyright then become invalid due to practical concerns and because that's how copyrights actually work.

uh, no, that's not how copyright works. if practical considerations overrode copyright, then no one would ever claim copyright, because any practical consideration would invalidate it.

For an idea to be copyrightable, it has to have some minimum level of originality. My theory, more specifically, is that if the relevant code is short enough that it's impossible for one working implementation to substantially differ from another, then that code alone would not have enough originality to be protectable.

It's not that generic "practical considerations" can override a copyright. It's that the specific nature of the information we would need – (probably) a short sequence of function calls whose content is dictated by the interfaces being called – allows for a clear distinction between using that information and using anything original to the modder.

[AetherGoddess]

For an idea to be copyrightable, it has to have some minimum level of originality. My theory, more specifically, is that if the relevant code is short enough that it's impossible for one working implementation to substantially differ from another, then that code alone would not have enough originality to be protectable.

It's not that generic "practical considerations" can override a copyright. It's that the specific nature of the information we would need – (probably) a short sequence of function calls whose content is dictated by the interfaces being called – allows for a clear distinction between using that information and using anything original to the modder.

yup, you are exactly correct. however, you can't learn that sequence by reading the treeloader source. you have to research it from scratch. therefore, Clean Room Re-implementation.

it's not really about the possibility of doing the thing a different way, its about using the code or research under protection. the law is kinda dumb about this and doesn't make distinctions for short sequences, but it does make distinctions for obvious solutions. if you can prove the solution was obvious to anyone examining the problem (say, by building the same solution without reference or knowledge of the protected solution) then it's not protected.

Edited October 25, 2014 by AetherGoddess
better example

[TavishThomas]

so since I've never taken an actual look at the code, does that qualify me as a clean room re-implementation option?

sadly I've no idea on how to code, but if somebody sent me an elaborate cipher and some code fragments...

[NathanKell]

News Update

I just talked to r4m0n. He has been incredibly busy with work (most recently 18hrs straight work), but has promised me that by the middle of next week he'll post here and get things back on track (his words).

[Tfin]

Cool. I can probably stop coming back to this thread (and the ATC one) multiple times per day, then.

[TavishThomas]

that's great news. having a gimped career mode is driving me insane.

[UAL002]

si, then we can get Interstellar light going again

[sober667]

that is very very good mesage and very suprising

[Streetwind]

What I would love to see most, honestly, is r4m0n getting in touch with the ATC people.

I don't fault anyone for being eaten up by real life - it can happen to anyone, me included from time to time, and then internet spaceships must take a backseat by necessity. But the thing is: SirJodelstein and friends appear to have more time to spare. And that means there's a big opportunity for collaboration! I think the community would be better served by having one techtree mod that works great instead of two that work partially. TreeLoader has the big advantage of being able to handle creating custom nodes; ATC has the big advantage of being extremely user-friendly due to its ModuleManager-style tree configs that individual mods can easily ship in their downloads and theoretically could even be loaded multiple ones at the same time (so long as they don't conflict). And as a user, I'd love to have both

If r4m0n can provide his extensive knowledge and experience and SirJodelstein can provide his time to maintain and develop the code, then such a collaboration project (regardless of which name it ends up running under) would be greater than the sum of its parts.

[Nelien]

What I would love to see most, honestly, is r4m0n getting in touch with the ATC people.

I don't fault anyone for being eaten up by real life - it can happen to anyone, me included from time to time, and then internet spaceships must take a backseat by necessity. But the thing is: SirJodelstein and friends appear to have more time to spare. And that means there's a big opportunity for collaboration! I think the community would be better served by having one techtree mod that works great instead of two that work partially. TreeLoader has the big advantage of being able to handle creating custom nodes; ATC has the big advantage of being extremely user-friendly due to its ModuleManager-style tree configs that individual mods can easily ship in their downloads and theoretically could even be loaded multiple ones at the same time (so long as they don't conflict). And as a user, I'd love to have both

If r4m0n can provide his extensive knowledge and experience and SirJodelstein can provide his time to maintain and develop the code, then such a collaboration project (regardless of which name it ends up running under) would be greater than the sum of its parts.

Amen to that Streetwind! I'm currently writing an external application for editing tech trees in a visual editor, and what I would give for there to be a single format to follow!! Right now I have to test and duplicate a lot of code for each of the tree types...

Coding aside, it would be a blessing for the users as well to reduce the confusion over which type of tech tree to load.

[marchingknight11]

Frankly, all I'd like to see is r4mon changing over to GPL or something. There are enough talented coders, and enough people who rely on this mod (FractalUK/WaveFunctionP) that if the license were more open, things would get fixed pretty quickly I think.

[Arch3rAc3]

Any idea if this works with B9 parts?

[ModZero]

This is completely unrelated to B9  B9 doesn't actually change the stock tree (just adds itself to it). Furthermore, this mod is quite obsolete, look at TechManager instead.

[Arch3rAc3]

Yeah, that's what I mean, since it adds itself to the stock tree, is it going to add itself to this custom tree?

Obsolete? Alright, I'll take a look at the other one. Thanks.

Oh and, what about ATC mod? Does that TechManager works with it?

Edited November 11, 2014 by Arch3rAc3

[ModZero]

Not sure about ATC's status. Any mod that works with stock will work with TM/TL trees unless they remove (or, in case of TM, don't add) the stock parts that are referenced.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hi,

This MOD isnt obsolete - I used it just fine in version 24 altho I had other problems with v24.2

I havnt tried tree manager yet but I am gonna look into it this trip I guess ...

Sometimes ya just have to move on ...

I will still try tree loader and my way of using it in v25 ! I will post later ...

Cmdr Zeta