Reverse Engineering, legit design strategy or intentional robbery?

[Hodo]

I say no, as a matter a fact I incourage people who want my designs to copy them to the best of their ability.

[maccollo]

I find it to be perfectly acceptable.

That's an impressive accomplishment, have you got a link by chance?

Not taking off from Eve here so you're just gonna have to take my word that it can =P, but only from the high mountains.

[Pecan]

Reverse engineering is, in any case, common practice in the real world - quite apart from learning the public science/engineering theories and practices. Whenever a car maker brings out a new engine technology or some such you can bet all their competitors get a team straight on to seeing if/how they can do it too and a bunch of lawyers to find a way they can do it without breaking any patents.

In software development I've often had "technology swap" workshops with competitors where they tell us their new stuff and we tell them ours. That way we're both saved the trouble of buying each other's products and having to tear it apart to find out how it works.

For education purposes copying and adapting existing designs is very widely used. Engineering apprentices usually have ro make an exact, working, scale model of some machine in their workshop (their 'apprentice piece'). Historically, to become a recognised master of your trade you'd top that by make some existing thing better, or in an original way - your 'master piece' (which is where the word comes from).

[ArmchairGravy]

Observational learning is perfectly legitimate, and far less frustrating than trial and error.

[Boris_T_Roach]

I dont see reverse engineering as a problem except for one thing..... giving credit where credit is due.

So if you look at someone's pictures and wonder just how someone launching a 110 ton nuclear powered drive section he docks with every interplanetary craft he flies, and see this img

then you think "Ahh thats how he does it"

And ask nicely for the .craft file and get it

Then mod it to suit your ship, then always post

"Heavyweight rover launcher based on a craft file by Boris_T_Roach"

And no one will have an issue with it

Boris

PS Thats the Mark 4C version, since been upgraded to 5A with a couple of flight mods and moar boosters

[Nepos]

Forward Engineer, Reverse Engineer, heck I'll even do Parked Engineer if it get the task at hand done.

[patman_369]

I think it can only be seen as "morally wrong" if you download it then immediately repost it saying its your... if you change anything about it then its technically your design.

[Simon Ross]

Well it happens all the time in real life

The only thing missing from the American moon landings was a swastika on the actual rocket

[MBobrik]

Ideas are meant to spread. not to be kept closed and like a dragon hoard.

[The Error]

How would we learn, if not from each other?

[Liowen]

It is fine as long as you credit the person who built, or helped design, the craft in question. If you watch someones videos and model a craft after something you see that should be ok as well since you are putting it together yourself. I believe the quote is "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" I could not see how someone would be offended by having their idea shared with others, provided it was their direct craft you are using and crediting them for of course.

[Liowen]

Ideas are meant to spread. not to be kept closed and like a dragon hoard.

There are some who do not like to share .craft files with others for their own personal reason, and that is fine as that is their choice. It might seem callous to some but it is their right to do so.

[Mr.Rocket]

As they say in my favorite movie: The most contagious thing is not a disease, but an idea. (props to whoever recognizes it )

I would agree. Although i don't usually download crafts, just because i usually only ever use a craft once for a mission, i think its fine to take ideas from people, as long as you says it's theirs. I personally take ideas from other people, and even if i don't try to, i sometimes do it unintentionally, just because it's stuck in my head.

[Felsmak]

If I learn a new, better way to do things from someone else's craft, then of course I'll copy it and use it in my own. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Ziff]

I accidentally voted "Yes, it's wrong" when I was thinking "Absolutely, it's perfectly fine." So uh, yeah, sorry I screwed up the poll.

[Jank]

That's it, I'm suing for royalties! I have the RIAA lawyers on retainer and I'm going to collect from every one of you who ever thought of using my idea of movable vanes designed to control attitude through air friction. Or as I call them "Control Surfaces"â„¢

Now to copyright the term "Kraken Drive"...

[Sillychris]

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

-Isaac Newton.

'nuff said.

[Sillychris]

oops... sanoj688 already said that.

In real life, not only do I permit people to copy my designs and ideas, but I encourage it.

Nothing excites me more than seeing one of my creations proliferate and be built on.

Well except maybe foosball.

[Kerbart]

Reverse engineering is gateway behavior.

It seems so innocent... reverse engineer a lander here, a rocket there... but it's a slippery slope. Before you know it you're using maneuvering nodes instead of eyeballing your burns (not to mention using the Unholy Navball Abomination "to get your bearings" -- yeah right. And you're reading certain magazines just for the interviews, right?) and from there it's a small step to watching those vile Manley videos. And not just under bed sheets, oh no. IN PUBLIC. Shamelessly! After that it's on to snorting heroin and bestiality. Save your soul! Stay away from reverse engineering!

[Madrias]

I've, admittedly, used a bit of reverse engineering (my rocket designs suck. I needed some ideas to make space in Career mode until I could make space with planes.) in my time playing KSP.

I see it as responsible behavior done by responsible people, but irresponsible behavior done by those who misuse it.

What do I mean? Here's a couple examples, one responsible, one irresponsible.

Player A uploads his SSTO craft, loaded with science gear. Player B downloads the SSTO, flies a mission with it to check out how it works, and dismantles it in the SPH to see what it was built out of. With the newfound knowledge, Player B builds a new SSTO for his own applications and runs several missions. After several minor renditions of this, he decides to upload the craft file. Player A looks on the Spaceport, sees B's new SSTO looks familiar, as most designs tend to, downloads it, and picks it apart, only to find that B has a whole new internal core that is more efficient overall. A reverse engineers the core, builds a heavy-lifter SSTO with his own revised core design, and uploads it.

This is responsible reverse engineering. Both players participated in making each other's ships a little better. Neither player purely copied, but refined the design or outright changed the ship.

Player C uploads his awesome new rocket, having loaded it out with science gear. Player D downloads this rocket, straps one Kethane drill to it, and reuploads it under a different name as his own. Player E has Kethane and downloads Player D's rocket, tries it out, and finds out that due to the imbalanced weight, the landing rover is impossible to land on a world. Now looking for just a good heavy-lifter design, Player E notices Player C's rocket, downloads and tries it out, and nearly lands on top of the crashed debris. In a surprising twist of fate, Player E is a friend of Player C, and mentions what he'd found. Player C tries out Player D's rocket, notices that there's only one more part in the count list, notices that the lander still has the same accidentally upside down probe core, and calls Player D out on it.

This is an example of irresponsible reverse engineering. Player D copied Player C's design entirely, only to add one small item (that without further supporting hardware, ends up useless. A Kethane Drill alone is worthless without at least a Kethane tank), then uploaded it as his own design.

[helaeon]

Real companies and governments reverse engineer stuff all the time. It's a very very important thing to be able to do actually and is often responsible for the continuing improvements on products. (Competitor comes in and reverse engineers your deal to figure out how it works, finds flaws, and improves upon them. You take that competitors product figure out what they did to make yours better, find new flaws fix them and sell that.) It's also one of the best, if not the best, way to get up to speed on the state of the art really fast.

But, it's also why we have patent protection. Though that's also limited so that those reverse engineering things can bring their products to market as well, just later. Patent protection is mostly to give you a head start, your patent is effectively supposed to give instructions to someone "skilled in the art" how to construct what you are protecting. Really not a lot different than uploading a craft file and letting us all take it apart and figure out what was done to make that thing.

At the GM engineering labs they have racks and racks of their competitors vehicles. Toyota trucks in particular. Why might that be? During the Cold War it was a major thing to capture an enemy fighter jet or tank... guess what we were doing with them.

[that1guy]

This is a great discussion, I love that people are being rational about this. I totally agree, in fact, my latest K-prize entry would not be possible without a user on this forum (Rune). As a historian, I believe that the moment that we stop learning from each other, we invite chaos and waste into our lives. That is not to say that we should not attempt things (especially in KSP) on our own first, rather understand that someone else may have your "ah-ha" moment in some aspect of their craft. Continue discussing, this is a good thread.

[NotEmoHawk]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you don't want your stuff imitated or outright copied, don't show it off.

Exactly. Be proud and enjoy the fact that others think what you have done is worth copying!

[Justin Kerbice]

I think people here mix the act itself with its use, it's exactly the same as saying "money is evil", but it's not money itself, which is just a tool/a mean, but what people do with it, which can be evil. The same apply to RE, it's not an evil/unethical/wrong on its own.

[Pds314]

You can't own a design any more than you can "own" any other natural or artificial pattern. Knowledge isn't a scarce resource like physical property is. Without economic scarcity, property rules used for scarce resources do not apply.

Exactly. The only currency here is credit. Giving them it is like giving them their royalties in a patent case.

Technically, one can own knowledge through the patent system in the vast majority of countries. E.G. If I go and reverse-engineer the designs for an Intel core i7, and then start making them in my home somehow, I would probably get sued and lose if it were on a large scale at all, as money is a scarcity and Intel's knowledge is worth money, even for a copy of it. Likewise, if I go an pirate Kerbal Space Program when I could have bought it. I should be forced to pay for it, because if I hadn't been able to pirate it, I would have been able to buy it.

But since selling of KSP .crafts would be immoral and against policy, and possibly maybe sort of even kinda illegal depending on lots of things, they are of no monetary value. Likewise, posting the .craft basically says "open-source!" and even if one doesn't post the .craft, the only thing they can do is ask for credit.

Obviously, be decent about it. Don't go around re-posting people's craft as your own. That IS theft in a way. but inspired, or even significantly modified designs are quite ok, and taking design techniques is strongly encouraged. Just give credit if you are basing something heavily on someone else's work.