ModStatistics 1.0.3 - Anonymous mod usage statistics - Now for public distribution!

[Tippis]

No, he's enforcing his rights, which forfeit violated.

The point being that he deliberately picked rights that are in some conflict with the distribution method he chose, and which are deliberately antagonistic to others who'd want to fix his mistakes.

Can you back this accusation, or is it just random talk?

There's this for one, apparently others have seen similar behaviour elsewhere but I haven't seen any links to it.

Complaints about random IDs and IP addresses and "tracking" are ridiculous in the world we live in today. Most people put out more information (much more dangerous information) on Facebook freely and readily.

See those last two qualifiers you used? Those are the ones that don't apply here and which are the cause for all the complaints… In fact, he has pretty much explicitly said that it's what he wishes to avoid by making it opt-out, since they'd not give it out freely an readily if given the clear choice.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Tippis

[Ippo]

The point being that he deliberately picked rights that are in some conflict with the distribution method he chose, and which are deliberately antagonistic to others who'd want to fix his mistakes.

You really don't understand how these things work. Showing the source is a requisite because of the forum's policy, but you have to choose a license for your work and the license he chose is "you can't do anything with it".

A software is not free software just because the source is posted online: you always have to comply to the license the author has chosen, failure to do so is simply illegal.

There's this for one, apparently others have seen similar behaviour elsewhere but I haven't seen any links to it.

Fair enough: Majiir needs to fix this.

[technion]

By the way, does this mean that in current implementation mods can gather your somewhat personal data? (ips, windows version etc) if so squad should immediatly patch that up, now it's friendly mod creator tomorrow it's someone with malicious intent.

That's exactly what a mod is - it's executable software. I could write a mod that pops up a prompt advising that a Nigerian Prince wants a credit card number and it's not an issue for Squad to "patch". Squad enforces a rule that says source code must be available. It's up to the community to decide what happens next. If it's malicious, a mod might remove it from this forum, but they won't patch KSP.

[Ignath]

See those last two qualifiers you used? Those are the ones that don't apply here and which are the cause for all the complaints… In fact, he has pretty much explicitly said that it's what he wishes to avoid by making it opt-out, since they'd not give it out freely an readily if given the clear choice.

Didn't Majiir also explicitly say that he's planning on implementing an opt-out on the initial warning? Isn't that a clear choice? Also, once the big huge WARNING message pops up on your monitor on first load, couldn't you just do a bit of investigation (if you were unaware of the mod) and shut it off? It's not hard...just takes some effort on the part of the person installing the mod and playing the game. I understand in this day of instant gratification that is difficult to deal with...but damn!

And, as a matter of fact, I have no issue freely giving out all my info on mod usage to Majiir and whichever other mod makers are interested in seeing what I'm using (PM me guys if you want my INFOS, but I'd imagine it'd be much easier to just collect it via a usage statistics mod...o wait!)...it could only help to make mod compatibility better and help mod makers understand how their mods are being used to help make them better. What do you really think Majiir plans on using the data for?

[Hamster]

I think I made the ultimate solution, from now on KSP.exe / KSP_x64.exe is on the blocked list on my firewall.

Sorry Squad / modders, no more statistics for you.

As the community can not agree on this, Squad should step in and force Majiir to close this project. There are to many international laws which are not allowing this kind of data collection, especially in the EU.

[Kamuchi]

Issue is described in 2 simple points:

1: Opt-out

2: Lack of info

I put my though in a previous post that would fix most of the problems because it is distributed with different mods: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81764-ModStatistics-1-0-3-Anonymous-mod-usage-statistics-Now-for-public-distribution%21?p=1286136&viewfull=1#post1286136

We update mods we have been using for awhile, some directly from github or forum.

No one expects that their favorite mod started to include a statistic gathering sub mod and a little line on the mod`s post with all the info is easily missed and you have to come here to read the actual functionality.

With the popup explaining more with a few words would calm the storm and a simple yes/no along the auto update ticker will nullify the issue.

Yes, it will still install itself on first run when included in other mods that makes me go abit , but so be it, aslong as we get atleast the option to simply say "no".

That`s all I will say about the matter as I do not wish to be part of a possible mod war

Thank you Majiir for all your work with Kethane&KAS!

/out

[Sandworm]

I suggest taking many of these arguments offline. Most western countries have privacy agencies/ombudsmen better equipped to handle complaints surrounding the collection of personal information. They know exactly what the obligations are for those collecting PII and are able to directly enforce those requirements. You need not attack the organization/individual personally.

[technicalfool]

By the way, does this mean that in current implementation mods can gather your somewhat personal data? (ips, windows version etc)

For the record, any mod can do anything. It's executable code. Just because it's in a .dll doesn't mean it's not as dangerous as an untrusted .exe. It can poke around inside your hard drive and sent data to wherever it likes with or without ModStatistics being present. A malicious mod can do just as much damage to your computer, to your bank balance, to your online life in general, as the worst of any malware that you can think of. It's one reason, probably the reason, why Squad insist on source code being available for every mod, even if it's not distributed under a Free & Open Source Software license.

Honestly, given Majiir's standing in the modding community, I am far more likely to trust that his mod does exactly what it says on the tin, than a mod from somebody I have never heard of. Whether you do or do not like what ModStatistics does, the chances are good that what it says it does is all it does, and that when it's disabled using the method given in the instructions on the first page of this thread, it will stay disabled.

And I will reiterate my earlier notice for people to stay polite.

[Crichton]

I am reading this Forum very often for a Year now but did not Post until now. I am not so much the posting Guy. Its sad that this Mod is a Reason to start posting but i feel i need to say something about it. What all that means for me is that i will not use this Mod or any Mod that uses ModStatistics. Its a shame that i have to invest extra Time just to check if there is a Mod inside another Mod that collects Data without asking my permission only because someone thinks that he has the right to collect those Data. He has not the right, at least not in the Country i am from. It lowers the Level of Trust in Mods and the Authors, if an Author is using this Mod in his Mod, which is also a shame.

[Tippis]

You really don't understand how these things work. Showing the source is a requisite because of the forum's policy, but you have to choose a license for your work and the license he chose is "you can't do anything with it".

A software is not free software just because the source is posted online: you always have to comply to the license the author has chosen, failure to do so is simply illegal.

No, I understand that. I'm simply saying that the license he chose is deliberately antagonistic. Sure, he has those rights. He could have chosen not to and let people create disablers. He then goes off to say that counter-modding is a dirty solution… but it's only dirty because he has decided to disallow distribution of proper forks. And it's only needed because he has decided to not make it a deliberate user choice to install.

Didn't Majiir also explicitly say that he's planning on implementing an opt-out on the initial warning? Isn't that a clear choice?

Not as clear as standalone-only opt-in, since you still have no choice in having it installed or bundled or not. And there is quite literally zero sensible reason not to make the mod standalone and opt-in.

Also, once the big huge WARNING message pops up on your monitor on first load, couldn't you just do a bit of investigation (if you were unaware of the mod) and shut it off? It's not hard...just takes some effort on the part of the person installing the mod and playing the game. I understand in this day of instant gratification that is difficult to deal with...but damn!

The fundamental question remains: why should any of that even be needed? Why can't he let people decide on their own whether or not they want to give mod makers usage statistics? The only answer given to this is “but then they wouldn'tâ€Â, which just proves the point: there's probably a reason why they wouldn't. If a mod is good enough to drum up some user enthusiasm, the maker should have no problem asking his users to download a standalone mod that gathers that data  it's the new “contributeâ€Â-button.

e: Oh and…

What do you really think Majiir plans on using the data for?

I don't care. I care about his flippant “your data is mine, stop struggling†attitude. Edited July 20, 2014 by Tippis

[Aedile]

Didn't Majiir also explicitly say that he's planning on implementing an opt-out on the initial warning? Isn't that a clear choice? Also, once the big huge WARNING message pops up on your monitor on first load, couldn't you just do a bit of investigation (if you were unaware of the mod) and shut it off? It's not hard...just takes some effort on the part of the person installing the mod and playing the game. I understand in this day of instant gratification that is difficult to deal with...but damn!

And, as a matter of fact, I have no issue freely giving out all my info on mod usage to Majiir and whichever other mod makers are interested in seeing what I'm using (PM me guys if you want my INFOS, but I'd imagine it'd be much easier to just collect it via a usage statistics mod...o wait!)...it could only help to make mod compatibility better and help mod makers understand how their mods are being used to help make them better. What do you really think Majiir plans on using the data for?

You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust some random guy. Even if he was honest, there is still the problem of how secure the collected data is. Not to mention the old tactic of replacing a known .dll with a malicious one.

Well, will not be using mods which require this.

The laws are there for a reason.

[technion]

Not to mention the old tactic of replacing a known .dll with a malicious one.

I could easily do this with Mechjeb, or DRE, or any of the popular mods. Create a malicious DLL, create a post saying "hey guys, here's an updated version" and away we go. Or be more malicious and hack Curse or intercept traffic and delivery something malicious there. Or the makers of those mods could just pull a bait and switch.

The point being nearly all these mods are downloaded without SSL and unsigned. Your concerns about a "random guy on the internet" come from the fact he's been open on this thread about doing something you don't like. That should actually make it easier to trust that he does what he claims.

[forfeit]

Honestly, given Majiir's standing in the modding community, I am far more likely to trust that his mod does exactly what it says on the tin, than a mod from somebody I have never heard of. Whether you do or do not like what ModStatistics does, the chances are good that what it says it does is all it does, and that when it's disabled using the method given in the instructions on the first page of this thread, it will stay disabled.

And I will reiterate my earlier notice for people to stay polite.

I've been silent for a while now, but now it's starting to sound like Majiir's contributions and desire to protect his burgeoning data collection empire are receiving preferential treatment because he's a big-name modder or some such nonsense. I still have not received a reasonable explanation as to why my code infringes upon his "intellectual property" or even if that's really what I'm allegedly infringing upon. Sure, it's been said that clicking the "fork" button somehow poisons the codebase, but I've also been told that I cannot post a new version that isn't forked but has the same functionality. Honestly I no longer expect an answer at this point, but I've never had such an attachment to a single line of code before.

[Athlonic]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust some random guy ...

So Majiir is a random guy here ?

Sorry but I think we don't have the same definition of "random"

Nevertheless, I agree that the mod should ask for permission before sending anything, by pure principle.

[Ippo]

...but I've also been told that I cannot post a new version that isn't forked but has the same functionality. Honestly I no longer expect an answer at this point, but I've never had such an attachment to a single line of code before.

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that your mod is recognized by ModStatistics as a ModStatistics implementation.

Fork or not, as long as your plugin is mistaken by the original plugin as a new version, I can see why it counts as a derivative work. Even if you didn't modify the source code, you are still compatible enough that the mod believes it has found another version of itself: so yes, I can see why it counts as a derivative work, and the license does not allow you to distribute it.

[forfeit]

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that your mod is recognized by ModStatistics as a ModStatistics implementation.

Fork or not, as long as your plugin is mistaken by the original plugin as a new version, I can see why it counts as a derivative work. Even if you didn't modify the source code, you are still compatible enough that the mod believes it has found another version of itself: so yes, I can see why it counts as a derivative work, and the license does not allow you to distribute it.

Not to be rude here, but I'm looking for an official response.

[Sandworm]

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that your mod is recognized by ModStatistics as a ModStatistics implementation.

Fork or not, as long as your plugin is mistaken by the original plugin as a new version, I can see why it counts as a derivative work. Even if you didn't modify the source code, you are still compatible enough that the mod believes it has found another version of itself: so yes, I can see why it counts as a derivative work, and the license does not allow you to distribute it.

You are conflating trademark and patent law with copyright. Derivative works (copyright) must take from the original. Confusion and/or similar operation or function are not copyright violations. Those are patent/trademark issues, neither of which protect in this circumstance.

[Ippo]

Not to be rude here, but I'm looking for an official response.

Yeah sure, I was just giving my opinion.

I still don't understand why you can't just distribute a config file with "disabled = true", though. No legal problems at all, saves the same purpose.

[ragzilla]

I believe that the problem lies in the fact that your mod is recognized by ModStatistics as a ModStatistics implementation.

Fork or not, as long as your plugin is mistaken by the original plugin as a new version, I can see why it counts as a derivative work. Even if you didn't modify the source code, you are still compatible enough that the mod believes it has found another version of itself: so yes, I can see why it counts as a derivative work, and the license does not allow you to distribute it.

I don't think this is the best thread to have this discussion in (general would seem to be a better place), but you're in favor of APIs being copyrightable, to prevent people from making alternative implementations? This was a fairly major case recently (Oracle v. Google) which I'm personally hoping gets appealed again or we may see some great software (WINE, ReactOS) start to disappear.

You are conflating trademark and patent law with copyright. Derivative works (copyright) must take from the original. Confusion and/or similar operation or function are not copyright violations. Those are patent/trademark issues, neither of which protect in this circumstance.

Sadly due to Oracle v. Google mods like BetterThanSpyware, and StillBetterThanSpyware may be considered copyright violations under US law (since you can copyright an API now apparently). I'm hoping that if Squad is listening they'll side for the users and explicitly disallow copyright of API as it prevents other plugin authors from developing alternative implementations (like BetterThanSpyware and StillBetterThanSpyware) if there's a need.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ragzilla

[forfeit]

Yeah sure, I was just giving my opinion.

I still don't understand why you can't just distribute a config file with "disabled = true", though. No legal problems at all, saves the same purpose.

Because there are no "legal problems" with what I've done. That's my point.

[Ippo]

I don't think this is the best thread to have this discussion in (general would seem to be a better place), but you're in favor of APIs being copyrightable, to prevent people from making alternative implementations? This was a fairly major case recently (Oracle v. Google) which I'm personally hoping gets appealed again or we may see some great software (WINE, ReactOS) start to disappear.

No, what I'm saying is that if the plugin A is so similar to plugin B that plugin B recognizes it as a version of itself, then I can see why there are licensing issues.

I'm very glad I don't have to sort this out, though

I just hope that Majiirs wakes up early and sees the pull request I made so we can end this nonsense.

[rynak]

No, what I'm saying is...

...the same as what he said, but rephrased to hypocritically hide the consequences of your demands.

[Dodgey]

I'm assuming that the main contention to this mod comes from people not being aware that they were installing it. To wit I have two questions.

1. Did you read the thread post of the original mod which you downloaded to check to see if something important had changed, like the implementation of ModStatistics?

2. If so, was there a notice of such about the inclusion of ModStatistics into the download?

If you answered no to the first and yes to the second (if you have gone back and checked) then it is your fault for not understanding what you were downloading.

If the answer to the second question was no then the fault lies with the mod author for not including information about ModStatistics in their thread post.

Majiir has provided more than enough information in the first post of this thread for anyone to be able to opt out, as well as instructing any modders who are including this mod in their download to declare so.

[Ippo]

...the same as what he said, but rephrased to hypocritically hide the consequences of your demands.

Let's be clear: BetterThanSpyware and StillBetterThanSpyware are not alternative implementations of an API. They are software that hijacks another program.

Also, considering that I've been pushing for the opt in since this was first posted AND SO FAR I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CARED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, shut up.

[Laminator]

Sorry guys, but this has really gone out of hand. Imho it´s just ridiculous.

The accusations made in this thread are tough stuff. Majiir does nothing without the users permission. And this permission can be denied by simply changing one entry in a config file from false to true. So where is the problem? If somebody is to incompetent or illiterate to do that, then this individual has really other problems than his privacy...

And to show my support for Majiir I´ve explicitly downloaded & installed ModStatistics last night.