I want to build a modpack, BUT… please hear me out!

[sumghai]

tl;dr - modders should not be forced to use highly restrictive licencing just to ensure security because it only causes problems and hurts the community

Precisely my point.

[Tiberion]

I was very specific in my definition of said knucklehead in my post, and I certainly wasn't referencing the OP in any way, who simply asked for modders feedback and has received it. I fail to see any lack of decency in regards to him or her so lets not play the victim cards against the big bad modders.

This theoretical person that Wololo is describing, who would give more consideration to the letter of the license than what the author says about a specific case is one of those knuckleheads. They ruin nice things for other people and stifle cooperation among the other, more reasonable members of the community. A pox upon them. Thankfully, they are not real.

We're human beings, not lawyer-bots. We can interact with one another and make decisions independent of "the rules" because we have that human spark of independent thought. If you cannot grasp the concept of something being the wrong choice in a specific situation to make even if the law says you can do it, then we don't even have the common ground to interact as human beings, and that is worrying.

1. If a mod author wants to prevent derivatives because they want all the credit and glory or whatever or want absolutely no interference, they should definitely pick a restrictive license.

2. If a mod author is generally permissive and welcomes collaborations, contributions, or derivatives, and the community has benefited from the open license, but there is a specific example of one project that is causing issues (for instance a modpack that is slow to update and stays a version behind most of the time, is hard to install, and/or causes conflicts with other mods, all of which will lead back to the original project) then changing the license is the nuclear option, and the troublesome project has quite literally damaged their community with their choices. This is a case where, if the original author makes a reasonable request to stop or change something, it should be done. Even if the license says you don't have to.

If we can't agree on 1 & 2, we'll never have consensus on this subject.

And again, with respect to actual mod packs - why? We have Module Manager and its a better way - no one should be shoveling around assets unless they are different in some way. Installation is going to require some work either way, but mod-packs add multiple file versions to the mix.

I'm just not a fan of modpacks. Minecraft is the obvious example - I bet 99% of people who play tekkit or FTB or whatever couldn't name 5 of the actual authors of the submods and most barely even know the individual mod names - but its hardly the first game with that problem. Its a necessary evil with MC because of how it works I guess.

It's not necessary here.

[WololoW]

Well, isn't the point of a license to compel people into following exactly what you want? That's pretty much what a weapon is supposed to do, once you go a step further than, "make things difficult / painful for you."

I feel a license is more of a way to reserve what rights you wish to, while giving permission for what you would allow done to your creation. I can understand what you are saying though, and agree that it can be interpreted that way.

Gah, one of the few times I don't use my beloved semi-colons! What I meant was, you were probably right, we should have more restrictive licenses if we're going with something like that, and that (based on what most authors seem to expect) we should probably just go All Rights Reserved to cover everything.

Ah, breakdown in communication~ Happens all the time man! =) - I agree, if what the authors want is more of their rights reserved, then they should be using more restrictive licenses. A small side note to that though, KSP's modding community thrives off learning and utilizing parts of code from other mods. Mod authors would hopefully recognize this and pick/write licenses that allow for the use of their code(with some form of request/attribution/permission if they wish) so that current and future mod authors can continue to grow and learn from each-other.

Sure. But there would be less confusion. Granted, everything would appear a lot less open and permissive than it currently is, and there would be almost no change in how things go, but the clarity and lack of ambiguity and lack of doubt that it would cause for most forkers / mod packers would likely outweigh the general reduction in the, "you can do this," atmosphere. After all, you've been the one arguing for clarity here, and that will have inevitable consequences in how open the modding community is perceived to be, regardless of how it is in actuality.

I think that what you said here is quite near perfect. A great benefit of clarity is that no one will have false pretenses that they are allowed to do whatever they want with a mod because it says that they are allowed to in the licensing.

Appearance of openness without actually being open to things is quite off-putting for many, as that can be seen as hypocritical. I doubt anyone here would like to be viewed as a hypocrite, but that is just my humble opinion.

---

The installation issue, I hasten to point out, is not really an issue for the casual mod user, unless you really want to make the case that "unzipping a zip file to your KSP folder" is really too high a bar.

I mean the particular case of the pack-less modpack, Realism Overhaul, which has a list of required mods (and an installation order) that is...longer than some short stories.

I agree that it really should not be, but I have answered many questions about broken mods for people that didn't realize they somehow didn't unzip correctly(be it that they have a GameData folder inside their GameData folder, or that they somehow don't have a Plugins folder when they should.)

Have you taken a look at my modlist? I somewhat understand the woes of RO~ I haven't even begun to describe the order in which I added each mod and checked for errors during the 1 by 1 installation process(which I plan to have another page devoted to, so that people can do it the same way I did.)

---

I think this is the important part that a lot of people miss in this discussion. The KSP modding community is built around modders helping each other, sharing code, and using existing codebases to show new modders how it's done. This is required because of the lack of KSP API docs and the large amount of outdated information. As a result of this, most modders are more than willing to make their mods very open source, to allay any licence issues and provide a good, open resource. When issues arise due to inconsiderate abuse of these licences, modders are forced to either ignore it and do nothing, or lock the licence down so that nobody can access it, which turns it into a legal swordfight and makes everything become more hostile, which in the end hurts the community. None of us want to have a closed licence and a team of lawyers on speed-dial to protect us from people who refuse to abide by community standards.

tl;dr - modders should not be forced to use highly restrictive licencing just to ensure security because it only causes problems and hurts the community

A few things about this post-

1. Mods must be open source to be posted on these forums or Curse.com/Curseforge.com as per the official add-on posting rules, part 3.

2. As I stated above, and have yet to be answered/refuted on, there is no such thing as "license abuse" (in my opinion, which I think is in line with objective fact.)

3. The mod authors also have the option of using a license that simply requires written permission from said author for any derivative work. This would quell any legal swordfight that potentially would arise due to the awesome community of authors ability/want to help each-other. No hostility needed, so long as the author's license is not infringed upon.

4. If that last sentence before the tl;dr is true, then why are modpack ideas constantly shut down on this forum?

Finally, #5. No one is forcing the mod authors to use any specific license, but the rules do dictate that they must include one with their mod. So, why would they not want to then pick a license that protects the rights/privileges they wish, while also granting the permissions they choose?

I was very specific in my definition of said knucklehead in my post, and I certainly wasn't referencing the OP in any way, who simply asked for modders feedback and has received it. I fail to see any lack of decency in regards to him or her so lets not play the victim cards against the big bad modders.

This theoretical person that Wololo is describing, who would give more consideration to the letter of the license than what the author says about a specific case is one of those knuckleheads. They ruin nice things for other people and stifle cooperation among the other, more reasonable members of the community. A pox upon them. Thankfully, they are not real.

That "theoretical" person that I describe is myself, but I do not suggest that I would go against a specific request of an author. As that person is me, you just wished a pox on me, which I find offensive. Thanks a lot for that.

We're human beings, not lawyer-bots. We can interact with one another and make decisions independent of "the rules" because we have that human spark of independent thought. If you cannot grasp the concept of something being the wrong choice in a specific situation to make even if the law says you can do it, then we don't even have the common ground to interact as human beings, and that is worrying.

Again you insult me by suggesting I am a lawer-bot and non-human because of how I operate. If you do things on a whim and disregard the rules, go for it. But please do not fault me for following them so that I stay out of trouble.

1. If a mod author wants to prevent derivatives because they want all the credit and glory or whatever or want absolutely no interference, they should definitely pick a restrictive license.

2. If a mod author is generally permissive and welcomes collaborations, contributions, or derivatives, and the community has benefited from the open license, but there is a specific example of one project that is causing issues (for instance a modpack that is slow to update and stays a version behind most of the time, is hard to install, and/or causes conflicts with other mods, all of which will lead back to the original project) then changing the license is the nuclear option, and the troublesome project has quite literally damaged their community with their choices. This is a case where, if the original author makes a reasonable request to stop or change something, it should be done. Even if the license says you don't have to.

If we can't agree on 1 & 2, we'll never have consensus on this subject.

1. Agreed.

2. Can't agree, heres why - If the author chooses the "nuclear" option of changing their license to one that now completely closed, then they are the one that literally damaged their community. By not sticking to what they originally had permitted in their license, and deciding one "troublesome project" is enough for them to stop everyone from collaborating, then they seem quite absolute^{(are they a sith?! lol)} to me. It seems that the practical, level headed options would be; A. Add a line in their Mods thread that said modpack will not be supported, or B. change their license to not allow redistribution without written consent.

And again, with respect to actual mod packs - why? We have Module Manager and its a better way - no one should be shoveling around assets unless they are different in some way. Installation is going to require some work either way, but mod-packs add multiple file versions to the mix.

Are you suggesting here that Module Manager can somehow replace a modpack? Care to explain how?

_{[Module Manager does not have the function to point out to one which mods to install, nor can it package many mods together into 1 GameData folder for easy extraction(or installation if you call it that.)]}

Don't want "version fragmentation?" Don't allow support for older versions!(besides, which mod author does support older versions of their mod?[asked several times, never answered.])

I'm just not a fan of modpacks. Minecraft is the obvious example - I bet 99% of people who play tekkit or FTB or whatever couldn't name 5 of the actual authors of the submods and most barely even know the individual mod names - but its hardly the first game with that problem. Its a necessary evil with MC because of how it works I guess.

It's not necessary here.

We finally get to the root of the problem. You do not like modpacks, therefore have a bias against them. It seems to stem from your dislike of how modpacks in Minecraft handled attribution (or lack thereof).

This is KSP, our community is not the same as Minecraft's. We can handle modpack attributions how we want so that the authors get the credit they deserve, and without the headache you seem to think that comes with it.

Nice statistic there, I bet every dollar I will ever make that you just made it up on the spot. When I used FTB, I researched every single mod that was in the pack to know what they added, and what I could expect from them.

Also - I could possibly only name you about 5 of the authors of the mods on my modlist for KSP down in my signature, and I play with those mods and check their threads daily. Just because someone downloads a mod and uses it, does not mean that they read the name of the author of said mod. (I mean what does it change until you want to thank them or ask them for personal/debug help?) And just because I do not know the names of the authors, does not mean that I don't respect their work, nor that I am not very very grateful that they released this mod to the public.

Just to clarify one more time and as explicitly as I can -

I am here to champion the correct selection and use of licenses by mod authors and users.

I do not have a personal problem with anyone in this thread and actually utilize many mods from many of the authors in this debate.

I want to create an environment that is more conducive towards modpacks, and that honors the licenses(and in turn wishes) of the mods within said modpack.

Lastly, I want to shed light on the fact that authors are picking a legally binding document when they choose a license, and should not do so on a whim or without knowing and agreeing with the full ramifications of said license.

Thanks again for the healthy discussion, keep it coming! =)

(wrote this before my internet went out earlier ^{DANG YOU COMCAST!}, so it never posted.)

Edited August 28, 2014 by sumghai
Consolidated consecutive replies by the same poster

[Tiberion]

Well, that pretty much exhausts the effort I have available to interact with you, then.

You have a fundamental flaw in the way you view the modder-to-community and modder-to-modder dynamic, and I fear that combined with your desire to make modpacks a thing will do a lot of damage. I hope I'm wrong.

And if you really don't understand the difference between 'a custom mod LIST with a modulemanager config that makes the mods in the LIST all work togethe'r and 'a mod PACK that requires the packer to maintain an entirely separate project, distribute copies of files and repeat a lot of the work already being done' then PLEASE take the time to understand it.

[WololoW]

Well, that pretty much exhausts the effort I have available to interact with you, then.

I am fine with that, as deciphering your posts has been a full workout for my currently tired brain. Perhaps you should look into correct syntax of sentences and grammar, as there were times where I had to read your sentences 4 to 5 times to turn them into recognizable English. (This is not meant as an insult, and is an actual suggestion which you can take or leave as you see fit.)

You have a fundamental flaw in the way you view the modder-to-community and modder-to-modder dynamic, and I fear that combined with your desire to make modpacks a thing will do a lot of damage. I hope I'm wrong.

Another insult. Seems to be all you are able to muster against my healthy discussion.

Why do you refuse to read my posts even though I am clearly reading and responding to every one of yours? That is pretty rude if you ask me. And if you claim to have read mine, explain how the previous quote rings true with quotes from me.

And if you really don't understand the difference between 'a custom mod LIST with a modulemanager config that makes the mods in the LIST all work togethe'r and 'a mod PACK that requires the packer to maintain an entirely separate project, distribute copies of files and repeat a lot of the work already being done' then PLEASE take the time to understand it.

When I speak about a modpack that includes a list of mods, it is in the same way the OP did. In order for a modpack for KSP to have mods like KAS in them, they can not package the KAS folder in with their download, and are therefore forced to include a link to the fourm page(or curse/kerbalstuff/whathaveyour) so that the users of the modpack can install it themselves. This is as Majiir would want, and I know this because I read his license for KAS.

When I speak of a modpack, I mean a single download*'* that one can extract into their KSP folder in order to modify their game. This download would consist of many folders within the GameData folder, as that is how mods are handled for KSP. This would make it easier to add an entire experience to KSP rather than just trying to figure out which would work together.

*'*This would only work for a modpack that utilizes mods licensed under the same license(in the case of CC BY-SA 4.0 and any other ShareAlike license) or mods that are licensed with permission to distribute without utilizing the same parent-license (AKA, non-ShareAlike licences.) It would NOT be a single download if the modpack wishes to include mods that span these licenses and any mod with a non-redistribute clause would need to be directed towards, and not included in a download from the modpack.

You do not seem to want a constructive discussion and we seem to have some sort of break down in communication. Please re-assess how you are approaching this and come back with a calm, level head(if you choose to post again at all) and I will do the same.

[Tiberion]

I perfectly understand what a modpack is, you were the one who didn't seem to grasp the difference. It's ONLY a modpack if its a package of mods. If you're telling people to download the mods, its a MOD LIST.

MOD LIST + MODULE MANAGER is BETTER than a modpack. Less version mismatching, less file-hosting issues, less work for BOTH authors, and its better for the users in the end as well. If you want to create cohesive gameplay across a set of mods PLEASE focus your efforts there. if installation is truly a concern, then take the time to improve the situation. Make tutorials on installing the mods. Make a video. Teach people. Don't just give up and start throwing files around and pass off a bunch of work to the mod authoers.

Again, it's the whole "redistribution of entire mods as a pack" that I do not want, its wasteful, it causes more work for EVERYONE, and its not at all the right way to do things. You happen to disagree, which is your right, but it is NOT your right to demand fundamental changes to the community to suit YOUR need to make modpacks. It is the peak of hubris to say that the only way we can stop you is to change our licenses to explicitly stop you; it is as close to being openly hostile about it as you can possibly be without using an actual weapon, I think.

We clearly have fundamental differences in the way we see the world, and I don't think we'll reach any consensus. It's not an insult, I am truly mystified and worried that you don't grasp the concept of "don't do it, even if you're legally allowed" because it is sort of fundamental to interacting with other human beings.

I'm going to bed now. I hope to awaken and find that KSP Modpack discussion #7001 is behind us.

[WololoW]

I perfectly understand what a modpack is, you were the one who didn't seem to grasp the difference. It's ONLY a modpack if its a package of mods. If you're telling people to download the mods, its a MOD LIST.

Where in any of my posts did I suggest that you do not know what a modpack is?

Also, it is your opinion that a modpack is only a package of mods, and it is quite an absolute stance. Have you gone to the dark side Anakin?

It is a Fact that any modpack that would want to include KAS would have to link to KAS rather than include it within the download. Fact, not opinion.

MOD LIST + MODULE MANAGER is BETTER than a modpack.

Interesting, any other opinions you would like to state as fact? (also, excessive formatting like that is viewed as yelling and rude, which I really hope were not your intentions.)

Less version mismatching, less file-hosting issues, less work for BOTH authors, and its better for the users in the end as well.

Oh, apparently all I had to do was read the next line to find another opinion of yours stated as a fact.

If you want to create cohesive gameplay across a set of mods PLEASE focus your efforts there. if installation is truly a concern, then take the time to improve the situation. Make tutorials on installing the mods. Make a video. Teach people. Don't just give up and start throwing files around and pass off a bunch of work to the mod authoers.

I have mentioned it elsewhere on this forum, but that is exactly what I plan on doing. I will have a series on YouTube on how to install each mod, and what said mod includes/adds to the game.

Again, it's the whole "redistribution of entire mods as a pack" that I do not want, its wasteful, it causes more work for EVERYONE, and its not at all the right way to do things. You happen to disagree, which is your right, but it is NOT your right to demand fundamental changes to the community to suit YOUR need to make modpacks.

Yet again I request that you quote me on this demand, as I have never put it out there, therefore this statement is libelous.

The fact is that there is no change needed within the community for anyone to make a modpack. Fact, not opinion.

It is the peak of hubris to say that the only way we can stop you is to change our licenses to explicitly stop you; it is as close to being openly hostile about it as you can possibly be without using an actual weapon, I think.

Interesting that you skew my words so much when interpreting them. Please quote when I said this. Also, please quote any hostility I have had, as it is something that was not put out by me, but was received by you.

We clearly have fundamental differences in the way we see the world, and I don't think we'll reach any consensus. It's not an insult, I am truly mystified and worried that you don't grasp the concept of "don't do it, even if you're legally allowed" because it is sort of fundamental to interacting with other human beings.

I am seriously getting tired of repeating myself to you, but you seem to enjoy repeating yourself to me without reading my responses. I am therefore done with repeating anything I have already stated and ask that if you have a question, go back and actually read my posts, especially the ones where I break down your responses and respond to each portion.

I'm going to bed now. I hope to awaken and find that KSP Modpack discussion #7001 is behind us.

You can find that to happen at any point that you leave it behind you. I for one will continue to discuss this as long as anyone else is willing to.

Oh, one more thing. I do not have to have anyone change their mind in order for me to feel this discussion has been productive, but to me it seems that you find my unwillingness to surrender my beliefs as a reason to stop debating yours. That is saddening to me as a person who thrives off of discussing opposing viewpoints with passionate people. Just because we do not see eye to eye, does not mean we can not co-exist.

Goodnight thread, for now! =)

[RoverDude]

Figured I would hop into the thread.

I for one am ambivalent on what people do with my stuff - it's why I use open licensing, though that is more an issue with ensuring people are not left in a lurch in the event of my departure, and to encourage innovation more than anything else. People hack and modify and extend my stuff on a regular basis. The level of support I provide for that is directly proportional to the level of courtesy they give me when discussing extending the mods I build or curate. And I have no issues sending people right back to the source if there's an issue.

In the end, the problem corrects itself. It's why I don't sweat the whole 'I have to close my license so my creative vision is not spoiled'. The best stuff rises to the top, and if people toss out junk it gets buried and just goes away. I have no obligation to support it, and on a few occasions have made it pretty clear. I'll happily let you play with the tinker toy set I have over here, but if you decide to stick them in your ears, you're on your own.

Open licensing is worth it for a lot of reasons, even if we do have to deal with the occasional knucklehead who can't people. This is why we have ignore lists, and in the end the community will tend to expel these people out so that the rest of us can interact like rational, reasonable humans who want to build lego spaceships.

[mololabo]

Wow.

I only wanted to come out of the woodwork again when I've finally built something. But I didn't expect this to blow up as much as it did. I'm sorry if anybody feels like I've just caused unnecessary stress.

I still believe in the idea I have and while I would still really like to build it, as I already stated, I will explicitly NOT go against the wishes of the mod creators.

I still want to start contributing to this community, and after having trained in C# and made myself more comfortable with the Module Manager, I will probably try to build something along the lines of the RO (pack? thread? whatever term makes you feel most comfortable!). And build some useful tools wherever I might think I might be able to pitch in.

To the "version fragmentation" problem I just have one bit to say:

It's already happening. Users are already in a situation where they can't update mod x because y hasn't updated yet. Some people (have?) put off updating KSP because some of their favorite mods weren't ready yet. Maybe some put off installing the newest B9 pack, because Hot Rockets don't work with it yet? Since TAC LS has updated from Kerbal/day units to liters, it still doesn't have any way to recycle food (or rather solid waste) again, CELSS Greenhouses wasn't completely updated yet the last time I looked and conversation errors seem to have been everywhere.

The only thing I would've felt a modpack would make better in that regard, is that it would keep the "experience together" until the compatibility of the all included mods can be guaranteed by the pack-supporter in some way. Yes, we have the ModuleManager, KSP mods are highly compatible and dynamic and I absolutely love the flexibilty of this system. But while MM might make it easier to put the pipes between mods together, they're still pretty disjointed most of the time.

I would also concur with WololoW concerning the choosing of licenses and terms. However, I also understand the mod creators concerns... Therefore...

... as I said, I will not create a modpack since it obviously goes against the will of the modders who crafted the mods I love to use, without which I would've stopped playing KSP ages ago.

I've still got nothing but love and admiration for those beautiful mods you all crafted which made more out of KSP, than it currently is.

But I am also out of energy right now and will not continue to bother you with my initial idea. I'd rather get into doing something productive for KSP this weekend and see what I can cook up. I hope I will still be welcome with the occasional development question after all of this and wish you all a hopefully short Friday and a nice weekend!

molo off .o/

[KerbMav]

Best of luck!

[Volatar]

Thank you everyone for the vigorous discussion. Mololabo no longer wishes to continue because of the response for his own reasons.

I however, will not let this idea die. I will instead be spearheading this effort and will be in contact with modders and testers over the coming weeks. I am very excited to see you in support of this project RoverDude, as your mods are key ones we wished to add to the experience.

I do hope Farram changes his mind. I think he may be surprised at how well this will work out.

I will proceed with or without him however.

This project is a go.

[sarbian]

Given the current replies all you gonna ensure is that modders change their license to much more restrictive term.

[WololoW]

Figured I would hop into the thread.

I for one am ambivalent on what people do with my stuff - it's why I use open licensing, though that is more an issue with ensuring people are not left in a lurch in the event of my departure, and to encourage innovation more than anything else. People hack and modify and extend my stuff on a regular basis. The level of support I provide for that is directly proportional to the level of courtesy they give me when discussing extending the mods I build or curate. And I have no issues sending people right back to the source if there's an issue.

In the end, the problem corrects itself. It's why I don't sweat the whole 'I have to close my license so my creative vision is not spoiled'. The best stuff rises to the top, and if people toss out junk it gets buried and just goes away. I have no obligation to support it, and on a few occasions have made it pretty clear. I'll happily let you play with the tinker toy set I have over here, but if you decide to stick them in your ears, you're on your own.

Open licensing is worth it for a lot of reasons, even if we do have to deal with the occasional knucklehead who can't people. This is why we have ignore lists, and in the end the community will tend to expel these people out so that the rest of us can interact like rational, reasonable humans who want to build lego spaceships.

RoverDude, I must be completely honest here. I was really hoping that you would end up in this thread because I had a good suspicion that your stance was exactly what is stated above. To be clear and explicit up front, this is the exact reason and mentality I hope all with open licensing have.

It is very refreshing to read your point of view, as you clearly thought about the licensing you chose, and knew/know full well the ramifications of said licensing. This has been exactly what I have been discussing and championing.

I hope more authors have a complete understanding and agreement with the license they chose for their mods as you have demonstrated here. If they do, then my points would be moot as all would know, agree with, and stand behind their choice of licensing.

One additional thing I want to note, your wish to not leave us in a lurch is a very valiant one, and I hope that those who agree and share that viewpoint will look into licensing that allows for that while still maintaining/retaining all of the rights that they wish.

---

Molo, I don't have much to add to your well thought out post.

I do understand your viewpoint, but I just feel that your original plan and wish is very possible still! I think that if you were to discuss this with the authors of the mods you wish to include privately, a different discussion would occur. Once we get past the theoretical blockades and get to the actual people behind the mods, I feel that you would find them a lot more willing to allow what you proposed. My reasons for feeling that are two fold:

1. Mod authors for KSP seem to be some of the most understanding, and nicest people I have ever had the pleasure to interact with.

2. They seem very conducive towards the expansion and proliferation of their/KSP's mods.

I wish you the best in your endeavors and as a small aside- I too am teaching myself C# as my ambition is to one day create games (and mods for KSP should help me get my feet wet.) I am not knowledgable in it yet, but if you have any questions or advice, please send them my way.~

---

Thank you everyone for the vigorous discussion. Mololabo no longer wishes to continue because of the response for his own reasons.

I however, will not let this idea die. I will instead be spearheading this effort and will be in contact with modders and testers over the coming weeks. I am very excited to see you in support of this project RoverDude, as your mods are key ones we wished to add to the experience.

I do hope Farram changes his mind. I think he may be surprised at how well this will work out.

I will proceed with or without him however.

This project is a go.

I am happy that you have decided to continue on with this effort. I hope that you share the same views as Molo and will take into consideration everything he said in this thread, as his positive outlook, and willingness to adhere to mod authors wishes is what I would believe would make his proposed Modpack successful.

To that end, I hope that your second to last sentence is referring to Molo when you say "him" and not ferram4, as his opinions should be honored since they were solicited.

Let me know if you have any questions/concerns/need for my help. I will lend what I can and help as I can.

---

Edit* response to sariban.

Given the current replies all you gonna ensure is that modders change their license to much more restrictive term.

If that happens or any mod authors decide to do that, then they should have done that from the onset of their project. If one does not agree with the terms of their license, I suggest to them to change to a license that more directly/completely respects and reserves the rights they wish to retain. Whether that be to a more restrictive or more open license is up to the mod authors discretion.

TL;DR for this post and in turn my entire stance: Authors should pick or create the license that completely covers their views on what rights they should retain, and what privileges they want to give others. If that means they restrict it /open it up more, than so be it! Sounds like a great outcome to me.

(Said outcome would be authors not feeling infringed upon, among other beneficial side effects)

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW
Added response to sariban

[sarbian]

I hope more authors have a complete understanding and agreement with the license they chose for their mods as you have demonstrated here. If they do, then my points would be moot as all would know, agree with, and stand behind their choice of licensing.

I don't know about the others but I chose open license because I believe this help other modders. But I also expect those modders to respect my work even if it's not written in black & white binding legalities.

Anyone could take SmokeScreen and get a SmokeScreen2 out without changing anything and they would still respect the license. That would make me quite unhappy but I could not do much more than says it's freaking ridiculous.

The fact that you have the "legal" right to do something does not mean it's right to do it. I am all for sharing in this community but if peoples start disrespecting modders will then things will turn sour quickly.

[WololoW]

I don't know about the others but I chose open license because I believe this help other modders. But I also expect those modders to respect my work even if it's not written in black & white binding legalities.

Anyone could take SmokeScreen and get a SmokeScreen2 out without changing anything and they would still respect the license. That would make me quite unhappy but I could not do much more than says it's freaking ridiculous.

The fact that you have the "legal" right to do something does not mean it's right to do it. I am all for sharing in this community but if peoples start disrespecting modders will then things will turn sour quickly.

You and others in this thread have pointed out that just because one has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean it is right that they do. I agree with this, as I am a level headed, moral individual.

What you need to understand though is that I am the exception, not the rule. Morality is a fickle thing that many don't follow or subscribe to.

The point of Squad requiring licensing is no doubt to quell any possible legal actions that could arise around the mods of KSP. They did not leave it up to the whims of others, and explicitly state what one is allowed to do or not do with their product (See: EULA.) This is the responsible way to handle it as they retain the rights they wish, while also granting the privileges they choose to their fan base. I recommend all programmers do the same to protect themselves.

If you, as you state and as I believe you truly feel, do not want anyone to create a smokescreen2, but do want modders to be able to learn and grow from your code, then please choose a license that ensures your wishes be followed.

Several of the people in this discussion/debate seem to think that a license can either be completely open or completely closed with nothing in-between. This is simply a misconception and must be addressed. A license can stop others from stealing/misusing your code/intellectual property, while still allowing others to utilize, learn, and grow from said code/IP. The two stipulations are not mutually exclusive and can coexist within a license.

Also, thank you sariban for taking time out of your day to read and respond to this thread. I do greatly appreciate it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW
Added last sentence

[freerunnering]

If that happens or any mod authors decide to do that, then they should have done that from the onset of their project. If one does not agree with the terms of their license, I suggest to them to change to a license that more directly/completely respects and reserves the rights they wish to retain. Whether that be to a more restrictive or more open license is up to the mod authors discretion.

TL;DR for this post and in turn my entire stance: Authors should pick or create the license that completely covers their views on what rights they should retain, and what privileges they want to give others. If that means they restrict it /open it up more, than so be it! Sounds like a great outcome to me.

(Said outcome would be authors not feeling infringed upon, among other beneficial side effects)

The problem is there is no licence that fits what authors want. And it is impossible to create one.

Take Interstellar for example.

It has a permissive licence that (basically) says you can do stuff with it (without asking the author), but yours has to be open source too & must refer back to the original work as being the original that yours is based on.

That sounds similar to "CC ShareALike Attribution" to me (but I'm not an expert on licences).

Now the original author has disappeared. But as the licence says you can modify it without his permission the community can pick up the project and carry on using and updating it. I think we can all agree this is a good thing?

The problem is an author isn't going to like some things people could do to their work. Think about it, you can do anything to it as long as you refer back to the original work. You could take that work, find something the author hates, modify their work to insult them and then spread it around. You could deliberately cause them problems. Or you could just go off making random changes, causing conflicts, confusion and all sorts of trouble for the author.

We can agree these things are bad?

So your argument is that to avoid problems, people doing things to annoy, cause trouble for, or just people doing things they dislike, the author should make their licence one that requires their permission.

But then what happens in the (real life) Interstellar example?

Well in that case, the author disappears and the project dies. No one is allowed to touch it because no one can contact the author for any sort of permission. Maybe they got run over as they crossed the road and no one will ever hear from them again. (you'd never know if you only contacts people through a forum)

Here is the ideal licence.

People that want to do good things with my work can, without needing my permission.

People that want to do bad things to my work need to ask, so I can say no.

That licence CAN'T exist.

Instead we have to presume that most people are nice, polite and good people. They like something and so don't want to offend or cause problems for the person that made it (or anyone).

Presuming this we licence things under permissive licences and grant people the rights to do what they like with them, hoping that having people be polite and considerate will be enough to deal with most problems this could cause.

This is where we are now. Permissive licences, presume people are considerate, and moan about the people that aren't or abuse your kindness.

The other option is to lock down the licences, All Rights Reserved (ask my if you want to do anything to it and I might say yes).

The problem with this is it locks down what can happen. It removes the freedoms from everyone to stop possible abuse by a few (though you seem to be arguing it isn't "abuse" if its allowed by the licence), and a lot of the problem people will just ignore licences anyway.

TLDR:

The ideal licence is "If you want to do something good you can without permission. If you want to do something bad you aren't allowed to." It can't exist so instead we use open permissive licences on the biases that most people will be nice and considerate.

Then we just leave dealing with problems that arise with that by complaining and hoping the social pressure of community disapproval help keep people within reasonable lines.

Because the alternative is restrictive licences that hamper creativity and only solve some of the problems. + the sort of people that authors are likely to moan about abusing the permissiveness of the licence would likely ignore a more restrictive licence anyway.

P.S: this is much bigger than I originally planned (and I'm not as persuasive written down as I am in my head).

Edited August 28, 2014 by freerunnering

[ferram4]

TL;DR: Licenses should assume that everyone in the community is going to exploit them as much as possible. The previous paradigm that worked for the smaller community in the past should be replaced with a more legalistic and (inevitably) restrictive one do account for the lesser respect accorded to modders and their works as the community grows.

IMO, given that we're arguing for exploiting licenses to their very limits, the mod licensing guide in this forum needs to change to give All Rights Reserved a much more prominent place and only barely mention more permissive licenses. I'd also say that we should advise everyone to go as restrictive as they possibly can just to make sure that they don't accidentally forfeit a right that they wished to reserve for themselves. It's the only way to be sure that there are no misunderstandings: restrict EVERYTHING.

[freerunnering]

TL;DR: Licenses should assume that everyone in the community is going to exploit them as much as possible. The previous paradigm that worked for the smaller community in the past should be replaced with a more legalistic and (inevitably) restrictive one do account for the lesser respect accorded to modders and their works as the community grows.

IMO, given that we're arguing for exploiting licenses to their very limits, the mod licensing guide in this forum needs to change to give All Rights Reserved a much more prominent place and only barely mention more permissive licenses. I'd also say that we should advise everyone to go as restrictive as they possibly can just to make sure that they don't accidentally forfeit a right that they wished to reserve for themselves. It's the only way to be sure that there are no misunderstandings: restrict EVERYTHING.

And this ^^^ is the inevitable end of this sort of conversation, and the future I really fear and want to avoid.

[ferram4]

No, actually, that's not the worst case.

The worst part is something like that happens, and most licenses become more restrictive. This makes the forkers, redistributers and packers upset. Then they argue that we need to forbid restrictive licenses (don't believe this would happen? It's happened in the past with Kethane, the idea is mused about whenever a package manager discussion goes on for too long), and that licenses should be forced to be open or they won't be allowed on the forums. End result is that we're all looking at mods either being forced open against their author's wishes, then dealing with a situation that WololoW can't defend (you can't select the license you want), or mods disappear because their authors are unwilling to meet the terms here.

Either way, it's bad.

[frizzank]

I'm with ferram on this one. I have no problem including my stuff in other packs. Heck, I don't really care who uses my stuff. The problem comes when there is a bug with a part and I fix it but the redistributer doesn't get the update. Then they come to me asking why I haven't fixed it yet?

As a mod user it's hard to keep up with who does what when you start fragmenting mods and putting different things in different packs.

The best thing I can think of is to completely branch the pack into its own mod and say I dont have anything to do with that other mod. I am only in-charge of this version of it. Its what the RSS mod did with my parts, I essentially gave them to them and said "Here, these are yours now, have fun". I still get questions and bugs about RSS in my thread though and it is extremely frustrating, for me and the mod user.

[Tiberion]

Wow.

I only wanted to come out of the woodwork again when I've finally built something. But I didn't expect this to blow up as much as it did. I'm sorry if anybody feels like I've just caused unnecessary stress.

No, you didn't cause anything. You opened a respectful discussion and asked for feedback on your idea. It's a good idea, but its hampered by the nature of modpacks. There's just no way that having multiple versions of mods in different files in different places is not going to cause more version conflicts and user confusion. If you think that not being able to update B9 because hotrockets is not updated is annoying, you can only imagine how annoying it would be to get bug reports on something 2 versions old and be told that they can't update because the modpack is on that version. Or even worse, people not updating KSP because the pack isn't ready yet. Minecraft is always the most extreme example, but most packs are still on MC 1.6.4 for recommended/stable versions. September 19, 2013.

There's already delays waiting on a mod to update - adding in redistribution packs just adds another layer of waiting and headaches.

The thing is, your vision is very close to just creating a new mod, based on content from other mods. If you went all the way and started a new project, used mods under license to build it, and then published it as a new thing (with proper credits) rather than putting it out there as a collection of mods you're publishing, you'd avoid a lot of those problems. There are still some things to consider re: Gamedata folder and part names and not over-writing other mods, but they're solvable.

An example: YANFRET's Chaka Monkey Exploration pack. Not a modpack. Uses lots of other mods' parts (including mine. H even asked direct permission even though my license didn't require him to, and I gladly gave it) and is awesome.

It's heavily modified, its clearly its own brand, and I've never had to answer a support question for it. You could make your own project without having to make sure sweeping changes.

There's a huge difference in people being "users of mololabo's mod (based on mods X, Y, and Z)" rather than people being "users of Mods X, Y, and Z and packaged by mololabo."

If the assets aren't changing, its still not very efficient to pack them again, but at least they avoid some version conflicts.

Edit: And I was ninja'd much more succinctly on this idea by frizzank. Well said, sir.

Anyway, I hope your enthusiasm wasn't ruined by this. It's a touchy subject because it has the potential to be SO disruptive and we have had people abuse it before. You didn't cause any of the anger though, This Post did. I don't think it could be explained any more plainly how wrong the "Do it anyway, who cares what they think!" attitude is, and I thank you for not thinking that way.

Volatar: All I can say is 'Good luck' - you have a lot of information in front of you, use it to make good choices.

Wololololo: You're swell. Never change.

[Guest]

IMO, given that we're arguing for exploiting licenses to their very limits, the mod licensing guide in this forum needs to change to give All Rights Reserved a much more prominent place and only barely mention more permissive licenses. I'd also say that we should advise everyone to go as restrictive as they possibly can just to make sure that they don't accidentally forfeit a right that they wished to reserve for themselves. It's the only way to be sure that there are no misunderstandings: restrict EVERYTHING.

I agree with this post. All Rights Reserved is really the only way to be sure.

[AlphaAsh]

A licence is still a valid licence if I append "Addendum: This work may not be re-distributed, modified or un-modified in a mod pack." Solves the problem for me, at least.

[ferram4]

Not really. Define "mod pack." After all, if we're going down to the letter of this, everyone who wants to use your stuff will argue that they are not making a "mod pack" but something else, because then that allows them to use your work.

[AlphaAsh]

Not really. Define "mod pack." After all, if we're going down to the letter of this, everyone who wants to use your stuff will argue that they are not making a "mod pack" but something else, because then that allows them to use your work.

Let them. They can call a mod pack whatever they want. I have every right to contest their re-definition.