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

[AlphaAsh]

I honestly implore you to do so now if this is how you truly feel. I am also very glad I have never seen your mods, because this statement would have made me uninstall them. Very close minded and rude.

edit*

FYI closing your license to redistribution does not stop it from being in a mod pack"*", it just makes it harder for other modders to utilize it within their distribution (imagine Toolbar had a closed license.)

"*"- They will just give the link and tell the people to download it at your forum page, making you retain all support requests and problems [which is actually better for the person that is making and supporting the mod because he stated that he would give support to any mod that was distributed in his pack.]

TL;DR- Restricting redistribution of your mod will only make you have to support the people who are forced to download your mod from your page.

I'm rather glad you haven't used any of my mods. As for your last statement... erm, ok then?

EDIT - "FYI closing your license to redistribution does not stop it from being in a mod pack." Yes, it does.

Edited August 28, 2014 by AlphaAsh

[WololoW]

I'm rather glad you haven't used any of my mods. As for your last statement... erm, ok then?

EDIT - "FYI closing your license to redistribution does not stop it from being in a mod pack." Yes, it does.

You must have missed part of what you quoted. There is no license that can stop me from pointing people to use your mod.

[AlphaAsh]

You must have missed part of what you quoted. There is no license that can stop me from pointing people to use your mod.

That's not including a mod in a part pack. In fact, go right ahead with that instead. Or, you know, post a list of your favourite mods on whatever forum. Same thing, less file management.

[WololoW]

That's not including a mod in a part pack. In fact, go right ahead with that instead. Or, you know, post a list of your favourite mods on whatever forum. Same thing, less file management.

It seems we have different definitions of "Modpack," mine is 'a pack of mods.' (Note, this does not describe a distribution method, simply a grouping of mods)

[AlphaAsh]

It would seem so. I'm just going to go write up a list of my favourite mods with links to where to download them, put the text file in a zip and call it My Mod Pack. Seriously, this is a silly argument that has nothing to do with my original concern. Version fragmentation leading to more support.

[WololoW]

Seriously?!?

As a developer I've seen this sort of thing happen quite often. I know quite a few developers that start of open sourcing their stuff with very permissive licences, then it causes them trouble, so they restrict the licence. And then (for quite a few projects I've seen) they get people just recompiling the code and pretending it's their own so the original developers just end up close sourcing it completely.

A good rule of thumb if you want things to say open source with permissive licences: "Don't cause problems for the developers!"

I would say the same thing to those developers then. "If you do not want what comes with open licensing, do not have open licensing. It is as simple as that and you can avoid all the headaches that came from you thinking you can handle an open licensing."

Open source with permissive licensing is not for all, don't just make your license permissive because you think you want it, do it because you know you want it and everything that comes with it.

I concur with freerunnering.

I encountered such a situation last year with FusTek. Someone wanted to distribute compressed versions of my part textures, but since I was overhauling the parts to use a common texture map (and UVs would get updated/moved around/reworked on an irregular basis), I privately told him to wait until I've finalized my overhaul. He agreed to do so privately, but then announced publicly the very next day that he was going to do it anyway.

When I pointed this out to him, he claimed that my licence permitted him to do so with or without my permission, and that he was "saving me the effort". My counterpoint was that the major changes I was implementing would render his optimizations completely useless and outdated. As it happened, he went ahead anyway, just as I released a dev build of my overhaul, and indeed, his "optimizations" became obsolete almost immediately.

At the end of the day, it's better to ask nicely and honor the decisions of the original add-ons' authors, instead of re-interpreting/exploiting permissive licenses to one's personal advantage.

It seems that the redistributor in question got what he had coming for not heeding your sound advice. I also say to you what I said above though, if you want people to have to have express permission for redistributing part of your mod, make sure your license reflects that.

Also, from what you said, he didn't reinterpret/exploit your license at all, he just interpreted what was laid out in front of him and decided not to heed the good solicited advice from the mod's creator.

*Edit*

It would seem so. I'm just going to go write up a list of my favourite mods with links to where to download them, put the text file in a zip and call it My Mod Pack. Seriously, this is a silly argument that has nothing to do with my original concern. Version fragmentation leading to more support.

It has everything to do with your original concern. If you do not want version fragmentation, either change your licensing to not allow redistribution, do not offer support for older versions of your mod(who does that anyway?), or another option would be to not distribute mods at all, as abstinence is the only way to completely stop version fragmentation.

*Edit2*

Also, please try not to come off so rude. This community is normally very constructive and that last post was a bit destructive.

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW
Added next post into this one to save room

[Tiberion]

Well, having to move back to closed licenses to counteract dim-bulbs who want to abuse the licenses for their own purposes is a last resort for most people I think.

If the choice is 'Maintaining a community-friendly license and having to talk some sense into a knucklehead once in a while' OR 'Closing off the license to preclude the possibility of any knuckleheads existing' I am going to choose the first one every time, especially since 8 out of 10 times, the knucklehead is going to do it anyway, whatever the license says.

(*knucklehead being defined as someone who is determined to copy/fork/clone a project in a way the original author is against and will harm or hinder the original project instead of enriching it)

The old saying "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something" never applied to anything better than content licensing and copying. Abuse a privilege (and it is a privilege, not a right) and you'll lose it, and that hurts legitimate users.

I feel that people aren't grasping what Nathankell is saying either. Modulemanager is good. Very very very good. If you want to make mods work together, this is the tool to use.

IMO, if you're redistributing parts instead of a modulemanager config, you are Doing it Wrong

[sumghai]

It seems that the redistributor in question got what he had coming for not heeding your sound advice. I also say to you what I said above though, if you want people to have to have express permission for redistributing part of your mod, make sure your license reflects that.

This is where things get a bit complicated.

I chose the CC BY-SA 4.0 license to allow folks like YANFRET to re-use my models to make original derivatives (such as the Chaka Monkey exploration pack), as well as Sippyfrog and his alternative texture packs. The texture optimizer (who most definitely was not the esteemed rbray89) simply refused wait patiently for me to finalize the UV maps, and while that was a one-off case, it almost convinced me to ban derivatives.

My message is simply as follows: Even if a license says that you can legally do something, if the original add-on authors specifically tells to you not do something, then listen to him/her.

Well, having to move back to closed licenses to counteract dim-bulbs who want to abuse the licenses for their own purposes is a last resort for most people I think.

If the choice is 'Maintaining a community-friendly license and having to talk some sense into a knucklehead once in a while' OR 'Closing off the license to preclude the possibility of any knuckleheads existing' I am going to choose the first one every time, especially since 8 out of 10 times, the knucklehead is going to do it anyway, whatever the license says.

(*knucklehead being defined as someone who is determined to copy/fork/clone a project in a way the original author is against and will harm or hinder the original project instead of enriching it)

The old saying "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something" never applied to anything better than content licensing and copying. Abuse a privilege (and it is a privilege, not a right) and you'll lose it, and that hurts legitimate users.

This, very much so.

I feel that people aren't grasping what Nathankell is saying either. Modulemanager is good. Very very very good. If you want to make mods work together, this is the tool to use.

IMO, if you're redistributing parts instead of a modulemanager config, you are Doing it Wrong

Also this.

ModuleManager is exceptionally convienent for getting add-ons to work together without instigating CFG editing wars from modpackers distributing CFGs that conflict with the originals.

Edited August 28, 2014 by sumghai

[NathanKell]

Things are getting a mite heated. Let's all cool down a bit, shall we?

It really isn't that hard to respect the *spirit* of a license as well as the letter, and it's basic human decency. And as long as the community is respectful of the wishes of addon makers, no matter the letter of the license, open licenses will continue.

There are basically two differences between an "open + ask first" model and a "closed, but ask" model (because even "all rights reserved" mods, if you ask nicely, often you can derive from them):

1. It leads to a more open-*feeling* community even if the end result (in terms of derivatives) is similar

2. If the originator disappears, her/his work can still be continued.

[WololoW]

Well, having to move back to closed licenses to counteract dim-bulbs who want to abuse the licenses for their own purposes is a last resort for most people I think.

In my humble opinion(and what I feel is actually objective fact) there is no such thing as licensing abuse. A license is as permissive or restrictive as it is supposed to be, and as long as one is not infracting upon it, they are abiding by it. If the licensor feels a licensee is abusing the license, but no infraction has occurred, what's really happening is the licensor doesn't agree with his own license.

If the choice is 'Maintaining a community-friendly license and having to talk some sense into a knucklehead once in a while' OR 'Closing off the license to preclude the possibility of any knuckleheads existing' I am going to choose the first one every time, especially since 8 out of 10 times, the knucklehead is going to do it anyway, whatever the license says.

I respect and really appreciate this statement.

(*knucklehead being defined as someone who is determined to copy/fork/clone a project in a way the original author is against and will harm or hinder the original project instead of enriching it)

If the author is against the way said knucklehead is using his mod, he should have a more restrictive license so that no feelings are hurt and said author's wishes are respected.

The old saying "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something" never applied to anything better than content licensing and copying. Abuse a privilege (and it is a privilege, not a right) and you'll lose it, and that hurts legitimate users.

I have never heard that quote, and I strongly disagree unless referencing something nefarious/morally/legally wrong.

I feel that people aren't grasping what Nathankell is saying either. Modulemanager is good. Very very very good. If you want to make mods work together, this is the tool to use.

IMO, if you're redistributing parts instead of a modulemanager config, you are Doing it Wrong

I agree with that with one small caveat- you should use module manager configs whenever possible, otherwise, do what you must within the limits of the licenses.

--

What I am gaining from this thread I'm general is that modders need to fully understand and agree with the license they choose.

*Edit*

Things are getting a mite heated. Let's all cool down a bit, shall we?

http://i.imgur.com/PgOlfQgs.jpg

I personally apologize if any of my posts were misconstrued as heated. I am trying to have a civil discussion about authors using the correct license to convey their wishes.

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW
Added part to NathanKell

[ferram4]

You really don't want to advocate for treating mods with only the letter of their licenses, because that logic can be used against you. Nearly every open-source license includes a clause that basically says, "You have no right to support," and that anything you do get is merely a courtesy. By your standard, pretty much all of us don't agree with our own licenses, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that we should tell anyone having trouble with our mods to stuff it and get lost. Fact is, we're allowed to tell you to scram based on our licenses (and we would if we followed them to the letter), just as you're allowed to redistribute / fork / whatever regardless of our feelings on it once the license is set.

[WololoW]

You really don't want to advocate for treating mods with only the letter of their licenses, because that logic can be used against you. Nearly every open-source license includes a clause that basically says, "You have no right to support," and that anything you do get is merely a courtesy. By your standard, pretty much all of us don't agree with our own licenses, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that we should tell anyone having trouble with our mods to stuff it and get lost. Fact is, we're allowed to tell you to scram based on our licenses (and we would if we followed them to the letter), just as you're allowed to redistribute / fork / whatever regardless of our feelings on it once the license is set.

This is well put and actually plays into what I was saying.

I do advocate for following licenses to the letter, as they are the legally binding documents that one must agree to when downloading a mod. Support is a courtesy, not a right; although, you are correct that I would not argue that you should tell those having trouble to get lost, unless at is how you want to run your mod, then I say go for it (I may even try to argue against the latter, but I will understand that it is within your rights as author.)

You are correct again in saying that by my standards most don't seem to agree with their own licenses, and I am advocating authors to find the license that most closely abides by their wishes, and then add any addendum needed to make the license fully represent their wishes (which to my knowledge is allowed as long as you state that you are using a modified version of the original license with your added stipulations/addendum.)

To put your final sentence in a way I would say it: The fact is that you are allowed to tell us users to scram, just as we are allowed to redistribute/fork/whatever with regards to what your license allows.

[ferram4]

Good, then with us seemingly on the same page, I can make my point a little clearer:

If someone with a permissive license asks for you to not redistribute / fork their project (as a courtesy) and you do so anyway, then you should not expect them to provide the courtesy of support to your users, or you, if you find yourself out of your depth. A lack of courtesy will beget a lack of courtesy, and that is something you should think about.

[WololoW]

Good, then with us seemingly on the same page, I can make my point a little clearer:

If someone with a permissive license asks for you to not redistribute / fork their project (as a courtesy) and you do so anyway, then you should not expect them to provide the courtesy of support to your users, or you, if you find yourself out of your depth. A lack of courtesy will beget a lack of courtesy, and that is something you should think about.

Very nice, we are both in complete agreement it seems! (I agree with everything you stated here)

[sumghai]

You really don't want to advocate for treating mods with only the letter of their licenses, because that logic can be used against you. Nearly every open-source license includes a clause that basically says, "You have no right to support," and that anything you do get is merely a courtesy. By your standard, pretty much all of us don't agree with our own licenses, but I'm sure you're not going to argue that we should tell anyone having trouble with our mods to stuff it and get lost. Fact is, we're allowed to tell you to scram based on our licenses (and we would if we followed them to the letter), just as you're allowed to redistribute / fork / whatever regardless of our feelings on it once the license is set.

This is well put and actually plays into what I was saying.

I do advocate for following licenses to the letter, as they are the legally binding documents that one must agree to when downloading a mod. Support is a courtesy, not a right; although, you are correct that I would not argue that you should tell those having trouble to get lost, unless at is how you want to run your mod, then I say go for it (I may even try to argue against the latter, but I will understand that it is within your rights as author.)

You are correct again in saying that by my standards most don't seem to agree with their own licenses, and I am advocating authors to find the license that most closely abides by their wishes, and then add any addendum needed to make the license fully represent their wishes (which to my knowledge is allowed as long as you state that you are using a modified version of the original license with your added stipulations/addendum.)

To put your final sentence in a way I would say it: The fact is that you are allowed to tell us users to scram, just as we are allowed to redistribute/fork/whatever with regards to what your license allows.

Good, then with us seemingly on the same page, I can make my point a little clearer:

If someone with a permissive license asks for you to not redistribute / fork their project (as a courtesy) and you do so anyway, then you should not expect them to provide the courtesy of support to your users, or you, if you find yourself out of your depth. A lack of courtesy will beget a lack of courtesy, and that is something you should think about.

I'm in agreement with ferram.

Most of my users / would-be derivative authors follow the spirit and the letter of the license quite well, save for that "optimizer" and his shenanigans. I'm assuming this means I'll have to add to my CC BY-SA license a statement such as "Please don't optimize without my permission" or "Please don't make my parts in purple and pink"? Seems awfully clunky and cumbersome to add these "exceptions" to every copy of my add-ons' licenses everytime something like this happens, and I'm sure there might be someone who would say, "there's something you missed on the list of exceptions, so that means I can do X, even though you may not like it :P".

[WololoW]

I'm in agreement with ferram.

Most of my users / would-be derivative authors follow the spirit and the letter of the license quite well, save for that "optimizer" and his shenanigans. I'm assuming this means I'll have to add to my CC BY-SA license a statement such as "Please don't optimize without my permission" or "Please don't make my parts in purple and pink"? Seems awfully clunky and cumbersome to add these "exceptions" to every copy of my add-ons' licenses everytime something like this happens, and I'm sure there might be someone who would say, "there's something you missed on the list of exceptions, so that means I can do X, even though you may not like it :P".

CC BY SA 4.0 actually does not allow you to add any legally binding limitations, this is quoted from creativecommons.org:

No additional restrictions  You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

It seems to me that you may not fully agree with the license you chose to the letter, and I suggest that you find or create one to suit your needs.

I have seen mention several times now of the "spirit" of a license. Can anyone explain this for me?

Also, if applicable, can someone explain how this would be interpreted in a court of law?(as that is the entire purpose of a license.)

*Edit*

I reread your post again, and in regards to your last statement, why does your license permit things you may not like?

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW

[regex]

WololoW, are you in favor of more restrictive licenses? Because I feel that's what you're campaigning for. You can certainly do whatever you want within the terms of the license someone has set out for their content but if you don't display at least some decency towards the author of that content you're quickly going to find the license changing. Maybe the author should have done that in the first place, or maybe they just wanted to let people know that they were open to sharing. Anyway, it's polite to ask and polite to respect the author's wishes, is really all anyone is saying. Common decency makes a community.

[DMagic]

I have seen mention several times now of the "spirit" of a license. Can anyone explain this for me?

Also, if applicable, can someone explain how this would be interpreted in a court of law?(as that is the entire purpose of a license.)

*Edit*

I reread your post again, and in regards to your last statement, why does your license permit things you may not like?

You seem to be taking a far more literal and legalistic approach to the use of licenses in KSP mods than most people here do. I haven't once seen anyone actually claim that they will take legal action against someone violating the terms of their license. The most that ever happens is that a mod will be taken off of the forums for license violations.

And is this really so hard to understand? That people might have a variety of reasons for choosing less-restrictive licenses, none of which necessarily have to do with allowing anyone to alter or distribute their creation, with or without their permission or approval.

I for one, am glad that very few people take your approach to licensing. If everyone chose closed licenses and refused all requests to alter their addons this would be a far sadder place.

[WololoW]

WololoW, are you in favor of more restrictive licenses? Because I feel that's what you're campaigning for. You can certainly do whatever you want within the terms of the license someone has set out for their content but if you don't display at least some decency towards the author of that content you're quickly going to find the license changing. Maybe the author should have done that in the first place, or maybe they just wanted to let people know that they were open to sharing. Anyway, it's polite to ask and polite to respect the author's wishes, is really all anyone is saying. Common decency makes a community.

regex, thanks for your reply and I hope to cover your question/concerns completely while also explaining my viewpoint on them.

I am a proponent of modpacks as far as the context of this thread goes, and I am trying to campaign for the correct choice of licensing, be it more or less restrictive.

As I stated in a post in this thread, I am also in agreement that one should seek out the author of the mod and get permission from them. This comes with a caveat though- As a mod author, if you would like to require people do that, choose a license that protects your rights and projects your requirements. If you do not(utilize a restrictive license), and you still wish for people to ask permission, you are doing yourself a great disservice.

I personally would be using a permissive license if/when I decide to create mods, but I will be doing so knowing full well what said license permits, and being fully okay with anything that it does allow.

I think the open source/permissive licenses of mods in KSP is a great thing that should be held in high regard; Although, the way people were/are talking about the use/abuse of their mods and licenses just doesn't make sense to me. It is, after all, your mod and you are responsible for selecting a license that represents what you wish fully, so why get bent out of shape when someone follows the license to the letter?

And lastly, to address the last sentence quoted: I can not agree more. That is why I started this discussion in this thread, not much(if any) common decency was shown to the OP even though he wanted to respect the wishes of every author of every mod he wished to put into his proposed pack. This community, as stated many times before, is one of the best that gaming has to offer, and I resent the stance it takes on modpacks as it seems close minded and often leads to rude comments toward those suggesting creating a Modpack.

Hopefully Molo will still create this modpack and it will flourish as most modpacks from other games do.

--

One final thought for this post: Thank you to everyone that has responded and that has continued this civil, constructive discussion. I hope it continues as it has and I look forward to debating with all of you.

*Edit*

You seem to be taking a far more literal and legalistic approach to the use of licenses in KSP mods than most people here do. I haven't once seen anyone actually claim that they will take legal action against someone violating the terms of their license. The most that ever happens is that a mod will be taken off of the forums for license violations.

Don't you see that the last bit you wrote here is legal action? The forceful removal of a post/mod/Modpack from this forum is a form of legal action, as it is being done because of the legally binding license that was put forth by the author.

And is this really so hard to understand? That people might have a variety of reasons for choosing less-restrictive licenses, none of which necessarily have to do with allowing anyone to alter or distribute their creation, with or without their permission or approval.

At the risk of sounding rude(which is not my intention at all, I just am not sure how else to word this,) what would be the reasons to have a permissive license if not to allow anyone to alter or distribute their creation without their approval?

I for one, am glad that very few people take your approach to licensing. If everyone chose closed licenses and refused all requests to alter their addons this would be a far sadder place.

I am very glad about how many mods there are with permissive licenses and I do honestly hope that more will continue in that same path. I, however, do not want authors to be putting permissive licenses on their creations for the wrong reasons. They should be doing so because they believe in and respect the terms of the license.

Some food for thought about the first part of your post DMagic - Perhaps I am not taking the legality of a license on a mod too literally, and others are not taking it literally enough? This is a very good point to discuss IMO as it seems to be one of the roots of the problem that I see.

Edited August 28, 2014 by WololoW
Edited in response to DMagic

[ferram4]

Ah, I see. Your argument is that we should not at all expect the courtesy of asking from anyone who might want to do anything with our stuff, and should thus explicitly tell everyone to keep their hands off. Sounds good, I think that everyone who expects such a courtesy and is able to change their licenses to be more restrictive should look into going into a no-redistribution, no-derivative type of license.

Everyone's been talking about how the community has gotten more hostile lately or some such kind of complaints, so I think it's logical to start treating everyone as if we need to constantly aim legal weapons at them to get what we want. You're completely right, most of the stuff here should be licensed All Rights Reserved, probably. It would be better for everyone, IMO.

[NathanKell]

I did not read Tiberion as saying the OP was "one of the knuckleheads." In fact I think mololabo did a great job of addressing (even if not fully allaying for some) worries regarding her/his modpack. This is why I went out of my way (as others did as well) to praise mololabo for doing it the right way, even though I think some of the concerns mentioned are well justified.

The flipside (and why I said "some" rather than "most" or "all") is that "install it yourself and keep it up to date" means for those of us dealing with a suite of mods (the non-modpack version of a modpack) we have to field a *ton* of support requests regarding installing stuff because, even those "extract a zip" ought to be easy, apparently it's not, but more importantly because the steps *are* somewhat complicated when order matters. So the lack of a Realism Overhaul package (mostly in deference to modder dislike of modpacks, and to the cogent arguments regarding fracturing and version-mismatch, although goodness knows that happens now) directly leads to more work for me.

[WololoW]

Ah, I see. Your argument is that we should not at all expect the courtesy of asking from anyone who might want to do anything with our stuff, and should thus explicitly tell everyone to keep their hands off. Sounds good, I think that everyone who expects such a courtesy and is able to change their licenses to be more restrictive should look into going into a no-redistribution, no-derivative type of license.

Everyone's been talking about how the community has gotten more hostile lately or some such kind of complaints, so I think it's logical to start treating everyone as if we need to constantly aim legal weapons at them to get what we want. You're completely right, most of the stuff here should be licensed All Rights Reserved, probably. It would be better for everyone, IMO.

I am not exactly sure how to take this post ferram4, did you mean it as satire or are these your actual beliefs?

If the former is true, and this reply is meant to be interpreted with sarcasm, I have no answer as I am attempting to have an actual debate with meaningful discussion involved, and not looking for satire at this time.

If the latter is true, and you actually mean what you wrote, then yes, I do think that expecting courtesy is honestly sometimes too much, and will likely come to bite you in the ass. It is a difficult fact of life that I am still coming to terms with, as I always have, and still unfortunately continue to, expect the best out of people. I am partially a realist, however, and realize that much of the time I will be let down by expecting so much from people(and I have come to terms with that.)

Sounds good, I think that everyone who expects such a courtesy and is able to change their licenses to be more restrictive should look into going into a no-redistribution, no-derivative type of license.

This is very true with one caveat - If you do expect people to contact you and ask your permission before they are allowed to do anything to your creation, you should pick a license that states that clearly so your wishes can be upheld.

What is this talk of legal weapons being aimed?

Still assuming the latter is true for these next bits-

You're completely right, most of the stuff here should be licensed All Rights Reserved, probably.

I resent that you are being libelous. I never suggested that everything should be licensed "All Rights Reserved." I simply stated that mod authors should pick a license based on what they want to happen with their mod and not expect people to adhere to the whims that run through their own head that they never conveyed to their audience.

It would be better for everyone, IMO.

I also think that your final opinion is not true, as it would be detrimental towards anyone that wanted to create peripheral mods/fork existing mods/utilize existing code from mods in their work, as well as many others.

---

I did not read Tiberion as saying the OP was "one of the knuckleheads." In fact I think mololabo did a great job of addressing (even if not fully allaying for some) worries regarding her/his modpack. This is why I went out of my way (as others did as well) to praise mololabo for doing it the right way, even though I think some of the concerns mentioned are well justified.

The flipside (and why I said "some" rather than "most" or "all") is that "install it yourself and keep it up to date" means for those of us dealing with a suite of mods (the non-modpack version of a modpack) we have to field a *ton* of support requests regarding installing stuff because, even those "extract a zip" ought to be easy, apparently it's not, but more importantly because the steps *are* somewhat complicated when order matters. So the lack of a Realism Overhaul package (mostly in deference to modder dislike of modpacks, and to the cogent arguments regarding fracturing and version-mismatch, although goodness knows that happens now) directly leads to more work for me.

I agree, it does not seem like Tiberion was saying that at all. mololabo has put forth a valiant effort and I commend him/her for it, and I really hope that (s)he continues his endeavors towards creating a modpack.

Your flipside is well thought-out. Installation can be confusing to those that are not computer wizards, which is why a modpack is enticing to many.

I find the argument of version fracturing to not hold much water. I have yet to see any mod author provide support for a previously released version once a new version has been made public. So people coming to the thread asking for advice on how to fix problem x from version A of the mod will be told to upgrade to version B and replicate the problem(or that version B has solved problem x), as they always have.

* I hope that I covered it all well. I am trying to keep as good of a hold on all of this as I can while getting progressively more tired.*

[ferram4]

What is this talk of legal weapons being aimed?

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 resent that you are being libelous. I never suggested that everything should be licensed "All Rights Reserved." I simply stated that mod authors should pick a license based on what they want to happen with their mod and not expect people to adhere to the whims that run through their own head that they never conveyed to their audience.

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.

I also think that your final opinion is not true, as it would be detrimental towards anyone that wanted to create peripheral mods/fork existing mods/utilize existing code from mods in their work, as well as many others.

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.

[NathanKell]

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.

[Xaiier]

I also think that your final opinion is not true, as it would be detrimental towards anyone that wanted to create peripheral mods/fork existing mods/utilize existing code from mods in their work, as well as many others.

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