Mod Licensing

[fathed]

Creating this thread to discuss the issues with restrictive versus open licensing for mods, mainly to move this conversation out of the KAS thread, since the discussion isn't really about KAS or the developer's of KAS.

Here's a link to that thread, but let's please attempt to move the license discussion here so we don't pollute the KAS thread with this issue.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53134-Kerbal-Attachment-System-%28KAS%29-0-4-7-Pipes-as-fuel-lines-and-even-fewer-explosions%21/page198

[Jetwave]

This thread is just going to cause arguments. There really isn't a need for this kind of thread, if you're looking for help choosing a license, check out Majiir's thread on the subject.

[Taki117]

I think Non-restrictive licences are better because it allows other to take over the work should something happen to the original mod author. I wonder if it's possible to have multiple licences for parts? Like you can distribute the .dll but not the parts? Or vice versa.

[ferram4]

Mod authors have the choice to pick any mod license they like, including restrictive ones.

This is good because it allows modders that are deeply uncomfortable with others continuing their work to still release it, and so we all benefit.

Arguing that restrictive licenses hurt the community (and thus we should [require open licenses / heavily censure modders that choose restrictive licenses / any other ideas intended to subvert restrictive licenses]) is based on a questionable premise, which is that mods with restrictive licenses would be released with more open licenses under those circumstances. If that premise is untrue for even one author, then the community has been hurt by the lack of a mod being released to the public.

Even so, mod authors should not be required to license based on someone else's interpretation of "the greater good." It is their work, their time, and their effort that goes into those projects. It should rightfully be them that choose how the results of their effort are used.

There is nothing to discuss, as mod licensing is fine as it is. Forcing free software licenses will kill off quite a few mods that are unwilling to go that way, and that will be very bad for all of us.

Ultimately, I have to agree this thread is pointless, as this has been discussed many times before.

[Guest]

Creating this thread to discuss the issues with restrictive versus open licensing for mods

There are none. The individual author can license their work however they feel like within the constraints of the rules on this site. End of discussion.

[fathed]

There are issues, otherwise the conversation wouldn't be happening in the KAS thread.

check out Majiir's thread on the subject.

That thread, and roverdude's responses is what continues this discussion.

Forcing free software licenses will kill off quite a few mods that are unwilling to go that way, and that will be very bad for all of us.

Or very good for us all, depending on opinions, hence the purpose of the thread, see karbonite/kethane as examples.

[Murph]

I think Non-restrictive licences are better because it allows other to take over the work should something happen to the original mod author. I wonder if it's possible to have multiple licences for parts? Like you can distribute the .dll but not the parts? Or vice versa.

In short, yes, there's infinite granularity in licensing. The copyright holder is free to define terms in more or less any way they like, including multiple licensing options for the entire pack (e.g. either license A or license , and different licenses for different components (e.g. parts not redistributable, but limited redistribution of the DLLs).

As others have stated, there's really nothing to discuss here. Personally, I do think that FOSS licensing is often a good thing, but I equally recognise and respect the rights of individual copyright holders to choose license terms that they are comfortable with. Licensing terms are the exclusive domain of each copyright holder, and it's impossible to coerce people towards any particular license.

[Guest]

There are issues

There are none. The individual author can license their work however they feel like within the constraints of the rules on this site. End of discussion.

[fathed]

There are none. The individual author can license their work however they feel like within the constraints of the rules on this site. End of discussion.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just remember, it's just your opinion, it can be the end of the discussion for you, simply by you not responding.

In my opinion, since the conversation has spread to other threads, you would be incorrect that the it was the end of the discussion.

Please keep in mind the difference between opinions and facts.

[fathed]

As others have stated, there's really nothing to discuss here. Personally, I do think that FOSS licensing is often a good thing, but I equally recognise and respect the rights of individual copyright holders to choose license terms that they are comfortable with. Licensing terms are the exclusive domain of each copyright holder, and it's impossible to coerce people towards any particular license.

Again, since the conversation was continuing in the KAS thread, there's clearly something to discuss here, even if it doesn't match your opinion.

[ferram4]

There are issues, otherwise the conversation wouldn't be happening in the KAS thread.

I see a bunch of people arguing that they dislike the terms of the license because it doesn't let them do what they want with it. Frankly, it comes off as entitled and disrespectful, considering that you get something for free but then insist that it somehow just isn't good enough.

Or very good for us all, depending on opinions, hence the purpose of the thread, see karbonite/kethane as examples.

...you're seriously arguing for killing off mods? How the hell is this beneficial?!

[Guest]

Please keep in mind the difference between opinions and facts.

Sorry, what? How is it "opinion" that the individual author can license their work however they feel like within the constraints of the rules on this site? Who are you to tell authors how to license their work? Seems to me you're the one who needs to sort out "opinion" and "fact".

There is no issue with restrictive vs. open licenses whatsoever so long as the author abides by the rules of this site. End. Of. Discussion.

[fathed]

...you're seriously arguing for killing off mods? How the hell is this beneficial?!

Did I say mods should die?

Perhaps you should read the threads. The Majir thread was responded to by roverdude, roverdude specified his opinion on the licensing issue, and it was:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...bution!/page26

I'll give this a week, but if in the end we're still at a place where the opting out is not either defaulted, or a button on load so easy even my grandmother can do it, then I will explicitly be pulling both support and integration for all of my mods for anything that implements ModStatistics in their default installation package. And yes, I realize that means pulling Kethane and KAS support from MKS, but so be it. That's the beauty of a free and open community, we get to vote with our feet.

So, by looking at Karbonite and Kethane as examples, how did I suggest one should die? Instead, perhaps I was suggesting the restrictive license of kethane is what brought us karbonite, therefore in my opinion, very good for us all.

[fathed]

Sorry, what? How is it "opinion" that the individual author can license their work however they feel like within the constraints of the rules on this site? Who are you to tell authors how to license their work? Seems to me you're the one who needs to sort out "opinion" and "fact".

There is no issue with restrictive vs. open licenses whatsoever so long as the author abides by the rules of this site. End. Of. Discussion.

Again, end of discussion for you, that's your opinion, you're stating it like a fact, that people should not discuss issues with licenses cause you said so. And yes, we are aware that the rules of the site say x, this discussion is more about is that the best for the community. In your opinion there's no issue, so not sure why you keep responding other than you don't want people discussing it, which is cool, it's your opinion, but not the end of the discussion.

[Murph]

Again, since the conversation was continuing in the KAS thread, there's clearly something to discuss here, even if it doesn't match your opinion.

Nope, it's just people upset that KAS development and support is stalled. There's nothing to discuss, as it's very well known what the pros and cons of open vs. restrictive licensing are. There is nothing to discuss simply because it's all been discussed countless times before, there's nothing left. Trying to force non-restrictive licenses onto copyright holders will only drive them away from the forums, or drive them away from contributing their efforts.

[ferram4]

Did I say mods should die?

-snip-

So, by looking at Karbonite and Kethane as examples, how did I suggest one should die?

By answering my statement here:

Forcing free software licenses will kill off quite a few mods that are unwilling to go that way, and that will be very bad for all of us.

With this:

Or very good for us all, depending on opinions, hence the purpose of the thread, see karbonite/kethane as examples.

Your example had near nothing to do with my point, which was that trying to force free licensing would drive existing mods away. You responded to that concern by saying that it would be a good thing; I'm sure you can understand why someone would interpret this as, "killing off mods with restrictive licenses is good."

[RoverDude]

*pokes in*

Everyone here I am sure is aware of the benefits or lack thereof with the multitude of licensing choices. I choose mine because, to be blunt, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow and I'd rather not leave my stuff in a place where people cannot modify it. The flip side is that... well.. people can modify my stuff. Some do. Some do strange things with it, and some do awesome things (I wandered into the Karbonite Real Fuels thread by accident, and was pretty impressed with the stuff they are doing).

But that's my choice. Just as having something in a different license is someone else's choice. I'm happy we at least require folks to show the source code and *have* a license, as that solves a lot of issues.

But to clear the air on something I read earlier... Karbonite was not created to kill off Kethane. It was created because not so nice stuff got bundled with Kethane, and there was no way for someone to fork it and get rid of it. That's the flip side of that choice (and again, let's emphasize choice). IMO forks are good. Forks are where you get innovation and improvements. Multiple contributors and collaborators (again, IMO) are also good. Most of the mods I have, or the things I add to them, are either the result of collaborations, or based on absorbing in changes from the community (or at the very least, letting them collectively steer things).

It's also good stuff in the case of KSPI because there was a permissive license in place. But again, Fractal chose that. The flip side is that when he comes back, he now has a fork... so then the question of divergence or rolling back in come into play (thus the downside). IMO the good outweighs the bad, but that's still for everyone to make a choice on - provided it's an educated choice. I'd rather see folks not coerced one way or the other.

(Minor edit addendum)

While I would rather not see coercion, I'll quite happily suggest that an open license is a good default choice for the reasons mentioned above and help folks make an educated choice

Edited August 30, 2014 by RoverDude

[Dodgey]

Just because people are arguing doesn't mean there is an argument to be made, the flat earth society for example. What you are basically saying is that modders shouldn't have the right to decide what happens with their software which they devlope, that if they choose to release a piece of software (a mod) then they shouldn't be allowed to decide who can do what with that software.

If someone doesn't like that then they won't release a mod, considering the amount of mods that have restrictive licenses how do you determine the likely loss of these mods is a good thing.

[Guest]

Again, end of discussion for you, that's your opinion, you're stating it like a fact, that people should not discuss issues with licenses cause you said so. And yes, we are aware that the rules of the site say x, this discussion is more about is that the best for the community. In your opinion there's no issue, so not sure why you keep responding other than you don't want people discussing it, which is cool, it's your opinion, but not the end of the discussion.

There are no "issues" regarding any license that the individual author assigns to the work. That is a statement of fact. The reason that is fact is that the work belongs to the author. It's that simple.

There are no issues. If you want to discuss reasons why someone should choose an open license over a closed one then I highly suggest you use words other than "issues" because there are never any issues with an author licensing their own work however they feel, aside from the restrictions outlined on this site if the work is to be displayed or advertised on this site.

[ian9018]

Mods follow the same evolutionary rules the rest of us do. Either adapt or die, pretty much. My point being that what people want is going to get made either way.

KAS? Very popular and still the only one of it's kind, or one of the only ones (I don't know if there are other comparable) Majiir made an exception to the license across the mods he managed until he comes back (or appoints someone specific in his place) and people sprang out of the woodwork to fix KAS.

Kethane? There were grumbles about a few things regarding a few of the functions it sits on as a system. I doubt Karbonite was devised only after Majiir had to do stuff in his life. While perhaps inspired by Keth, Karb is its own mod and I think it definitely does not depend on Kethane in any way beyond the idea.

Like there were/are like 3 different life support mods going around at some point, if someone wants to do something and they are capable of it, they will. If someone has a restrictive license or unrestricted license I don't think it actually matters at the community level.

edit: tl;dr if you aren't happy with what you have, then make something!

Edited August 30, 2014 by ian9018

[RoverDude]

Mods follow the same evolutionary rules the rest of us do. Either adapt or die, pretty much. My point being that what people want is going to get made either way.

KAS? Very popular and still the only one of it's kind, or one of the only ones (I don't know if there are other comparable) Majiir made an exception to the license across the mods he managed until he comes back (or appoints someone specific in his place) and people sprang out of the woodwork to fix KAS.

Kethane? There were grumbles about a few things regarding a few of the functions it sits on as a system. I doubt Karbonite was devised only after Majiir had to do stuff in his life. While perhaps inspired by Keth, Karb is its own mod and I think it definitely does not depend on Kethane in any way beyond the idea.

Like there were/are like 3 different life support mods going around at some point, if someone wants to do something and they are capable of it, they will. If someone has a restrictive license or unrestricted license I don't think it actually matters at the community level.

I'd agree with this. In the end the community is going to figure out how to get the stuff they want. So one reason (let's not use issues as noted above) to go open is it makes it easier to accept change, and encourages innovation. Your flip side is going to be that you will lose creative control. And that latter case IMO is one that's tough for folks. Some will see it as an opportunity to pull in and curate the very best derivatives (the overlay Cyrik is making for ORS is downright sweet), and others will see it as a constant risk to the cohesion of their vision for the mod. Neither answer is right, but folks should not be surprised if someone decides they want to do the same thing in a different/better way.

There are things I don't like about KAS... and bits of code I would have preferred to just have rolled in, because it enhances the overall mod. But not really an option given it's licensing model (yes, I am aware I can still do a pull request... but call it a principle thing. IMO taking in modifications to a closed license mod is like having your cake and eating mine too). So choices. I'll just plink away at my own mod that grabs stuff and sticks stuff on things, because that's where I (again, my choice) feel there's a path to innovation.

[NathanKell]

I'd just like to point out, as I did on the KAS thread (although apparently no one concerned read it), that the issue of abandonment is rather overblown. Do I think even no-forks licenses should have abandonment clauses? Yes. Has it thus far hindered the usual punching bags of these threads, Majiir's mods? No.

Because--guess what--Majiir did actually care enough about the community to give folks leave to continue development.

So long as mod makers are, in practice, willing to help others, willing to share expertise (which matters a heck of a lot more than sharing code or assets), I think the practical upshot of our licensing policies is good. If the ability to choose more restrictive licenses gives mod makers the security to be freer with their help (or to show up at all) then I think they are worth the ideological cost even for hardened proponents of free software.

Finally, an interesting side point: if you really think the open model is better, if you really think that open projects are more dynamic and vibrant and long-lasting, why bother prohibiting closed ones*? Won't they just die out, be forgotten, be out-competed?

*Not, of course, that you can. Because you can't.

[m4v]

You know what I would do if users start telling me how should i release my mods? pick my ball and go home.

[fathed]

Nope, it's just people upset that KAS development and support is stalled.

While that's what I got my into the conversation, it's actually not the cause, the modstats mod (which I have nothing against) seems to have been the catalyst. That thread was locked, the issue appeared as a frustration in the KAS thread, and I responded with my opinions in that thread, but my opinions are more about licensing in general and not directly related to KAS. For me it's just an interesting topic of discussion, which doesn't need to be heated, as it's just peoples opinions.

@ferram4

Ahh, I see that now, well, that's why we have discussions, to find the flaws in our opinions.

One thing I noticed yesterday after jumping into the discussion, is there doesn't seem to be a list of mods and licenses. The requirement of having a license specified is newer than some of the mods. I sort of have a goal this weekend to see if I can scrap the forums and make a list with licenses, as I think having actual data directly related to the KSP mod scene would be handy with the discussion about licenses.

I also wonder how much of this is an issue due to hindsight... by that I mean, no one cared (no license was required, people probably had a lax respect for the default all rights reserved), then we had to care (cause spyware is bad), and then people got to work on competing mods due to licensing reasons. (I'm fine with modstats btw, giving mod devs info should mean better mods, the opt-in vs opt-out is a whole another topic that many people on the planet debate.) It's also interesting to me on a professional level, as the product I work on could have the exact same issue (although with only scripting, no dlls/etc).

Another thing I'm attempting but probably failing at, is I'm not attempting to suggest karbonite is better than kethane (heck, it probably wouldn't even exist if kethane did not), it's just those two mods seem to be the at the crux of the licensing issue.

I also find it interesting, when looking this up on games that are not KSP, what happens if someone submits a language pack to a restricted licensed mod, but the terms of that weren't clearly defined. Is it now the property of the first mod dev by the nature of the submission, is there an implied right granted to use those changes? How does that work for KSP mods, if I make a patch for More Struts (just an example), and that patch is accepted by the More Struts dev, what's my license to those changes I created?

Edit: I need to write faster... so many responses before I could respond to ferram4.

Edited August 30, 2014 by fathed

[ferram4]

Licenses have been required for a damn long time, and most of the mods that existed before licenses were required are dead and gone. They've been required for well over a year and a half now, and we've covered this stuff many times in that timeframe. It's not that people didn't care then and care now, it's just that it's that time again to rehash something that was already settled because new people arrived.

Edited August 30, 2014 by ferram4