Mod Licensing

[fathed]

@NathanKell

You're responses are the primary reason I figured we should move this out the KAS thread, people were discussing licensing, not KAS, just KAS is a hot topic so it sort of grew from there.

@ferram4 I did searches, it pretty much seems to stop at the Majiir thread, are there threads that we can link here. If this was discussed 6 months ago (I was on a KSP break then, and was just a lurker/consumer of mods prior), if we can link the threads then let's do that and lock this one, if that's what people feel is best.

In hindsight for myself, I wish I had learned about these threads 6 months ago, would have been handy for my job

[ian9018]

My stance on licenses is that here you are free to make your own choice and I think that is the best decision. When talking about licenses, like Android vs. iOs, they are both functional and viable choices for a number of reasons, but ultimately when trying to compare which is more or less "healthy" for a purpose, you run into the whole 'they are both fruit, but you cannot compare apples to oranges' thing

[ferram4]

I did searches, it pretty much seems to stop at the Majiir thread, are there threads that we can link here. If this was discussed 6 months ago (I was on a KSP break then, and was just a lurker/consumer of mods prior), if we can link the threads then let's do that and lock this one, if that's what people feel is best.

In hindsight for myself, I wish I had learned about these threads 6 months ago, would have been handy for my job

The vast majority of those threads were from much earlier than 6 months ago, but were lost in the Great April Forum Purge of 2013, and not many licensing discussions have happened since before then (largely because everything was handled, but for a few people who insisted on continually throwing flak at anyone considering licenses more restrictive than CC-BY-SA or GPL). Largely, it has all ended up going the way this one has, just taking longer, in general.

[boribori]

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.

So, problem solved, right? This is exactly why I switched from Kethane to Karbonite, and now I'm a happy gamer without having to attack any mod author.

If people don't like a mod's license they can stop using it. You can read the license before you start using a mod, so you know the risks regarding continuity.

I am all for open licenses for many reasons, and I will choose the software I use based on that. But I don't see why a developer cannot choose how he licences his own software.

I'm all for freedom, free software AND free choice.

[passinglurker]

eh I figure actually requiring a free licence sounds hypocritical.

I'll just vote with my feet instead. If free and open licences are as superior as I believe them to be then I don't need them to be mandated survival of the fittest will simply weed out the closed mods eventually.

but really I'm only preferring free licenses when it comes to code and thats only because I lack the skills to fend for myself when my favorite plugins go under otherwise I probably wouldn't care. I certainly don't care if art assets are restrictively licensed because I know my way around blender, unity, config files, and gimp enough that if squad some how broke the part or if there was something about it I wanted to change I could do it myself.

so really at the end of the day making more rules for others to live by is unnecessary instead just make your own rules to live by for yourself and stick to them maybe put them in your sig or something if you want to be vocal about it

[cybutek]

A mod author has the right to use whatever license he/she wants. But the choice is not always black and white or straight forward. The author may use a restrictive license as a means to tightly manage the progress and direction a mod takes, and to have better control over what is actually floating around in the ether. This of course comes with some downsides, such as being constantly committed to the project and carefully trawling through user feedback. If the author is not vigilent, the community won't get what they want and will just leave it. More than likely coming along and creating something that does it better as an open collaborative effort.

On the other hand, open licenses can have problems such as the possibility of many forks floating around, merge issues and just a big mess all over the place. But this allows the community to make a mod into what it wants, rather than what the author invisioned it to be. The probability of long term success of a mod is greatly increased with an open license in my opinion.

I always use open licenses of some form or another, not only because a bus may run me over one day. But because there's been a few times where something in my code has been overlooked or done in a rush. Instead of it staying how it was, there's been awesome members of the community that have taken it upon themselves to make it better. I can then merge their changes and it's all hunky-dory for the next release.

It should also be mentioned that what is stated in the license isn't the be-all and end-all. Even if a mod has a restricted license, it doesn't neccisserily mean that you cannot do anything with it. It just means that you require permission first. The author can give permission to anyone to do anything with their mod no matter what the license states, it is their property after all.

[Greys]

I find it important to point out that Squad, the authority in this situation; has no legal standing to demand anything regarding licensing as a whole. The only say they have is as mandates on a service; such as this forum and curse.

If Squad mandated that mods released on these forums required to have a license of certain attributes, people who disagree would simply post their mods in other places that Squad does not have authority over; such as Kerbal Stuff, other places on reddit, other forums, personal websites.

Not only is this Not A Problem, this is a situation for which no action can be taken.

If you dislike that a mod you use is closed licensed, go try to convince the maker of that mod why they should change using polite words and well constructed arguments. Do not be surprised if that author didn't particularly have a reason for being closed licensed, or if they have very strong personal reasons that you will never change. Many mods are ARR because the author didn't want to put in the effort to pick out the right license, and many mods are ARR because open licensing can be terribly problematic for the people who provide support.