Do text-only mod forks require a posted source code?

[Northstar1989]

I'm trying to fork a single part (a Mass Driver) from a much larger mod and re-release it as a rebalanced version of the part (with credit to the original author, of course). The mod is under a CDDL-1 license, which is a variant of open-source license, and explicitly allows re-distribution and modification of the "product", so long as credit is given to the original author and to anyone who made modifications to it...

See the following link for a more in-depth discussion:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98284-Creating-an-up-rated-version-of-the-Stanford-Torus-mod-Mass-Accelerator?p=1506431#post1506431

Anyways, since the mod part has no associated files that are not immediately human-readable: .EXE or .DLL files or such, and is just a .CFG file with some associated textures, I was wondering: what qualifies as meeting the forum rules for posting a source code?

According the the Wikipedia definition of a source code, it is a human-readable language for files created using a compiler, often in the form of a .TXT file. Since there were no files created using a compiler, and the mod part is ALREADY in the form of a .TXT file (of which a .CFG is just a variant), do I need to do anything besides post the modified part file, and possibly the original version before I made any modifications to it?

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Northstar

[CaptainKipard]

You're asking if you need to post source code for a config and textures? The obvious answer is no. This rule only applies if you're forking a plugin.

Anyway the word "fork" doesn't really apply if you're editing art assets and configs. That's not software. That's data.

[KasperVld]

I couldn't have phrased it better myself

Of course, it will still need a license (that doesn't conflict with the original license!)

[Northstar1989]

I couldn't have phrased it better myself

Of course, it will still need a license (that doesn't conflict with the original license!)

So if I re-release the part with the same license as the original version, it should be OK, right?

Regards,

Northstar

[Specialist290]

The specifics will depend on the terms of the license itself and / or the explicit permissions you've gotten from the creator (if any), but that's generally the case, yes.

[Northstar1989]

The specifics will depend on the terms of the license itself and / or the explicit permissions you've gotten from the creator (if any), but that's generally the case, yes.

The license is CDDL-1. Thinking about adding a link to it in the OP.

Does that help you answer my question?

Regards,

Northstar

[NathanKell]

Concur with Kasper concurring with Cpt. Kipard. The requirement for source is for plugins, not assets. Yes, if you release under the same license (CDDL-1), with attribution to the original developer, it will be fine.

Edited November 20, 2014 by NathanKell