Discussion regarding unathorised forks of mods and their distribution

[Camacha]

Please take down x64-enabled FAR. You did not receive the author's permission, and just because his license lets you do this does not mean you should​ do this.

You obviously do not understand what a license means; it is permission. It is in every shape, way and form an irrevocable permission to do exactly what is happening in this thread. A license or contract is how grown ups give permission, and Ferram, Nathan and Chris have done this knowingly and willingly. It also means that you cannot change the rules when someone uses them in a way you did not see coming and do not like. In the real world, you agree to something and stand by it - no backsies. So please keep your worries and woes out of this thread - that station has been passed at the very moment the mod was published under said license.

Senshi has indicated he will monitor the issues that worry Ferram and take action when needed. I can only hope that this will not be necessary or that, when push comes to shove, Senshi will take the required action to mitigate Ferram's trouble as much as possible. Our revered mod makers have better ways of spending their time than to deal with people that do not read. I will stick to x86 because I value the opinions of said modders, but I wish the people experimenting with this version the best of luck.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Camacha

[kormer]

Senshi, thank you for doing this. I understand the risks involved and will report issues appropriately.

[joker169]

Senshi, would you consider adding Modular Fuel Tanks to your feature list for Win64 support? I have attempting doing it on my own and ran into alot of snags.

[DuoDex]

BIG FAT SCREWUP BELOW. READ THIS AT YOUR PERIL.

I don't really want to do this, but I'm going to go out on a limb here because of how incensed I am.

Forking FAR without ferram4's permission was a really, really bad idea. A really bad one. Certainly you have the legal ability to do so, but doing it without the author's permission, and against his wishes is just plain rude (and might result in a license change, so that if ferram4 disappears we can't fork FAR!). And rudeness is not encouraged in the community. I quote SQUAD:

The rules are enforced to maintain order and respect among Squad, the KSP community and the gaming community as a whole. It is important to recognize the many differences in backgrounds and skills present within the community and to strive for the highest levels respect towards one another at all times.

Striving for the highest levels of respect towards one another probably doesn't include deliberately pissing off one of the most respected modders in the community.

Also:

While we do allow dissenting opinions and encourage healthy and constructive debates, please remember to follow the rules and present them in a manner of suitable taste and respect. In other words, you don't go to your friend's house and start smashing their windows, so don't do something as equally offensive in ours.

The KSP Community is based of off respect. It's based off friendliness. It's based on us trying to help each other. It's based on our attempts to respect our peers' wishes to the best of our ability. I really think that you just crossed the line here. This mod does not respect the wishes of ferram4, the originator of FAR. Again, you certainly have the legal ability to do this, but if I'm correct what happened with RealChutes resulted in a license change precisely to prevent this sort of thing. And in one of the mods leaving the forums. You're risking that again here-no updates for FAR and any of ferram's other great mods!

On a side note: if Nathan is OK with you going on RealFuels go ahead. I feel that legality is a minor issue here-author permission should come first, as demonstrated with RealChutes. You can do things legally, but you don't know the consequences. The community has already gone through an author-license combat. I thought we learned our lesson. Let's not do it again.

Be respectful. Be polite. Be friendly. I'm trying to be all of these things and prevent yet more drama.

Edited October 31, 2014 by DuoDex

[undercoveryankee]

I can tell you the answer already: "hell no". Chris basically stopped maintaining his mod because of somebody who did exactly what you did: an unauthorized x64-enabled fork.

Please take down x64-enabled FAR. You did not receive the author's permission, and just because his license lets you do this does not mean you should​ do this.

You obviously do not understand what a license means; it is permission. It is in every shape, way and form an irrevocable permission to do exactly what is happening in this thread. A license or contract is how grown ups give permission, and Ferram, Nathan and Chris have done this knowingly and willingly. It also means that you cannot change the rules when someone uses them in a way you did not see coming and do not like. In the real world, you agree to something and stand by it - no backsies. So please keep your worries and woes out of this thread - that station has been passed at the very moment the mod was published under said license.

Senshi has indicated he will monitor the issues that worry Ferram and take action when needed. I can only hope that this will not be necessary or that, when push comes to shove, Senshi will take the required action to mitigate Ferram's trouble as much as possible. Our revered mod makers have better ways of spending their time than to deal with people that do not read. I will stick to x86 because I value the opinions of said modders, but I wish the people experimenting with this version the best of luck.

Even if the license allows a fork without individual permission, I would recommend that if the upstream author asks you to give your fork a different title, you do so whether the license requires it or not. If we can make a habit of giving each other a little extra courtesy in areas where it's hard to write a bright-line legal rule, it becomes an easier decision for authors to put new code under a more community-friendly license.

[Alshain]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this from simply distributing a fork, but I'm concerned this is just going to add to the confusion and make matters worse. While technically/legally there is nothing wrong with this I just feel like having two separate version of the same plugin is not the way.

Can't you just write a guide on how to recompile FAR/Real Fuels for others? The Visual Studio tools are free, the source is available. It's only a little work. I think that would be a better approach and would be less likely to have those that shouldn't be using the x64 version... using it.

[DuoDex]

Even if the license allows a fork without individual permission, I would recommend that if the upstream author asks you to give your fork a different title, you do so whether the license requires it or not. If we can make a habit of giving each other a little extra courtesy in areas where it's hard to write a bright-line legal rule, it becomes an easier decision for authors to put new code under a more community-friendly license.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this from simply distributing a fork, but I'm concerned this is just going to add to the confusion and make matters worse. While technically/legally there is nothing wrong with this I just feel like having two separate version of the same plugin is not the way.

Can't you just write a guide on how to recompile FAR/Real Fuels for others? The Visual Studio tools are free, the source is available. It's only a little work. I think that would be a better approach and would be less likely to have those that shouldn't be using the x64 version... using it.

I like Alshain's idea. Then we don't get the problem of angry mod authors, shutdown projects, legal drama, et cetera.

[Alshain]

I like Alshain's idea. Then we don't get the problem of angry mod authors, shutdown projects, legal drama, et cetera.

Well, I could care less about angry authors. You can't release under GPL and then not like people using the work as licensed. I respect what the authors do, but if they didn't want things like this they shouldn't have used that license.

My only concern is the fact that these carry the same name of mods that are still in active development, which is going to add to the confusion of the user base.

[NoPersona]

Add an advice to the OP on how to switch KSP into DX11 and OpenGL modes.

I haven't double checked with the release of 0.25, but with 0.24 the DX11 mode fell back to OpenGL. From what I can tell, Squad used a shader that was not DirectX 11 compatible.

[Raven.]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this from simply distributing a fork, but I'm concerned this is just going to add to the confusion and make matters worse. While technically/legally there is nothing wrong with this I just feel like having two separate version of the same plugin is not the way.

Can't you just write a guide on how to recompile FAR/Real Fuels for others? The Visual Studio tools are free, the source is available. It's only a little work. I think that would be a better approach and would be less likely to have those that shouldn't be using the x64 version... using it.

I very strongly agree with this idea; we do not want to alienate ferram.

[DuoDex]

Well, I could care less about angry authors. You can't release under GPL and then not like people using the work as licensed. I respect what the authors do, but if they didn't want things like this they shouldn't have used that license.

My only concern is the fact that these carry the same name of mods that are still in active development, which is going to add to the confusion of the user base.

My point was that happy authors are more productive than angry authors. *cracks whip*

[regex]

This will end well.

[Alshain]

My point was that happy authors are more productive than angry authors. *cracks whip*

True, I don't disagree there But they really have nothing to be angry about since it was their choice to release as GPL. It's like if I threw a cut of steak in front of a dog and then got angry at the dog for eating it. If I didn't want him to eat it, I shouldn't have put it in front of him.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Alshain

[RoverDude]

Well, I could care less about angry authors. You can't release under GPL and then not like people using the work as licensed. I respect what the authors do, but if they didn't want things like this they shouldn't have used that license.

I won't be surprised if you get your wish. Because we as a community can't seem to learn our lesson.

And this kind of attitude is why we can't have nice things.

[Alshain]

I won't be surprised if you get your wish. Because we as a community can't seem to learn our lesson.

And this kind of attitude is why we can't have nice things.

My wish? What wish is that?

All I'm saying is you can't lay down a set of rules and then get angry when people follow them. The license represents the rules to follow. My only attitude is a logical one, sorry to say it has been that way my whole life and it will not change.

What lesson is there for the community to learn? How to interpret mixed signals? It really can't be done.

[RoverDude]

My wish? What wish is that?

All I'm saying is you can't lay down a set of rules and then get angry when people follow them. The license represents the rules to follow. My only attitude is a logical one, sorry to say it has been that way my whole life and it will not change.

What lesson is there for the community to learn? How to interpret mixed signals? It really can't be done.

The lesson to be learned is to be courteous and respectful of modder's wishes. Unless we'd just prefer to get into defensive licensing. The OP got it half right... he asked, then promptly ignored said wishes when it did not suit him.

The 'nice thing' we now lose is open licensing (so we can avoid the situations we have now with TreeLoader and Planet Factory) because people can't seem to understand the difference between doing what's legal vs doing what's right.

So I am not debating your logic - it's technically correct, but in the greater scheme of things, neither neighborly nor effective

[Camacha]

And this kind of attitude is why we can't have nice things.

There is no attitude, there is no spite. Just people that made decisions and other people that are dealing with the concequences. If you sign a contract you can expect people to uphold it. No use complaining when the banks comes to take your money - it's a bit that was included in the contract you agreed with. You might not be happy with it and it would indeed be nice if your worries were to be taken into account, but that is about it.

But please, let's not do this here. This is not the time, nor place.

The lesson to be learned is to be courteous and respectful of modder's wishes.

A license is exactly that - a formal way of expressing your wishes. These are respected in any way.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Camacha

[madlemur]

Hey, it's all about gaming journalism integrity licensing triviata...

[Alshain]

The lesson to be learned is to be courteous and respectful of modder's wishes. Unless we'd just prefer to get into defensive licensing. The OP got it half right... he asked, then promptly ignored said wishes when it did not suit him.

But the license IS the author's wishes. Like I said, mixed signals. You can make any license you want, including a license that is "mostly" open but with restrictions. So if you don't want people to recompile and redistribute x64 versions then that needs to be in the license.

[RoverDude]

@Camacha, I think you're missing the point... see my post directly above yours. Granted, if that does not make sense, then I expect this community deserves exactly what it's about to get, and pretty much everyone is going to lose.

I wonder if, in the end, anyone is going to say 'yep, that was worth it'.

[Diazo]

Okay, can we all step back a second and breath?

I actually like how this thread is handling this and I see it as a good thing and here is why:

1) When a mod maker makes a decision on where to take their mod (any decision, not just the 64-bit issue), there will be a part of the community that disagrees with it.

2) That means people are going to make mods of mods to suit themselves and as we are an open mod community they have the right to distribute their mod of a mod (license allowing).

3) Therefore it is the the attitude of the person distributing the mod of a mod that matters. This thread is how to go about that the right way in my opinion. The author has made it clear what decision he disagrees with/why he's releasing this mod. He has also made it clear that all support for his version goes into this thread, not the original mod's thread. Therefore we should be supporting the tone of this thread regardless of if we agree or disagree with changes the thread is making.

Keeping a friendly and civil community that is worth being a part of means being friendly and civil even to those in the community that you disagree with and I can't think of a better tone the author of this thread could have taken to release then he did.

Now, to be clear that goes both ways. The previous attempts at releasing this type of mod were done in a very unfriendly and insulting way and therefore deserved the community coming down on them as they did. This thread though? While you may disagree with what the mod does, I see nothing insulting in how it has been done.

To play devil's advocate, why is Senshi wrong to enable FAR on 64 bit against ferram's wishes, and ferram not wrong for disabling 64-bit against Squad's stated wishes of cross-platform compatability?

D.

[RoverDude]

But the license IS the author's wishes. Like I said, mixed signals. You can make any license you want, including a license that is "mostly" open but with restrictions.

I know you're not that naive.

The OP asked Ferram his thoughts. He said NO. There were no mixed signals there.

If you wish to bandy forth on legalese, no point in engaging, you are absolutely 100% correct. But asking nicely, and being told no, then doing it anyway, is about common courtesy. So I maintain the OP was well within his legal rights - nobody is arguing that - but still pulled a jerk move after *ignoring* the answer to his request because it did not suit him.

I would have a lot more sympathy if the OP pled ignorance, but he does not even have that defense.

Legal vs. Right. Two very different things.

In any case, I expect the community will reap what it sows. And I expect you will see less license issues in the future.

[regex]

In any case, I expect the community will reap what it sows. And I expect you will see less license issues in the future.

I know that I, for one, if I ever decide to contribute to this "community" again, will be using an All Rights Reserved license because of crap like this. Just makes it easier.

[Alshain]

I know you're not that naive.

The OP asked Ferram his thoughts. He said NO. There were no mixed signals there.

In fact, That is the very definition of a mixed signal. He was contradicting his own license.

I would rather see more closed licenses than some corruption of open source. Open source is a principle you have to commit to, if you aren't willing, don't do it.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Alshain

[Camacha]

Granted, if that does not make sense, then I expect this community deserves exactly what it's about to get, and pretty much everyone is going to lose.

I wonder if, in the end, anyone is going to say 'yep, that was worth it'.

I feel that is the problem. You are making it into some sort of contest, a battle of wills. It's not. It's someone making things different, maybe better, in a way he feels is necessary. Senshi is not doing this to be annoying or make a point. He just wants to expand the love the modmakers put into their work. He has also explicitly said that he will pull the plug when Ferram or Nathan feel any negative consequences, so the fallout should be limited if things should go awry.

It's the very love for the work of the original authors that creates this issue. If no one cared for FAR or Real Fuels, people would not feel compelled to makes these changes. It is exactly the fact that they feel something is lacking in a major way that makes them take the initiative.

I know that I, for one, if I ever decide to contribute to this "community" again, will be using an All Rights Reserved license because of crap like this. Just makes it easier.

Well, remember that none of the issues we have seen until now are caused by any of these license problems. Maybe now we will see them, but anything before this was caused by other factors. The only real license issues we have seen were caused by the very reverse in Kragathea-gate.