Discussion regarding unathorised forks of mods and their distribution

[Camacha]

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.

It's worded a little bit harsher than I would like to when it comes to amazing folks like Ferram and Nathan, but I tend to agree.

[Alshain]

It's worded a little bit harsher than I would like to when it comes to amazing folks like Ferram and Nathan, but I tend to agree.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've been programming open source for a long time. Open source ideals were created with specific intents and It bothers me that people want to tear down that house of cards by twisting it into not open source simply by claiming "I'm the author and I don't like that".

[regex]

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.

I'm not arguing that. However, since we've dropped all pretense of being a "community" based on respect I find that to be the best course of action since it implicitly prevents people from going against my wishes.

[Camacha]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've been programming open source for a long time. Open source ideals were created with specific intents and It bothers me that people want to tear down that house of cards by twisting it into not open source simply by claiming "I'm the author and I don't like that".

I agree. I would not consider it a trivial or 'for fun' decision. I am pretty sure Ferram and Nathan know what they are doing when it comes to these things, but I noticed that a lot of people seem to consider the license as something unimportant - right up to the point where the thing suddenly matters.

I'm not arguing that. However, since we've dropped all pretense of being a "community" based on respect I find that to be the best course of action since it implicitly prevents people from going against my wishes.

There still is respect, loads of it really. Just a disagreement that people handle in different ways. The earlier RealChutes incident, yeah, that was a little more unpleasant than it really needed to be.

[Brucey]

Perhaps a rewording of some licenses are in order.

ex: This code may not be forked without written (digital or hard copy) consent of the original author. OR This mod may not be (or may only be) forked for ---- reason. All such forks shall remain the property of the original author and carry the same license. The original author reserves the right to revoke such consent at any time and for any reason. Absence clause: In the event the original author is absent from ---- forum/github for ---- period of time, this license shall revert to an "open source" license. etc...

I agree there's a distinction between "legal" vs "right", and I agree it's better to try and side with "right". But if the two don't match, that tells me there is a problem with how the licenses are worded.

[Diazo]

I'm not arguing that. However, since we've dropped all pretense of being a "community" based on respect I find that to be the best course of action since it implicitly prevents people from going against my wishes.

*wince*

And this is what I was afraid of. While the 64-bit issue is the current hot-button issue, there have been only a handful of people who have been insulting and hostile about it.

Compare that to the 2018 people currently browsing the forum when I refresh the main page, I think the silent majority of the community is vastly larger then the few people who have been making waves recently.

Over the lifetime of KSP, how much good has come from open licenses where people picked up dead mods and updated them for new versions? Added new features?

For me, while this spike in hostility is worrying, I would hope people could look past it and realize that it is only a very few people making these problems. A few very vocal people which is overshadowing the larger, quieter, and more reasonable community true, but still there is only very few of them.

D.

[Konnor]

I'm not arguing that. However, since we've dropped all pretense of being a "community" based on respect I find that to be the best course of action since it implicitly prevents people from going against my wishes.

People absolutely must follow your wishes, right?

Why?

[Guest]

Obviously because the developer matters more than the users. I do not subscribe to that philosophy. When I make something, I want it to be used. If someone want to derive off anything I made, no problem as long as I get credit. And I couldn't care less about anyone too stupid to use it properly.

IMO, restrictive licenses are BS and should be discouraged by Squad. Bohemia Interactive has this covered very well. It has a number of dedicated licenses (for ArmA, DayZ, TkOH, for example), that are fairly open as long as you're not trying to port between games (to allow that you need a custom license), and community is encouraged to use them for their content. It makes things easier for everyone, since almost all mods use those licenses, meaning neither mod authors nor users need to give it much thought. No legal crap, no drama, no confusion. ARR virtually ensures that a mod dies with it's developer, and as such should not be used, especially in mods that are vital dependencies of something else.

I say, this mod is the right and should be expanded. Discriminating 64bit users is wrong and leads to nowhere, as idiots who can't read will complain about the plugin not working anyway. Many community members are strongly against that, I'm happy that someone's got the balls (and time) to make a stand against this dumb practice. IMO, the modders who use the "64bit restriction" have brought it on themselves. It's ridiculous that 64bit users have to resort to this, but it's good that it appeared at last. Reasonable people need something like this.

Shame about the RealChutes license, I'm afraid this one isn't going to go easily. I suppose I'll just have to work with propulsive landings in RSS.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Guest

[Camacha]

For me, while this spike in hostility is worrying, I would hope people could look past it and realize that it is only a very few people making these problems. A few very vocal people which is overshadowing the larger, quieter, and more reasonable community true, but still there is only very few of them.

Who is making problems? That is the very attitude that might be causing problems. No one wants to make trouble or cause issues, and is willing to work with any problems that arise. It seems Senshi is trying to create anything but a conflict, but is just trying to find a different solution to the same problem.

[Camacha]

IMO, the modders who use the "64bit restriction" have brought it on themselves.

Let's be fair, Squad caused this by releasing a horribly instable build. Modmakers are only dealing with the cleanup.

Shame about the RealChutes license, I'm afraid this one isn't going to go easily. I suppose I'll just have to work with propulsive landings in RSS.

Some people might get mad at me for suggesting this, but the mod was released under a more open license until basically the last version. You can still use those older versions per their license for forks, though Chris has strongly requested not to do that.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Camacha

[regex]

People absolutely must follow your wishes, right?

Why?

When it comes to content I generated that I'm sharing with the community, I'd really like my wishes to be respected. If they're not, why should I continue sharing with the community?

Anyway, I've since learned that ferram4 didn't exactly say "NO", just that there is no "blessing" for this. Good day.

[Alshain]

I, for one, think that restrictive licenses are BS and should be discouraged by Squad. Bohemia Interactive has this covered very well. It has a number of dedicated licenses (for ArmA, DayZ, TkOH, for example), that are fairly open as long as you're not trying to port between games (to allow that you need a custom license), and community is encouraged to use them for their content. It makes things easier for everyone, since almost all mods use those licenses, meaning neither mod authors nor users need to give it much thought. No legal crap, no drama, no confusion. ARR virtually ensures that a mod dies with it's developer, and as such should not be used, especially in mods that are vital dependencies of something else.

I say, this mod is the right and should be expanded. Discriminating 64bit users is wrong and leads to nowhere, as idiots who can't read will complain about the plugin not working anyway. Many community members are strongly against that, I'm happy that someone's got the balls (and time) to make a stand against this dumb practice. IMO, the modders who use the "64bit restriction" have brought it on themselves. It's ridiculous that 64bit users have to resort to this, but it's good that it appeared at last. Reasonable people need something like this.

Shame about the RealChutes license, I'm afraid this one isn't going to go easily. I suppose I'll just have to work with propulsive landings in RSS.

I disagree with that. While I support open licenses, I also support the authors right to choose the license that is best for them. It is their work, it is their right.

[Senshi]

I can only repeat myself: None of you are aware in what manner and wording ferram answered my request. You might be surprised, but those three words I used ("ferram is not [okay with it]") do not properly summarize the lengthy and differentiated reply I got from ferram. I welcome discussions, but discussing things you have no idea about rarely is productive.

To hopefully better summarize ferram's reply, because that's what everyone is hyperventilating about: He does neither endorse nor support my endeavor, but also did not shut me down. He merely stated that he wants absolutely nothing to do with this thread and has little faith that the community will be able to keep FAR 64-related feedback to this thread, causing bug reports to spill over into his thread.

I have the utmost respect to the work he invested in FAR and fully understand the reasoning behind the Win64 shutdown, but I do not agree with it. Which is why I both am giving the community a chance by opening this thread and simultaneously warning it that any spillover that reaches the authors will cause me to shut it down again. I might be a naive idealist to have faith in the community of being able to stick to this, but I can't help myself there.

It's a bit disappointing, really, how you are inciting drama that simply does not exist. And most of you are getting carried away with making conclusions based on false assumptions.

What currently is happening is the Win64 community being shunned and demonized, simply for trying to be able to play as they were used to in KSP0.24. There are members of the community that have caused a great disruption, but some people seem to forget that those troublemakers are only a small subset of the Win64 players. A lot of us are quite nice guys which have few or no problems with Win64 (as with almost everything, only unhappy people tend to voice their opinions), and we just want to keep enjoying the benefits Win64 brings us. Personally, 32bit simply is no longer an option for me. Since the first 64bit hack came out, I got used to being able to play with all the memory-intensive mods that I love.

Simply suppressing any kind of mod support attempt for Win64 will not work. There are too many Win64 guys for this to be realistically possible, and harsh suppression only leads to angry and troublesome issues such as the "compatibiltiy checker blocker" or others. Basically it means that Win64 players will move "underground", having to "crack" their favorite mods in order to be able to play them. Which is not only a bit ridiculous, it also bears the risk of dividing the community, with players loathing authors and vice-versa. We already see the starts of such a toxic community forming, and I want to counteract it by proposing a mild compromise in the form of this thread.

Regarding the How-To:

All I do in my recompiles is changing a single line in the Compatibility checker:

        public static bool IsWin64()
        {
            return false;
            // return (IntPtr.Size == 8) && (Environment.OSVersion.Platform == PlatformID.Win32NT);
        }

This is easy enough to do, but I see no reason why every Win64 player should be forced to set up VisualStudio/MSBuild, learn to fork on github, apply the necessary changes and set everything up for recompiling. Doing all that is far from trivial for non-coders.

[Diazo]

Who is making problems? That is the very attitude that might be causing problems. No one wants to make trouble or cause issues, and is willing to work with any problems that arise. It seems Senshi is trying to create anything but a conflict, but is just trying to find a different solution to the same problem.

Oops, I was actually referring to the previous 64-bit enablers that were not done with any sort of civility. (The topic has drifted on us to the situation in general with other mod makers talking about changing their licenses.)

This thread and how Senshi has done it would be the thread I hold up as an example of how to release a mod of a mod that disagrees with a decision the original mod maker has made.

D.

edit after thread split: The thread I'm referring to as the way to do a mod of a mod politely is found here.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Diazo

[Guest]

Now do a tutorial on setting up MVS, forking from GitHub and setting up the environment for recompiling. This is still far more than a normal user would like to go through every time a plugin is updated.

I'd say, the best solution is just to drop the practice. Remove the check from CC, shake hands and forget all the drama. As demonstrated multiple times, 64bit checks help no one and just cause problems and bad blood.

[Camacha]

When it comes to content I generated that I'm sharing with the community, I'd really like my wishes to be respected. If they're not, why should I continue sharing with the community?

I might better let this go, but I feel that is a bit of a non sequitur. The fact that people fork you work in a way that you do not agree with does nothing to detract from the work itself, or the pleasure people are having with it. That someone disagrees with you does not make the whole endeavour without merit.

I can see you are feeling strongly about this, but really hope that you also see that people are not opposing the mod maker's wishes for the sake of it. If you still feel that strong about your wishes being respected, then sure, a closed source license might be better suited for your work.

[madlemur]

"shunned"... "demonized"...

Seems incongruous to use those words while asking others not to incite drama. From all I can tell, nobody has anything against 64-bit users (except perhaps the folks at Unity), as 64-bit users. The problem comes into play because of the confluence of Unity-based bugs in the 64 bit version (see previous parenthetical), Squad's release of said 64-bit version (despite the "hey, this is experimental" tag), and bog standard customer support issues (people en-masse are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing troglodytes who are lucky they can feed themselves). That's the source of the problem. The accelerants are the dust-up around an arrogant and poorly handled flaunting of the licenses (see also the version checker dust-up), and the apparent forgetfulness of some users, who think that modders can/should/will continue to volunteer the herculean effort to make and support these fine add-ons when they have to deal with the fall-out from the original problem (buggy 64-bit app) despite their own efforts to shield themselves from it.

[DuoDex]

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

HON HON HON HON..hon?

I suddenly feel like the friendly practice of continuing much-loved mods after the authors have left will disappear due to this.

Basically, if this stuff keeps happening, regardless of whether it's legal, "right" or whatever, authors will start using "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" to avoid this crap. And then when the authors have to leave, people can't pick it up and keep going. I'm not looking at this idea in particular, more at the general community.

Anyways, I certainly misinterpreted your statement Senshei. I have a revised opinion: the moment x64 support requests appear in ferram's megathread is the moment your x64 recompile is no longer distributed. It's fair to give it a chance-it's unfair to continue it if it has blown its chance.

Edited October 31, 2014 by DuoDex

[KasperVld]

I split these posts from the Win64 Enabled: FAR 0.14.3.2 | Real Fuels 8.1 thread. Please be mindful of what that topic was about: releasing an add-on that follows all the rules we currently have. This discussion does not belong in that thread so it'd be appreciated if you could keep it here or perhaps in another thread where the discussion is on-topic.

[Camacha]

This used to be a clever and insightful comment, now it's just a tribute.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Camacha

[DuoDex]

Again, that station has passed when the mods were posted under their current licenses. No use to mull over it now.

I took it down lol. I reread my post after posting and decided it was basically flaming. You ninja'd me.

[Camacha]

I took it down lol. I reread my post after posting and decided it was basically flaming. You ninja'd me.

I edited it for you.

[Senshi]

Hello ferram,

I was in contact with Nathan recently regarding self-compiling a Win64-enabled version of Real Fuel. As I already did this for FAR as well and I have been approached by a number of people asking if I would send them those .dlls privately (email), I came up with the suggestion that I create a new thread (in Addon Releases, probably?) where I offer recompiled versions of Real Fuels. Obviously making it very clear that all issues and queries regarding that version have to be posted at "my" thread and not the RF megathread.

Nathan gave his OK to that.

Now I'd like to get your OK on offering a x64 bit version of FAR (and maybe NEAR as well in the future) in that same thread.

The idea is to encourage a x64 "self-help group" there, with bug reports only being carried to your/the main thread when it has been confirmed that it actually is reproducible on 32bit KSP as well.

best regards

Senshi

You're free to go ahead with it, the license certainly allows it. If you're looking for a blessing on enabling it on win64 builds, you're not gonna get it; the bug reports will still come to me, after all, everyone will figure out that you're not the one with the power to change the code. It will simply lead to the "blame FAR / NEAR for win64 build bugs," just like it did in 0.24, and even with you trying to act as a middleman the damage will still be done. It doesn't matter how much you try to convince them to keep the mess to your thread, they won't listen. No one reads those things anyway.

If you go through with this, I'm not providing support for any issues your users run into, nor any acknowledgement that your fork runs on win64. I don't want to hear anything about any bugs you guys find, whether due to FAR or win64; as far as I'm concerned, they don't exist.

We disabled mods on win64 builds for a reason. I see no reason to sanction attempts around that beyond what I must allow due to the license.

-ferram4

Hello,

pity I don't have your blessing on this. I'l give it a try nevertheless, but if this really causes a spillover from x64 issues coming back to you, I'll remove it again. While I do not agree with it, I respect your decision and only because the license allows it I don't want to step around your intentions. I guess I'm still full of naive hope that the users will be smart enough to follow directions and we will reach a glorious new age of harmony.

best regards

Senshi

Given the flamewar going on in that thread, you've got my explicit permission to post my initial PM response to you there as clarification if you think it will help; the main reason I'm saying this is so that you don't run head-first into rules against publicly stating private messages or something of that sort.

Also, I do think that your hope is somewhat naive, unfortunately. It's just been my experience.

-ferram4

Now you at least have some facts to refine your assumptions on how much I insulted ferram with my actions.

[Camacha]

I guess that's all that can be said about it. It's clear, so now we just need to wait to see what happens. I understand where Ferram is coming from and admire the patience he has shown already, and truly hope it does not need to be tested further.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Camacha

[DuoDex]

Now you at least have some facts to refine your assumptions on how much I insulted ferram with my actions.

OK. Apologies for some my previous near-flaming comments. It's good to see that some people, unlike me, still know how to be polite. *mocking grin*

I stick to my theory that the moment an x64-related bug report from your recompile pops up in the FAR/NEAR megathread the addon you made goes down.