Discussion regarding unathorised forks of mods and their distribution

[regex]

True. On the other hand this prevents problems such as those with the TreeLoader. If the author disappears it's better to have an open license.

There are no "problems" with TreeLoader, the license works as intended. It's neither better nor worse, subjectively, to use an open or closed license. That is entirely the author's domain and no one else has any say in the matter, so long as the source is viewable.

[Master Tao]

Ad author's wishes: You don't have to offer your seat in public transportation to the elderly but it's decent to do so.

Depends on where you are. U.S. Federal Law requires it for some seats, but some people will also offer their seat even if it's not one of those seats:

Priority seating is usually found near the doors of the train and is identified by signs just above the priority seat. Federal Law requires that priority seats be reserved for seniors and customers with disabilities.

@WaveFunctionP:

Again, it's a case of must vs. should.

For example, it appears you've stopped actively developing Interstellar Lite. Is that because you were required to stop, or because you thought you should stop?

@regex:

While there are no problems with TreeLoader's license, there are clearly problems with TreeLoader – it no longer works as originally intended.

[regex]

While there are no problems with TreeLoader's license, there are clearly problems with TreeLoader – it no longer works as originally intended.

Then stop using the software. Either way, it's no one else's business besides the author's how it was licensed pursuant to the agreement to advertise it here on this site.

[Master Tao]

Then stop using the software. Either way, it's no one else's business besides the author's how it was licensed pursuant to the agreement to advertise it here on this site.

Haven't used it myself in months, and I never said it was anyone else's business. Clearly r4m0n didn't want to use open licenses anyway, but other modders are now moving towards more restrictive licenses which make it more difficult to maintain those functions. That's bad for users, who should collectively ensure that modders feel comfortable using open licenses if they choose to.

[technion]

There's nothing to keep you from contacting, possibly anonymously, a few technological websites to point this out to them, right?

The fact I'm just one guy, who's holding a letter with this wording:

Any reference made to (product), (companyname), (company trading name), (company owner), (board of directors), in relation to this matter will be immediately responded to using all legal avenues available. (legal firm) remind you that this can be expected to include a civil suit filing .... all legal costs including protracted discovery ... corporate libel damages in the amount of $140,000,000.

We refer the recipient to (case) in which (names of lawyer, QC) successfully set the precedent in this matter.

means that would probably be a bad, bad idea. It's one of those situations where, even if the law was on your side, you could fight the case only to wind up victorious, but bankrupt and destitute.

Enterprise security has very little to do with well written security protocols and everything to do with legal teams. Hell, just look at the amateur hour security on Australian Government websites.

[mcirish3]

I see quick 'recipe' at post #38, release thread.

Not real obvious if you don't read the whole thread, but it's there.

Hmm yep, totally missed that. (face to palm) Doesn't really negate anything I have said but I will have to give it a try since I think I can follow those instructions. If I don't think it is hard( after trying) then there may be some hope that it will work as a solution. I think some refinement and some screen shots might add something to it if it was made into a sticky, and all that... I may even give it a go in a separate thread if I can find the time. ( I have four children under 5, they tend to make you feel like you have ADD and ADHD at all times

Remember when I said this^

Well I did this:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99485-General-tutorial-for-removing-WIN64-KSP-Denial-of-access-code-from-mods

[sumghai]

I maintain relatively open licences for my add-ons, mainly to allow others to continue my work if I am no longer available, but also to permit sensible derivatives (such as alternative texture packs).

My policy is simple - unofficial forks, repacks for modpacks or even unaltered versions from download locations I don't personally maintain are ineligible for support.

[John FX]

It really is the responsibility of the person who decides the license for a mod to decide a license that is the right one for how they wish their mod to be treated.

Saying that, nobody can foresee every eventuality.

Maybe a standard `No activity on this mod from the author in a six month period allows forking and mod continuation under a new name` clause (rewritten in legalese) could be added which would allow people to continue a mod that has `fallen by the wayside` but stop people forking an active mod against the implicit or explicit wishes of the author?

EDIT : for things like texture packs for a mod, maybe use a similar license to the one SQUAD has that allows mods on their game (texture packs for the mod) but does not allow the game itself to be changed?

Edited November 11, 2014 by John FX

[DuhMedic]

Well I, for one, am grateful for forks such as this. I am rather annoyed that authors lock their mods. Could always just say (64bit version of this mod is currently unsupported) and just leave it alone. It's squads fault mods have bugs in 64 bit. Cool. I play 64bit JUST FINE with my mods and have NO issues other than the god forsaken ram limit on 32bit. None. At all. Ever. It runs just fine. That ONE rare occasion that I have a memory leak and the thing crashes is just that: RARE. Seriously. It's taken us almost 12 years to transition to 64bit computing because people are too freaking scared to try something new. 64bit is real, and it NEEDS to happen. That 4gig memory cap is stupid. Seriously stupid. I'm using no less than 7 gigs of ram for KSP and I don't like playing it without those mods. If I knew how to 64bit enable them myself I'd do it, but I don't know how. (Wanna show me to a place where I can learn how? THANK YOU.) At the moment, however, I'm stuck relying on kind people like this to do the work for me. I WANT to use all these great mods by great, inventive developers but they are restricting their audience. We aren't people that THINK we need 64bit. It's a reality that we DO need it. It's not some illusion because we simply go back. We aren't drug addicts. We're pushing a restricted program to its limits and you're not helping the problem. WE should be breaking the game so squad has more incentive to fix those cracks. There is no real reason to lock them. If you want to withdraw support for it, fine. I'll figure out the kinks myself. But don't restrict my gameplay simply because you don't want to pay attention to that end of it. I'll get over it. I just want to play the friggen game. And I want to make it better with YOUR mods. So just LET me.

[Greys]

Well I, for one, am grateful for forks such as this. I am rather annoyed that authors lock their mods. Could always just say (64bit version of this mod is currently unsupported) and just leave it alone. It's squads fault mods have bugs in 64 bit. Cool. I play 64bit JUST FINE with my mods and have NO issues other than the god forsaken ram limit on 32bit. None. At all. Ever. It runs just fine. That ONE rare occasion that I have a memory leak and the thing crashes is just that: RARE. Seriously. It's taken us almost 12 years to transition to 64bit computing because people are too freaking scared to try something new. 64bit is real, and it NEEDS to happen. That 4gig memory cap is stupid. Seriously stupid. I'm using no less than 7 gigs of ram for KSP and I don't like playing it without those mods. If I knew how to 64bit enable them myself I'd do it, but I don't know how. (Wanna show me to a place where I can learn how? THANK YOU.) At the moment, however, I'm stuck relying on kind people like this to do the work for me. I WANT to use all these great mods by great, inventive developers but they are restricting their audience. We aren't people that THINK we need 64bit. It's a reality that we DO need it. It's not some illusion because we simply go back. We aren't drug addicts. We're pushing a restricted program to its limits and you're not helping the problem. WE should be breaking the game so squad has more incentive to fix those cracks. There is no real reason to lock them. If you want to withdraw support for it, fine. I'll figure out the kinks myself. But don't restrict my gameplay simply because you don't want to pay attention to that end of it. I'll get over it. I just want to play the friggen game. And I want to make it better with YOUR mods. So just LET me.

Good job not reading this thread at all, and not knowing anything about what you're talking about, we're definitely going to respect your opinion just as much as you respect us.

I'm not going to begin to explain why you're wrong because it's already been done many times in this and many other threads, also you won't learn.

Anyways, welcome to the community, I hope you enjoy the modders who have now blacklisted you from any and all support period.

[vexx32]

Please keep things civil, folks. This is starting to become unnecessarily heated, on both sides of the discussion.

Discuss this all you want, but try to keep it calm and rational, and let's not go around making personal attacks, hm?

Edited January 10, 2015 by vexx32

[artwhaley]

I just came up with a brilliant idea to help all sides in this discussion! Here's my plan:

Step 1. All Mod Makers enable the 64 bit version of their mod, whether it works well or not. If it doesn't work well, post that it's not supported in the forum thread. Same with prerequisites- the mod maker just lists them.

Step 2. Anyone who wants support for a problem with a mod, or who wants to publicly complain about it not working sends the maker $50.00 via paypal.

Step 3. If the mod maker determines the problem is related to the user not reading the first post and trying to use the mod on 64 bit, or failing to install the prerequisites clearly listed... the mod maker keeps the money.

Step 4. If the user has a legitimate problem with a supported install, then they get support and then they get their money back after politely thanking the mod maker and maybe leaving rep.

Everyone wins!

[steve_v]

On the good faith assumption you are not just trolling:

Who is going to police such a system? Asking for money is a huge can of worms.

I doubt it would improve the SNR in mod threads anyway, since somebody will still have to sift through a bunch of 64bit bugs. Preventing this is the whole point of the exercise.

People still won't read the OP, and will complain even more loudly when they discover there's a price attached.

The status quo: From the users point of view, just replace the monetary concern with effort.

Step 1: You want to run mods on the unstable Win64 build? learn how to compile a mod & maybe a little bit of C# along the way.

Step 2: You now have the experience to triage your own problems rather than wasting mod authors time & filling productive threads with noise.

Step 3: Profit from your newfound knowledge by finding real bugs, or even go to the next level and develop your own mods.

Step 4: Help others to do the same.

Edited January 10, 2015 by steve_v

[vexx32]

Aye. If there starts being any money being thrown about, we might run into legal issues; I personally don't think it's worth that kind of trouble.

There isn't really a solution to this problem, in my mind. I think we're going to end up having to sit tight and wait until Unity 5's release and the subsequent upgrade for KSP it will (hopefully) be... though I'm sure it'll come with its own quirks; no code is ever free of bugs, seemingly.

[steve_v]

no code is ever free of bugs

Amen, recon there's an eponymous law for that somewhere.

Vexx's law, anyone?

Edited January 10, 2015 by steve_v

[Camacha]

On the good faith assumption you are not just trolling:

People call every joke or opinion a troll nowadays. It seems few people actually know what the word means.

[steve_v]

"A posting designed to attract predictable responses or flames" (catb.org). IMO suggesting that people annoyed about the 64bit lockout should pay for the privilege of complaining could well fit the definition.

If not taken in good faith, such could also be seen as a "specious argument" potentially for the purpose of annoying someone. (again catb.org & yes, I am that old )

OFC, given the current ambient temperature around the issue, almost anything could be used to incite flames in this thread...

Edited January 10, 2015 by steve_v

[Camacha]

If not taken in good faith

There is your problem, you lost faith

[steve_v]

Yeah, and $50 per incident did seem a tad steep to me , just sayin.

[artwhaley]

"A posting designed to attract predictable responses or flames" (catb.org).

Apparently it wasn't designed well enough to attract predictable responses, as I never thought anyone would think I was serious. Jesus people. $50?

I was trying to provoke a laugh on the issue... And point out that it's really unreasonable to expect a modder to do anything beyond what they're willing to do. Modders put in dozens if not hundred of hours working for other people's enjoyment, and it's just offensive when people come at them from a position of entitlement. I was trying to use humor to point out that the modder doesn't work for the user... if you realize you DIDN'T send a gift card to your favorite modder, but you still made a bunch of demands on him... you should notice that it's one-sided.

ANOTHER JOKE TO ILLUSTRATE THIS ISSUE- If I want to design my mod to only be run by people whose name begins with Q, I will... and the correct and decent response is for all of the people whose name begins with Q to say thank you, and for everyone else to either go on with their lives, develop a mod that works with their name, or go legally change their name to Quincy. So if you're on a supported platform for a mod, say thanks, if you're not... either don't play it or install Linux. It's free and runs from a thumb drive.

And crap, now I've waded into this issue when I really just wanted to make a little joke. Change your name to Quincy. And I'm from henceforth only allowing forks of my mods if your fork's name includes Billy Idol lyrics.

Edited January 10, 2015 by artwhaley

[passinglurker]

I wonder if thumb drive bootable ksp playing linux distro is a viable alternative to all this win64 nonsense...

[ratchet freak]

I wonder if thumb drive bootable ksp playing linux distro is a viable alternative to all this win64 nonsense...

I'm just waiting on someone to mirror wine so we could play KSP 64 linux on windows

[steve_v]

I wonder if thumb drive bootable ksp playing linux distro is a viable alternative to all this win64 nonsense...

In theory it shouldn't be all that hard, there are plenty of USB bootable distros around, but "thumb drive" performance is typically pretty bogus, so you'd want to put KSP on a real HDD/SSD.

[Camacha]

but "thumb drive" performance is typically pretty bogus, so you'd want to put KSP on a real HDD/SSD.

In a general sense you are right, though most good quality (meaning expensive) USB 3 thumb drives with proper cells and controllers actually get pretty good performance, typically on par with HDD's. Some thumb drives even use a SSD controller. That being said, you can hardly go wrong using a real hard drive instead.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Camacha

[technicalfool]

In theory it shouldn't be all that hard, there are plenty of USB bootable distros around, but "thumb drive" performance is typically pretty bogus, so you'd want to put KSP on a real HDD/SSD.

I guess the problem is legality. Linux is FOSS, KSP is not. I can't speak for Squad here, but if someone were to create a "boot to KSP" iso file that contained a stripped-down Linux, some minimal desktop environment that you can boot into with a key combination, support for Intel, ATI and Nvidia GPUs baked-in, and a copy of the KSP demo, then it's another way of getting more copies of KSP out there. Bonus points for having a "install full KSP" games-console-easy wizard with a button on the desktop. Either copy from an existing installation (thus being able to make boot-to-modded-KSP drives), extract from a zip, or purchase from the store.

Speed is still an issue. However, KSP's "load ALL the things" approach might be an advantage there. It only has to load it once, and then the whole game is in RAM. You'd also need to have the distro put the game's save and screenshot and GameData locations off in non-volatile storage somewhere, which could be done with clever partitioning and linking, but that's getting beyond a simple "burn the ISO and boot from it" install and into a "run this application and let it mess about with a blank USB drive" installation.

Edit: Oh yeah, and the game logs too. Maybe just put the whole game into a non-volatile partition. Ho hum.

Edited January 12, 2015 by technicalfool