Aixcalibur

So, I am here to argue in favor of copyleft licenses listed in OP and clarify how I interpret these licenses. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 for binary data and assets, such as textures, models, and esp plugin files.GPL 3 for code, such as Papyrus scripts. I have some minor concerns about GPL 3.0 which may consider the esp as part of the project. However, for copyright purposes, binary data can be considered separate from code, I think. If GPL 3.0 cannot be used in this way, then we can use MPL 2.0 instead. Or we could argue really that textures, esp files, and other assets are perfectly editable in their in-game form and package the whole thing as GPL 3.0 and achieve all goals. Anyway, to answer the questions above: Now onto the question of why copyleft and not simply open-source like MIT, which I will order with pros, cons, and counter-arguments. PROS: > We are setting a precedent for the community right from the start and show solidarity for making the modding community about contributing rather than simply chasing clout. This is the best time we can make such a message and pressure people to follow suit without any notable consequences. > Copyleft protection using widely established licenses is the strongest protection against the project being co-opted by someone who does not have the community's best interests at hand. > The project can be forked at any time by anyone in the community and any contributions from the forks can be added back to the main project, unlike MIT projects where the new fork can be re-licensed under new terms that would not allow it to be added back. > Authors who do not want to abide by copyleft do have the option of providing patches instead. This is a compromise. CONS: > There will be backlash from authors who do not agree with copyleft practices. Counter: I actually see this as a bit of a pro, because closed permissions authors may become less likely to occupy a certain niche. The way it works is that if there's a big mod with closed permissions already, people are much less likely to make a replacement. However, at the start of a modding community, there is so much new blood that replacing disgruntled mod authors is really easy.> It makes it inconvenient for users if an author decides not to use the patch or make a patch of their own. Counter: At the start of a community, there are tons of people willing to make patches even if the original author does not do it themselves. Eventually, later on, we will have unified patching tools or simply more copyleft alternatives. Modding is becoming easier and more accessible than ever.> This goes against the spirit of a community patch to ostracize mod authors with different opinions. Counter: No license can satisfy everyone. Furthermore, I believe we are choosing the license that is best for the community. The community at large should be the main consideration for a community patch and copyleft will benefit the community in the long run. If anyone disagrees with contributing back to the community, they are free to avoid this patch. A community is made of reciprocal relationships. I'll add more as I think of them.

I agree with what's being said above. Limiting it to two hot files at a time is a good idea to me.