Community Patch: License Discussion

[Pickysaurus]

There has already been plenty of discussion about how to license the Community Patch project on the Starfield Modding Discord and we believe it seems like a larger conversation that would benefit from a forum thread.

 

 

The Aim

 

Before we decide on a license, I feel it's important to lay out what we want to achieve. This should better inform the choices. The Community Patch is intended to be a collection of bugfixes to improve the quality of the base game, therefore it should be as open as possible so that parts of it can be reused or overwritten by other mods. The license should:

 

• Ensure that contributors are properly credited.
• Allow for parts of the patch the be included in or edited by other mods. While we'd prefer there to be one "main" Community Patch, this would also allow for derivatives. Direct derivatives (e.g. SCP - Cheaters Edition) should be required to share the same license of the original patch.
• The patch itself should be able to freely shared around (provided the license is respected), so it can be posted on Nexus Mods, Bethesda.net, Steam Workshop or any other applicable platform without issue.
• Mods that include parts of SCP or require it as a master should not be force to use the same license. We should ensure mod authors who want to have more control over their work are able to.
• Prevent the direct monetisation of the patch through methods such as paywalling.
• Be simple to understand!

If I've missed something here, let me know and I'll add it.

 

 

Current Recommendation

 

Dual License

Binary data (e.g. the plugin) will be shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Code (e.g. scripts) will be shared under GPL 3.0, with an adjustment to ensure that mods which use part of the patch or require it as a master can have closed permissions, if the mod author prefers that approach. (Possibly LGPL?)

 

 

Alternatives

 

This is a list of alternatives that have either been discussed and dismissed or require further investigation.

[BrainBlasted]

I personally think these choices are good, though Aixcalibur (https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/users/50030456) made a good point in a discussion on Discord: perhaps it would be a good idea to go full copyleft without exceptions in order to set a precedent?

[GrafPanzer]

Summarizing the conversation on Discord, it looks like CC BY-NC-SA is good, but LGPL may be the better choice for code.

[sp0ckrates]

Im curious about how to become a credited contributor. Where could I find out?

[scrivener07]

Repost from Discord.

Is there some document being formed yet which describes the licensing objectives we are after? I feel like trying to pick a license without a clear objective upfront is like a bottom-up approach when it might be better to go at this more top-down style.

 

This thread answers that. Here is an example start of a document that I had in mind.

# What if...

## I want to fork the entire SCP project?
answer/description here

## What if I want to forward a change from SCP into my own mod?
answer/description here

## I contribute to the SCP project, what does this entitle me to?
answer/description here

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I monetize my project?
answer/description here

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I opt my project into the Nexus Mods DP program?
answer/description here

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I accept direct donations?
answer/description here

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, must I make my source available?
answer/description here

etc etc..

What other points does anyone think would expand the document?

[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:

# What if...

## I want to fork the entire SCP project?

You must distribute your project under the same licenses.

## What if I want to forward a change from SCP into my own mod?
For the sake of giving back to the community after one has benefited from it, the CC-BY-NC-SA license requires that any work containing copyrightable material from the SCP must be distributed under the same license. However, there are exceptions when what you are borrowing from the SCP does not qualify for copyright.

You are free to distribute esp plugin changes that would be too small to qualify for copyright and are thus not protected by the CC license. These include typo fixes, added vanilla keywords, number changes, etc. However, you run into a grey area when you are forwarding a large number of changes, as the curation and collection of these small changes can qualify for authorship. This is similar to how you cannot copyright a single word, but when you collect a bunch of words into a text, that text qualifies for copyright.

Significant alterations and larger contributions to the patch such as new re-implementations of vanilla mechanics, and new records (such as NPCs, weapons, etc) do qualify for copyright. Thus if you forward these changes in your esp plugin, that plugin must be distributed under the CC-BY-NC-SA license as well.

If you are insistent on making a mod with closed permissions, it is entirely possible to make your mod and then distribute a patch that resolves conflicts between the SCP and your mod. This patch will have to inherit the CC-BY-NC-SA license, but your original work will not.

## I contribute to the SCP project, what does this entitle me to?
(No answer at the moment.)

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I monetize my project?
If your project simply depends on the SCP, but does not redistribute copyrightable material from the SCP licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, then any monetization of your project is not our concern, but you will probably run afoul of Bethesda's EULA which forbids accepting any form of compensation for creating mods.

If you do have copyrightable material in your project, then you must redistribute your work under the CC-BY-NC-SA license which forbids monetization.

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I opt my project into the Nexus Mods DP program?
No comment. (We are willing to turn a blind eye to the Nexus Mods Donation Points program just as Bethesda is.)

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, can I accept direct donations?
Yes, you can accept donations as they do not count as commercial.

## my project uses SCP as a dependency, must I make my source available?
Although open source is highly encouraged, you do not need to make your source available unless you are redistributing parts of the SCP scripts, modified or otherwise, which are protected by the GPL 3 license. In that case, all your code considered part of your project should be open source under the same license.

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.

[fftfan]

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.

(continued)

I just wanted to express agreement & support for this, well said. I am convinced that all of my concerns personally are well addressed here.

[Pickysaurus]

While I definitely see the value of "copyleft", I just feel anything the forces mod authors to use a particular license just won't work. If they directly use new meshes, textures, scripts, etc I can see that, but if they just reference them via master or forward simple value changes I see no reason to try and force them to open source their work.

[AratazarCroillac]

As long as the community patch is free and accessible for all the players/authors and it is not mandatory to use/create other mods, it's fine.

Edited June 16, 2023 by AratazarCroillac

[showler]

Your second point is likely impossible.