SKSE

[NCRForever]

 

 

The problem is is that most of the people who are offering to help think this is as simple as knowing C++ and how to compile code. That's barely even going to scratch the surface of the work that actually needs doing and for some reason people just aren't getting that.

 

Again, this needs a skill set only a handful of people in this community have, and as said before, those people are already on the team.

Arthmoor, you are conveniently forgetting the fact that one person DID make a WORKING fork. But, the SKSE team had it shut down. They supposedly gave him an option to join the team or cease and desist. Apparently he chose to discontinue his project. I really don't think an option was given. I mean think about it: If you could make a fork of SKSE and the team offered you a place on their legendary team, wouldn't you accept it? I know I would. But, anyways. Even if another person was to make another fork, BeHippo and the team would just have it shut down again.

 

I have been a staunch supporter of the SKSE team over the years. I've even defended their right to postpone and even kill the program off if that's their choice. But, with that said, I feel that if a fork is made, then people should just let it happen. That's just my 2cents for what it's worth.

 

 

If there's a deal between the SKSE team and Beth then a fork would totally break any terms of that deal. And having SKSE on steam I'd think is a pretty good indication of there being a sort of deal with the game devs.

 

I don't know about that. What I do know, is that about 98% of people are losing hope and BeHippo and the team seem to not give a darn. There's something going on under the sheets that none of us see or know. Even though I'm a staunch supporter, I think the team needs to step up and say SOMETHING. Even if it's just to tell us to STFU.

[kthompsen]

 

The problem is is that most of the people who are offering to help think this is as simple as knowing C++ and how to compile code. That's barely even going to scratch the surface of the work that actually needs doing and for some reason people just aren't getting that.

 

Again, this needs a skill set only a handful of people in this community have, and as said before, those people are already on the team.

Arthmoor, you are conveniently forgetting the fact that one person DID make a WORKING fork. But, the SKSE team had it shut down. They supposedly gave him an option to join the team or cease and desist. Apparently he chose to discontinue his project. I really don't think an option was given. I mean think about it: If you could make a fork of SKSE and the team offered you a place on their legendary team, wouldn't you accept it? I know I would. But, anyways. Even if another person was to make another fork, BeHippo and the team would just have it shut down again.

 

I have been a staunch supporter of the SKSE team over the years. I've even defended their right to postpone and even kill the program off if that's their choice. But, with that said, I feel that if a fork is made, then people should just let it happen. That's just my 2cents for what it's worth.

 

 

I'm curious... why did they make a fork in the first place? What was it for? SE or some variation the LE version?

[NCRForever]

 

 

The problem is is that most of the people who are offering to help think this is as simple as knowing C++ and how to compile code. That's barely even going to scratch the surface of the work that actually needs doing and for some reason people just aren't getting that.

 

Again, this needs a skill set only a handful of people in this community have, and as said before, those people are already on the team.

Arthmoor, you are conveniently forgetting the fact that one person DID make a WORKING fork. But, the SKSE team had it shut down. They supposedly gave him an option to join the team or cease and desist. Apparently he chose to discontinue his project. I really don't think an option was given. I mean think about it: If you could make a fork of SKSE and the team offered you a place on their legendary team, wouldn't you accept it? I know I would. But, anyways. Even if another person was to make another fork, BeHippo and the team would just have it shut down again.

 

I have been a staunch supporter of the SKSE team over the years. I've even defended their right to postpone and even kill the program off if that's their choice. But, with that said, I feel that if a fork is made, then people should just let it happen. That's just my 2cents for what it's worth.

 

 

I'm curious... why did they make a fork in the first place? What was it for? SE or some variation the LE version?

 

It wasn't a fork actually. Someone just decided to make SKSE64 themselves and it worked. But, when BeHippo and the team found out, it got shut down. If you do a Google search for SKSE64 - Sourceforge you'll find it. But, it's no longer available for download.

Edited August 10, 2017 by NCRForever

[Reneer]

It wasn't a fork actually. Someone just decided to make SKSE64 themselves and it worked. But, when BeHippo and the team found out, it got shut down. If you do a Google search for SKSE64 - Sourceforge you'll find it. But, it's no longer available for download.

It says not to work or modify SKSE, right in the SKSE ReadMe:

* Can I modify and release my own version of SKSE based on the included source code?

- No; the suggested method for extending SKSE is to write a plugin. If this does not meet your needs, please email the contact addresses listed below.

And it sure looks like a "fork" if you go and check the Github page for "SKSE64". Basically the person just copied all the SKSE source code and worked on it themselves.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Reneer

[NCRForever]

 

It wasn't a fork actually. Someone just decided to make SKSE64 themselves and it worked. But, when BeHippo and the team found out, it got shut down. If you do a Google search for SKSE64 - Sourceforge you'll find it. But, it's no longer available for download.

It says not to work or modify SKSE, right in the SKSE ReadMe:

* Can I modify and release my own version of SKSE based on the included source code?

- No; the suggested method for extending SKSE is to write a plugin. If this does not meet your needs, please email the contact addresses listed below.

And it sure looks like a "fork" if you go and check the Github page for "SKSE64". Basically the person just copied all the SKSE source code and worked on it themselves.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter if it was a fork or not. The guy had it working. So, if one guy can get it working, why can't the SKSE team get it working? As for that quote by the SKSE team, it makes no sense. The source code for SKSE is readily available. When a source code is available, anyone has the right to modify or branch their own. The code isn't closed source.

 

Then this quote:

 

 

 

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

 

 

There's nothing on their OWN page that says that it can't be modified or forked. Nor is there any type of copyright on it. Anyways, just food for thought.

[Reneer]

Anyway, it doesn't matter if it was a fork or not. The guy had it working. So, if one guy can get it working, why can't the SKSE team get it working? As for that quote by the SKSE team, it makes no sense. The source code for SKSE is readily available. When a source code is available, anyone has the right to modify or branch their own. The code isn't closed source.

You're confusing "readable" and "open-source". Simply because the source code is readable doesn't mean the code is also open-source. You can read a book but you aren't allowed to copy it and build off of it.

 

Then this quote:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

There's nothing on their OWN page that says that it can't be modified or forked. Nor is there any type of copyright on it. Anyways, just food for thought.

 

Yes, it just says it in their ReadMe / FAQ file, which is included with every download of SKSE. Hell, you can view that ReadMe file from their website using this link, which is contained on the main SKSE page.

 

And the copyright symbol doesn't need to be displayed, anywhere, for the SKSE team to still own copyright over the work. The copyright symbol has been optional since March 1, 1989.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Reneer

[NCRForever]

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter if it was a fork or not. The guy had it working. So, if one guy can get it working, why can't the SKSE team get it working? As for that quote by the SKSE team, it makes no sense. The source code for SKSE is readily available. When a source code is available, anyone has the right to modify or branch their own. The code isn't closed source.

You're confusing "readable" and "open-source". Simply because the source code is available / readable doesn't mean the code is open-source. You can read a book but you aren't allowed to copy it and build off of it.

 

Then this quote:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

There's nothing on their OWN page that says that it can't be modified or forked. Nor is there any type of copyright on it. Anyways, just food for thought.

 

Yes, it just says it in their ReadMe / FAQ file, which is included with every download of SKSE. Hell, you can view that ReadMe file from their website using this link, which is contained on the main SKSE page.

 

And copyright doesn't need to be displayed, anywhere, for the SKSE team to still own copyright over the work.

 

By law, if something is copyrighted, it must be visible. If it's not and someone copies, modifies or releases their own version, there's no way to recover damages. But, I'm not going to argue about any of this. It's all moot. I still support BeHippo and the team 100% on whatever they decide to do.

[Reneer]

By law, if something is copyrighted, it must be visible. If it's not and someone copies, modifies or releases their own version, there's no way to recover damages. But, I'm not going to argue about any of this. It's all moot. I still support BeHippo and the team 100% on whatever they decide to do.

No, it doesn't need to be visible. See this circulation from the U.S. Copyright Office on the matter.

 

Specifically:

[T]he 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act, which amended the law to make the use of a copyright notice optional on copies of works published on and after March 1, 1989.

The omission of notice does not affect copyright protection, and no corrective steps are required if the work was published on or after March 1, 1989.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Reneer

[NCRForever]

 

By law, if something is copyrighted, it must be visible. If it's not and someone copies, modifies or releases their own version, there's no way to recover damages. But, I'm not going to argue about any of this. It's all moot. I still support BeHippo and the team 100% on whatever they decide to do.

No, it doesn't need to be visible. See this circulation from the U.S. Copyright Office on the matter.

A standard MIT disclaimer doesn't make it copyrighted. That you link you sent, has nothing to do with

I think you should read that in it's entirety.

 

In all other cases of omission in works published before March 1, 1989, to preserve copyright: • The work must have been registered before it was published in any form or before the omission occurred, or it must have been registered within five years after the date of publication without notice; and • The copyright owner must have made a reasonable effort to add the notice to all copies or phonorecords that were distributed to the public in the United States after the omission was discovered. If these corrective steps were not taken, the work went into the public domain in the United States five years after publication. At that time, all U.S. copyright protection was lost and cannot be restored.

 

[Reneer]

I think you should read that in it's entirety.

In all other cases of omission in works published before March 1, 1989, to preserve copyright: • The work must have been registered before it was published in any form or before the omission occurred, or it must have been registered within five years after the date of publication without notice; and • The copyright owner must have made a reasonable effort to add the notice to all copies or phonorecords that were distributed to the public in the United States after the omission was discovered. If these corrective steps were not taken, the work went into the public domain in the United States five years after publication. At that time, all U.S. copyright protection was lost and cannot be restored.

 

You should read that more carefully. Note the crucial bit where it says "In all other cases of omission in works published before March 1, 1989, to preserve copyright" (emphasis mine). So none of that applies to anything published after March 1, 1989.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Reneer