Are all third-party mods compatible with upstream? Some changes are okay but they need to at least be interchangeable with upstream such that mods can rely on it. (See modname uniqueness)
Package metadata says CC-BY 4.0. I'm pretty sure it will have to be CC-BY-SA 4.0, MTG textures are CC-BY-SA 3.0 and there are probably mods that use 4.0 (strictest and/or newest license should be listed in metadata)
To your first point, I think most mod dependencies on the mods I've modified should be fine, but I'll have to double-check my changes to make sure. I mostly made changes to the placement of nodes in biomes and the climate distribution of biomes, but I might have removed some node registrations in some places. I did definitely change some node descriptions (display names) and groups. And I know for sure that Asuna's copy of Plantlife only has a few of its mods with changes to remove biome_lib, but the registered nodes should be largely the same. Ethereal is the big one I'll need to review.
Licenses are ... well, there are a lot of licenses and I believe I've satisfied them all by preserving the original license files for all mods and putting a summary of license files in the main license file. I also indicated mods that I changed in accordance with GPL. All of my own image assets (main menu PNG and XCF files + screenshot files) I licensed as CC-BY 4.0. And CDB only lets me choose one code license and one media license which can't possibly express these license complexities, but it's my intention that the actual license file does cover everything.
Do you think any of the requirements for any of the other licenses are not satisfied? I can add more to my main license summary if you think it's necessary, but I'm hoping that linking the main license to the other licenses should be sufficient.
tl;dr, licenses are complicated and I'll need to review my changes for upstream compatibility.
It might help me to know the extent of upstream compatibility that's required. I assume API compatibility is definitely a concern (e.g., farming.register_plant(...) doing what the MTG farming mod is expected to do), but what about other things? Like:
Nodes definitions/groups
Mod dependencies / load order
Recipes
I feel like it's possible for any mod to have arbitrary dependencies on what other mods do, such as expecting certain nodes to be defined, or expecting certain recipes to exist in certain configurations, or really any kind of link between a mod and another mod's implementation. I think I can preserve most of this compatibility (albeit with the side effect of cluttering creative inventory with nodes that Asuna doesn't use), but a lot of my changes were creative decisions and I'd like to preserve Asuna's mapgen aesthetics as well as possible. Performance is also a consideration re: ditching biome_lib while still using Plantlife nodes.
To your first point, I think most mod dependencies on the mods I've modified should be fine, but I'll have to double-check my changes to make sure. I mostly made changes to the placement of nodes in biomes and the climate distribution of biomes, but I might have removed some node registrations in some places. I did definitely change some node descriptions (display names) and groups. And I know for sure that Asuna's copy of Plantlife only has a few of its mods with changes to remove biome_lib, but the registered nodes should be largely the same. Ethereal is the big one I'll need to review.
Hmm, sounds fine I hope, unless people report crashes happening when enabling mods on top of the game. To me, as long as the mod's main API is intact it should be fine and mods depending on other mods in weird undocumented ways is bound to break anyways, but of course mods could still depend on said removed nodes in weird ways and that would break...
Licenses are ... well, there are a lot of licenses and I believe I've satisfied them all by preserving the original license files for all mods and putting a summary of license files in the main license file. (...)
Yeah I see, very nice, gotta give you props for the very detailed license info. 👍 CDB license metadata is how it is though and we'd want the media license to reflect that of the strictest (usually copyleft) license. Even if your own assets are CC-BY 4.0 (you can put this more explicitly in the main license file if you want), there are still at least MTG assets in there that are CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed, and assets in other mods that are CC-BY-SA 4.0 licensed.
Other than that I think the package is fine, license-wise. No -NC licensed content or AGPL mods from what I can tell.
I went ahead and switched the CDB media license to CC-BY-SA 4.0. I'll leave it up to you if you want to approve it as-is, or if you'd rather wait for a more thorough vetting of upstream compatibility. I'll be happy to respond in either case, whether to review and revise for stability, or to respond to any breakage reports after the fact.
Nice! Some notes while I'm on the bus home:
To your first point, I think most mod dependencies on the mods I've modified should be fine, but I'll have to double-check my changes to make sure. I mostly made changes to the placement of nodes in biomes and the climate distribution of biomes, but I might have removed some node registrations in some places. I did definitely change some node descriptions (display names) and groups. And I know for sure that Asuna's copy of Plantlife only has a few of its mods with changes to remove biome_lib, but the registered nodes should be largely the same. Ethereal is the big one I'll need to review.
Licenses are ... well, there are a lot of licenses and I believe I've satisfied them all by preserving the original license files for all mods and putting a summary of license files in the main license file. I also indicated mods that I changed in accordance with GPL. All of my own image assets (main menu PNG and XCF files + screenshot files) I licensed as CC-BY 4.0. And CDB only lets me choose one code license and one media license which can't possibly express these license complexities, but it's my intention that the actual license file does cover everything.
Do you think any of the requirements for any of the other licenses are not satisfied? I can add more to my main license summary if you think it's necessary, but I'm hoping that linking the main license to the other licenses should be sufficient.
tl;dr, licenses are complicated and I'll need to review my changes for upstream compatibility.
It might help me to know the extent of upstream compatibility that's required. I assume API compatibility is definitely a concern (e.g.,
farming.register_plant(...)doing what the MTG farming mod is expected to do), but what about other things? Like:I feel like it's possible for any mod to have arbitrary dependencies on what other mods do, such as expecting certain nodes to be defined, or expecting certain recipes to exist in certain configurations, or really any kind of link between a mod and another mod's implementation. I think I can preserve most of this compatibility (albeit with the side effect of cluttering creative inventory with nodes that Asuna doesn't use), but a lot of my changes were creative decisions and I'd like to preserve Asuna's mapgen aesthetics as well as possible. Performance is also a consideration re: ditching biome_lib while still using Plantlife nodes.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Hmm, sounds fine I hope, unless people report crashes happening when enabling mods on top of the game. To me, as long as the mod's main API is intact it should be fine and mods depending on other mods in weird undocumented ways is bound to break anyways, but of course mods could still depend on said removed nodes in weird ways and that would break...
Yeah I see, very nice, gotta give you props for the very detailed license info. 👍 CDB license metadata is how it is though and we'd want the media license to reflect that of the strictest (usually copyleft) license. Even if your own assets are CC-BY 4.0 (you can put this more explicitly in the main license file if you want), there are still at least MTG assets in there that are CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed, and assets in other mods that are CC-BY-SA 4.0 licensed.
Other than that I think the package is fine, license-wise. No -NC licensed content or AGPL mods from what I can tell.
I went ahead and switched the CDB media license to CC-BY-SA 4.0. I'll leave it up to you if you want to approve it as-is, or if you'd rather wait for a more thorough vetting of upstream compatibility. I'll be happy to respond in either case, whether to review and revise for stability, or to respond to any breakage reports after the fact.
Yeah I'll approve it for now.
Thank you!