#[0.14.4.9][๐] Ostranauts Autoloader (Ostra.Autoloader)
1057 messages ยท Page 2 of 2 (latest)
My workflow is .. insane. ๐
That is pretty complicated. I know you can cut back a few steps by using the BepInEx nuget package. They don't have the absolute newest version available for reference but the latest one is perfectly compatible, I've been told. There's also a UnityEngine nuget that has stripped assemblies although I don't know if that has a version as old as the one Ostra is using and it may lack some of the other libraries anyway.
If you want to make your TS dependencies portable Aaron provides nuget access to the the Thunderstore via a feed, which I can find for you, as well.
I also know the guy in charge of the Dehumidifier project, LordFireSpeed (he's one of my staff at LC Modding) and while I can't make any promises I can always ask him to add new games to his stripped gamelibs nuget workflow he maintains
Alternatively I could add my thunderstore dependencies resolver to github actions publicly. ๐
Nuget is kind of garbo.
The benefit of nuget is that it restores in the CI and also for anyone else that wants to contribute to your project
That's what my resolver does.
I don't know how closely you looked.
It's quite clever!
Like my projects rely on each other, contributing is quite easy for dependencies. ^_^
It looks at what's in your manifest and then hits the TS manual download to grab the zip and extract it before compile time.
So as long as your mod is on TS it will work.
Stripped gamelibs is also legally questionable. You'd have to get permission from dan.
Which is why I fetch my own shims and download them via encrypted archive and decrypt using a CI secret.
Stripping explicitly removes all content that qualifies as any expression
I'm not going to entertain that argument
You don't have to. It's literally been proven in court.
So both of our opinions are irrelevant.
But if dan greenlights some shims, I will happily consume them!
I think you should just do whatever it is you want to do then
Ye! I wasn't asking for help.
Clearly
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10597
I don't know where you got your info from but in 2021 the Supreme Court of the United States found that copying "declaring code" or "interface" was fair use and declined to comment on if it was something that could be copyrighted at all
Examining the nature of Java's API, Justice Breyer's opinion relied on the highly functional nature of declaring code as weighing in favor of fair use. The opinion found that declaring code, as part of a user interface, is "inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas" such as "general task division and organization." As a result, it is "further than are most computer programs (such as the implementing code) from the core of copyright." In other words, assuming that declaring code is copyrightable at all, the Court found that the scope of its copyright protection is narrower (and the scope of fair use accordingly broader).
Further, the dissent's opinion was that the majority's interpretation via fair use made it "difficult to imagine any circumstance in which declaring code will remain protected by copyright"
I'm situated in the US so this law and precedent applies to me but the EU has a similar "function vs use" stance and I can't find anything indicating my stance that stripped assemblies are legal in the two major regions that concern copyright is wrong
copying the shape/organization of an API can be treated as copying protectable expression.
They didn't decide in that case but they did delay the decision on copyrightable APIs
Yea we're linking the same case
They held that Google's use was fair use in the majority and the dissent complained that its unlikely declaring code can be upheld as copyrightable if that's the case
And they didn't make a decision on the API's structure being copyrightable, and sided with Google
But it did go to court.
so it's at least probative
I don't have the money, personally, to go to court over this, and while I doubt BBG would, who knows what their publisher would do, etc. Would rather just not risk it.
Ultimately it's every individual's prerogative to decide where that line is for them. I don't have an opinion or the morality or ethicality of it, just that it contains an amount of risk I don't like.
That's a stance that doesn't invite any challenge and a much better lead than telling me its a settled thing in court when the case seems to hold that declaring code isn't likely to stand up as copyrightable
I wasn't aware there was a challenge at all.
I just don't understand you at all
I'm a cryptid. Vibing in my lane. Thriving.
Telling me I'm wrong so confidently when the ruling has the majority say declaring code is inherently bound with uncopyrightable ideas and the dissent says that if that's true then its not even copyrightable
Like this isn't "as I understand it" or "my reading is that" but just "No Robyn, you're wrong and the court agrees with me"
In the short time we've interacted you've done nothing but frustrate me and I'm starting to think we should stop
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
I went and looked into how the chainloader works after this because I believed you and this isn't even close to how it works
Like you just say things, do you just "vibe talk" too?
I think you should stop.
I think we should both stop
Honestly, wish you the best with your projects. You know your stuff well.
I'd be happier if we just didn't talk anymore
Hay @hollow valley, so what if I made another thunderstore group were I put current mods on thunderstore until the modders request them removed to add manually?
Is it breach of thunderstore tos to upload their mods w/out direct permission?
Oh I completely forgor about you asking me this
Uh, official policy is don't upload things you don't have explicit permission to