Licensing with Dead Man clause

[Thargoid]

This would of course only be applicable in the case where an OXP is not maintained by the original author (or a recognised successor) as otherwise they would of course have control over patching, updating and release.

But in the case of an orphaned OXP needing update, then it would probably be better if the updater took overall control and ownership of the OXP anyway, via the already noted route (if they're skilled enough to patch/update, then it's not too much extra work to take full control and integration anyway). That way if either the patch or its integration generate further communications (either if they themselves introduce new bugs or generate new ideas for further modification) then there is a clear person to talk to. Plus if the original author then did return from the dead, there would be clear and distinct forking having been done, so the original work could be continued without risk of interaction (aside from duplicate functionality perhaps).

The license is worded as it is for the example I already mentioned, with the derived work continuing in parallel and both it and the original OXP/OXZ continuing to be supported and updated independently (as will happen with my mil injectors and dan3008's fuel regen OXP for example). So I think to add yet another clause for the patching case would be needlessly complicated and potentially confusing.

[Norby]

Ok, then you keep your current clauses but I am happy with the simple CC BY-NC-SA 4.
If somebody do modifications what I do not want to see inside then I can ask him to make a derivation or another solution, and if I am not here anymore then I will not be afraid that anybody can improve further my works within the original frame because the version number still separate the new changes from my productions.