Music was licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. and allowed by author to be redistributed only in original mod. You will probably need to steal something else

Hmm, I wasn’t aware of that. It didn’t seem to be in the license readme for the original mod. Thanks for the info, I’ll double check and remove it when I get back to my computer if you’re correct.

It’s a shame we have to be in this situation, it’s such a minor thing that you could make an option, but instead we’ve gotta be in this situation.

Reading through the license a couple of times, I don't understand why it breaks the license since the music (the entire sound folder in fact) hasn't been modified or remixed in any way, the only changes I've made are to GPLv3 licensed mod code. But you're clearly more experienced than me, could you explain how it breaks the license exactly? I want to learn more about licenses and I don't want to remove something unnecessarily, but if you can explain how it breaks the license I'll take it out.

Because of how game works only way of including this music was packing it with mod, but this license was picked because it was most restrictive from all that could make sense. Original author wish was so music was only for my project, and this is better reflected in readme newer version of mod.

Unlike some other people I don't blindly steal other people work, but rather ask if I could use something, or in case of greater change if author is fine with it.
I would probably rather reimplement something from scratch than steal it against author's will.

Spiteforks like this are one of the reasons I make less of my stuff open source, than in past. People don't use this license to create something cool as I thought they will be but rather to steal.
People like you just don't respect other people work, and you proven me right even more on that.

It’s not stealing, it’s forking under GPLv3. This fork primarily exists because you’re writing code to prevent people from running other mods arbitrarily. I didn’t want to do this, but you’re so stubborn that you can’t tolerate people having fun in their own way, and I won’t stand for that. Your control.lua scripts are incredibly petty and you should be ashamed.

I really appreciate the work you’ve done and I think your mods are really good, but practices like this are awful. I tried to do this as carefully as possible and not break any licenses because I do respect your work, but I don’t respect the way you act because you don’t respect the rest of the community, and this is more proof of that.

I also don’t blindly steal. I read the licenses several times to be sure, and I’m still not convinced including the music here actually does violate the license. I didn’t bother asking you because you wouldn’t have listened even if I did, people have already requested similar changes and made their feelings clear about your malicious scripts and you didn’t care. You’re the type of mod creator who would rather delete threads and silence criticism than accept that maybe you’re wrong about something, and that’s why I wanted an open source fork that same community you’re trying to suppress can contribute to.

You talk about the code's license, talandar talks about the music's license.

The music author is the one who's license you broke. That license is exclusively for pelagos and not this fork.
Is that what is?

You talk about the code's license, talandar talks about the music's license.

The music author is the one who's license you broke. That license is exclusively for pelagos and not this fork.
Is that what is?

I took the music out the mod just to be sure, but I’m not sure if including it breaks the license. The music is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, which forbids distributing forms of the content modified sufficiently to qualify as a remix or adaptation, but the only modifications I made are to the GPLv3 licensed mod code, the entire sound folder containing the CC licensed audio is completely untouched. The bit that’s up for debate is whether the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license would require the surrounding GPLv3 content to remain the same in order to not qualify as an adaptation or remix, even though the license itself only applies to the music files themselves.

As far as I can tell, the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license only considers changes as adaptations if they’re sufficiently creative, but I don’t know whether changing the name of the .zip they’re included in would qualify as creative enough. I did see examples that converting something from one format to another wouldn’t count as creative, even if the formatting had to be changed.

I’d like to talk to uniquename9000 about it really, since they composed the music, they’d understand how it’s licensed, and more importantly I’d be able to find out how they feel about its use. But I don’t have a good way to contact them.

I'm gonna toss my analysis into the discussion as a mod creator in other communities...
"Original author wish was so music was only for my project, and this is better reflected in readme newer version of mod" Unfortunately that is not how it works. This is a direct contradiction to the CC license, which grants permission to everyone. Creative Commons specifically says notices may grant extra permissions, but cannot take away permissions already granted by the CC license, and licenses granted previously also cannot be revoked retroactively.
The music is a separate work likelely considered packaged in a collection, and the different licenses apply to their respective works. The code was changed, the music was not. Renaming a zip file is trivial and not an adaptation. TriggeredSnake is within their legal rights to redistribute the music that was obtained under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 provided they do not violate any other terms. Far from stealing.
Morally, up for debate but, license choices have consequences.

Removing the music is the fix, it also can't inherit anything from the pelagos version above the fork's version as that now has a no derivatives clause.