CKAN Discussion Continutation

[kiwi1960]

I have read some of the posts here and ... well, here are my thoughts.

Firstly, the OP mentioned someone saying CKAN was the best thing since sliced bread... please, can I have their name so I can poodle slap them a bit. CKAN is nothing but a lazy persons tool, and at once point, a lot of the info contained in it was bogus. I will never again use it.

Now to the main point, as i see it, we have the CKAN crowd on one side saying they want to be everyone's friend BUT they do it in such a way that is actually harming the community. being a mod auther and having no control over whether your mod is added to CKAN or not is similar to people being signed up to a gay dating site once without their permission or consent. ITS WRONG! The mod authors, even if they gave their mods to the community as per the licence, should still be able to protect their intellectual property in the case of something like CKAN... what will happen? Someone comes along and asks people to donate to THEM for the hard work Roverdude (for example) has done?

At some point, a line in the sand must be drawn. The rules governing Mods in the old days NEVER considered a program like CKAN coming along and hijacking their work without permission. If a modder does not want to be part of CKAN, then dammit, RESPECT THAT! Arguing the point does your stand no good, no matter what you say, you will always look like the bad guy, and who do you think the community will support? CKAN acting like bullies.... or the modders who have given so much, for free to the community... and most of the time, they get treated like crap because of bugs and things...

Well... please, leave the modders alone. I am firmly coming out in support of the modders and NONE.... NONE for CKAN. You are not acting in the best interests of the community.

Thanks for reading.

[ferram4]

20 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

is it possible that part of the problem is the structure inherent to "forum" threads? That they are linear and things can get buried? I guess this would probably never going to happen, but what if all of those issues were reported on a github-tracker or a bugzilla-kind of tracker, where people have some sort of checkbox where they can claim how they installed it.

That would be ideal, and FAR already has a github and uses its bugtracker.  The problem is that getting users to use that is like herding cats, and I barely get enough useful bug reports as it is.

[kiwi1960]

1 minute ago, ferram4 said:

That would be ideal, and FAR already has a github and uses its bugtracker.  The problem is that getting users to use that is like herding cats, and I barely get enough useful bug reports as it is.

Just as an aside.... herding cats is easy... dome it many times... all I need to do is open a can of sardines and they will go wherever I want them to go.

[politas]

8 hours ago, ferram4 said:

When it changes from mere words to policy changes and procedure changes to address the issues.  Not the object-level "X mod was installed wrong" issue, but the issues that allow inaccurate metadata to be added and for any kinds of install errors to occur.  This has not been done.

And if users came to me and pointed to my source code and told me how that caused a bug, I'd be able to fix it quickly too.  I don't demand that though, because it's completely unreasonable; I work with the bug reports I get.  I merely forward the complaints that I get from users that things don't install correctly, in a system that I don't want anything to do with and don't understand, and then I'm berated for not offering up the fix myself.  If I tried to pull this on my users they would flip out (and justifiably so).

Right now?  Dunno, issues seem to come and go.  Even when it is, what safeguards does CKAN have in place to prevent issues from occurring?

 

I'm not saying we need complete fixes, just a clear description of the problem, just as you want logs and reproduction steps for your bug reports. 

Yes, we have not fixed the problem of metadata not being vetted. We are working towards that, but a good solution is not yet available. We have not yet found a good automated way to test metadata consistently.

 

8 hours ago, ferram4 said:

Oh, and since I missed this the first time:

Alright, so here's what you do.  This is actually probably the ideal kind of first plugin to write because it's so simple:

  Hide contents

Set up your IDE to target .NET 3.5 (or the Mono equivalent) and reference KSP_Data/Managed/"Assembly-CSharp.dll" "UnityEngine.dll" "KSPUtils.dll" "UnityEngine.UI.dll"  I don't know if the last two are necessary, but they may be.  Remove all the other references besides System.

The simplest way to set this up is to have a plugin that runs in the loading screen, dumps everything to the log, and then shuts itself down.  Nothing more, nothing less.

In order to do that, you want to create a class that will run there.  Easiest way to do that here is to create a class that inherits from UnityEngine.Monobehaviour and has the [KSPAddon] attribute; it has two parameters, the first of which tells it where KSP should create it (Instantly will get the menu) and the second which is just whether to do it multiple times (if it's Instantly, this won't matter).

Once there, the code can be set up as a standard Unity bit of scripting.  When a Monobehaviour is created, it will fire Awake() and then Start() (if it is enabled, which it will be by default), so create one of those methods as a void and put your code in there.  You'll need to find the KSP root directory to work with, I believe that's "KSPUtil.ApplicationRootPath" and then you can add additional path info from there.  Get to wherever CKAN stores its info in the file directory, turn that into a string, and then call Debug.Log([bleh]) on it and that will print it to the log.

Then at the end to clean up everything you can call GameObject.Destroy(this); and the Monobehaviour will destroy itself, reducing overhead.  Though without Update(), LateUpdate() or FixedUpdate() methods defined its overhead would be negligible, it's still good practice.

There, pretty simple.  Any other info and minor questions can probably be answered through checking other mods' source code or just asking, stupid things like that we're more than happy to answer.

 

Maybe to you, that's pretty simple, but there is not a single sentence of that explanation that I know how to follow. 

 

8 hours ago, ferram4 said:

Even with my problems with CKAN, I really don't want that method.  Besides to issues with throwing rules around like that (honestly, I really don't like externally imposed rules in general), there isn't a very good way to implement that.  If the rule is made too narrow, it will be easily circumvented by CKAN (say, by manually changing the repo to a different one).  If it's made too broad, then CKAN has no option out (say, if the rule bans the option for it to change to a repo that indexes things regardless of modder discrestion).

It also opens up the issue of drama based on forking mods with open licenses regardless of a modder's personal wishes wrt that particular fork.  That should always be allowed, even if the unnecessary / hostile forker should be condemned and their actions frowned upon.  It also opens people trying to maintain a open source mod whose author has gone AWOL to unnecessary and unjust flak.

And to end it all, it would be hypocritical.  The main issue is that modders are getting forced into dealing with CKAN with virtually no non-nuclear-option recourse, resulting in severe animosity.  Forcing CKAN into bending the knee would result in the same animosity on the side of CKAN contributors and users.

I really don't understand what you are saying in these paragraphs, Ferram. You're jumping about across so many different topics and between different lines of thought, that you never end up making a clear statement about anything. This is I think part of why your discussions with CKAN team members are so frustrating for both sides. 

33 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Now to the main point, as i see it, we have the CKAN crowd on one side saying they want to be everyone's friend BUT they do it in such a way that is actually harming the community. being a mod auther and having no control over whether your mod is added to CKAN or not is similar to people being signed up to a gay dating site once without their permission or consent. ITS WRONG! The mod authors, even if they gave their mods to the community as per the licence, should still be able to protect their intellectual property in the case of something like CKAN... what will happen? Someone comes along and asks people to donate to THEM for the hard work Roverdude (for example) has done?

Here is the CKAN de-indexing policy.  I invite anyone who thinks it is inadequate to submit a change and argue your case. 

[Sigma88]

27 minutes ago, politas said:

Here is the CKAN de-indexing policy.  I invite anyone who thinks it is inadequate to submit a change and argue your case.

I quote from the policy:

Quote

When an author gives us explicit and irrevocable permission via a legal document to redistribute their work, we cannot in good faith de-index the mod and still act in the interests of our users. Whenever possible, mods with permissive licenses will be preserved by the CKAN, especially when alternate downloads to such mods exist, including those cached by the CKAN's own automated systems.

 

this system, while legally solid, is not something I would like to be subject to.

The unavoidable result of this legal stance is that modders who do not wish their mods on CKAN are forced to choose more restrictive licenses.

even worse, since like you were very keen to point out, one cannot go back from a permissive license, the choice is either put up with you or abandon the mod.

This has the potential to be a detriment for the community and even if you are legally allowed to do so I would argue that SQUAD can take that away from you at any time by just hiding your "mod" from the forum if the result of it is a bad environment.

A rule was already added to prevent people for harassing modders (2.3.f) and the reasoning was exactly the same.

People have the legal right of being annoying on a furum, untill they get muted.

 

As I said before I have never had any issue with CKAN and I have always been collaborative, but if this behaviour continues I will take my distances from it since I don't want people to think that by leaving my mods there I am in some way endorsing your view.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Sigma88

[RoverDude]

@Kobymaru - First.  The implication that I provide no support in my thread was not only false, but incredibly rude and uncalled for (and I notice how carefully you cherry picked quotes... as opposed to the massive bombshells that CKAN used to drop on me).  But I guess that did not fit your narrative.  

Bottom line.  CKAN support issues waste time, clog the thread, and dramatically increase the signal to noise.  It's a nuisance.  I maintain my own metadata for the sake of survival - which also means I still have to support it and maintain it.  But it's better than all of the problems I had when 'random guy from the internet' would do it.

@politas - thank you for showing that de-listing policy.  What a horrible and modder-hostile policy that is.  And it pretty much guarantees you are going to push more and more modders to ARR.  And when they depart KSP, the mods will die.  Because of the obstinance of the CKAN team. By being so draconian in your de-listing process, you are doing a huge disservice to the community, and are actively crushing the open source spirit that seems to be so important to CKAN.

News flash.  From the outside, it seems it has nothing to do with 'open source' spirit, and everything to do with 'market share'.  

Imagine for a second if Curse or SpaceDock decided to re-distribute every open licensed mod out there by culling the forums, github, etc. and what a hue and cry that would cause.  Same thing.

And funny, how community opt-in sites like KerbalStuff and SpaceDock were able to succeed without such draconian measures.

In a nutshell.

If the only way to prevent your work from being perpetually redistributed through an application that has massive visibility and implicit support due to it's being a sticky is to move to a restrictive license... you will use a restrictive license.  CKAN's position clearly states this.  And that's a shame, because when we look back a few years from now, with mods that can no longer be maintained because of their licenses, it will have CKAN's fingers all over it.

Heck.  If I were not so swamped with other work (but apparently not support issues according to @Kobymaru ), I'd probably say screw it, and do an opt-in only version of CKAN myself.

[Kerbart]

Making mods is (with a few exceptions that are far and in between) a lot of work. CKAN makes using mods virtually no work. That's a setup that, in some ways, guarantees some polarity. The good thing of CKAN is that it allows people who have no clue (and ability/time) to figure out how to install mods manually to use mods. The bad thing is that, by hiding the mechanics of mod installation (which isn't exactly rocket science to begin with) it induces questions from its users that “pollute” a mod's release thread, taking up time and attention that the mod author(s) would rather spend on discussing actual bugs and issues. Posts along the lines of:

• Add to CKAN plz
• CKAN is not showing the update
• CKAN says it can't find the mod. Fix plz. (after the Kerbalstuff collapse)
• Can you upload to Spadedock so it can be added to CKAN?

To me it seems that if there's a way to keep CKAN-installation issues out of the regular threads (a dedicated CKAN thread, and links inside CKAN pointing to that thread?) it would solve a lot of the issues. And modders can simply reply to any of these questions with "please post this in the CKAN thread" and be done with it.

[RoverDude]

Or better yet, if CKAN continues with these draconian policies, just make your stuff ARR (or place it in a place CKAN can't index) and not support it altogether.  Then you just have to say 'Nope.  Not on CKAN... and here's why.  Spread the word'.

I'll be logging a ticket later today to remove all of my mods from CKAN.

Done.

https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/NetKAN/issues/4277

 

[Ippo]

20 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

 

@politas@Kobymaru - thank you for showing that de-listing policy.  What a horrible and modder-hostile policy that is.  And it pretty much guarantees you are going to push more and more modders to ARR.  

To be fair, it's hard to argue with that document. My mods are distributed under an open source license that allows for redistribution: if someone else decides to redistribute it, well.. tough. I waived away my right to control its distribution. If you want to keep your rights, then going ARR is not a bad thing, but it's actually the right choice.

Additionally, it's also important to remember that technically the mods' licenses do not really apply to CKAN except for their mirrors: CKAN's metadata files are just machine-readable instructions that explain how to install the mod, a scenario that is not technically covered (AFAIK) by most open source licenses.

That being said, I have always been in favour of removing FAR from the index (or any other mod, if the author wishes so). I recall that @ferram4 declined my offer to remove it from the index (back when I was still actively helping with the project). I still think that delisting a mod is the right thing to do, if the author thinks so. I submitted a pull request to delete FAR.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Ippo
I cannot into mentions

[Kobymaru]

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

@Kobymaru - First.  The implication that I provide no support in my thread was not only false,

There was no such accusation. I know for a fact that you provide plenty of support, but see below

 

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

but incredibly rude and uncalled for

Please stop taking everything so personal, and see implied insults everyhwere.

 

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

(and I notice how carefully you cherry picked quotes... as opposed to the massive bombshells that CKAN used to drop on me).  But I guess that did not fit your narrative.  

It wasn't cherry picked, it's literally the last instance where the string "CKAN" was used.

I spent considerable amounts of time on your thread, I have SEEN the massive CKAN bombshells and what they do. I'm not at all saying that it doesn't cause issues. I'm saying that if you don't like to deal with them, just don't. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I have noticed a trend that you selectively ignore ckan-related posts. WHICH IS GOOD. WHICH YOU SHOULD DO. Because it saves on your personal energy and time, and there are plenty of willing users who gladly take on the task. You're not alone.

 

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Bottom line.  CKAN support issues waste time, clog the thread, and dramatically increase the signal to noise.

Thanks, I understand that now thanks to ferrams post.

 

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

It's a nuisance.  I maintain my own metadata for the sake of survival - which also means I still have to support it and maintain it.  But it's better than all of the problems I had when 'random guy from the internet' would do it.

Thank you for that.

 

23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Heck.  If I were not so swamped with other work (but apparently not support issues according to @Kobymaru ), I'd probably say screw it, and do an opt-in only version of CKAN myself.

Seriously, RD, I'm a great fan of your work both inside and outside SQUAD, but it's really hard to have rational discussions with you if you see malice and insults everyhwere.

[benad]

4 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Seriously, RD, I'm a great fan of your work both inside and outside SQUAD, but it's really hard to have rational discussions with you if you see malice and insults everyhwere.

He's never been any different. 

I don't see how Modders acting like children throwing their toys out of the pram is going to help fix any issues. From an outside perspective both the CKAN crew and the modders are equally to blame for the lack of movement in any direction in regards to this issue. You both blame other for not engaging in proper diaglog when at the end of the day you're both sat here shouting my way or the high way. It's quite pathetic(the way your dealing with the issue not the issue it'self) to be honest.

[RoverDude]

22 minutes ago, Ippo said:

To be fair, it's hard to argue with that document. My mods are distributed under an open source license that allows for redistribution: if someone else decides to redistribute it, well.. tough. I waived away my right to control its distribution. If you want to keep your rights, then going ARR is not a bad thing, but it's actually the right choice.

Agreed.

@Kobymaru - apologies, now that you've clarified the context I get your point (and looks like you got mine).  It read differently given the context on the first pass.  Speaking of which.  My note RE just doing something else was not said to be mean, bur rather that there's a place for a system that allows modders to better redistribute their stuff, and where they retain both the responsibility as well as the creative control (i.e. what CKAN probably should have been, and what KSP-AVC succeeds at).  

It would of course have less content, but at least the stuff in it would be either (a) 100% accurate, or (b) accepted by the content creator and submitter that they are the ones that have to support and fix any metadata issues.  Very similar to how I have had to fix my own (messed up on occassion) KSP-AVC files.

If I had time, I would probably do this.

(Addendum)

I'd also say that the very wise words of the Philosoraptor are very appropriate here RE what someone can do vs. should do.

Just because a tomato is a fruit, does not mean you should put it in a fruit salad.

[goldenpsp]

9 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

It would of course have less content, but at least the stuff in it would be either (a) 100% accurate, or (b) accepted by the content creator and submitter that they are the ones that have to support and fix any metadata issues.  Very similar to how I have had to fix my own (messed up on occassion) KSP-AVC files.

I don't necessarily agree it would even have less content.  But it would force CKAN to win over modders (something I've said is key in my other posts).  If they put their efforts into this you would have at least as many if not more mods on CKAN.

Imagine a world where the big modders such as @RoverDude and @ferram4 tout the benefits of CKAN ("those CKAN guys bend over backwards to make life easy for us modders so we can create even more content"), the way they tout the benefits of KSP-AVC?

 

[RoverDude]

Yup - I love KSP-AVC, and have huge respect for @cybutek.  

Thinking tho... it may not actually be that bad to make a modder-friendly CKAN.  If I can find a collaborator or two, it's something that would very likely be doable - especially since there would be no metadata grooming (which is likely a big chunk of the CKAN workload).

[Stone Blue]

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

See, this is what I don't understand. I know the words, but it does not make sense to me. It's this Apple approach of "I give you this, and you can only do what I tell you to do. I will do my best to prevent any attempt of using the software/hardware for anything that I didn't intend and I will claim it's to prevent 'issues'". It was the same thing with the win64 stuff, and it seems that you are quite willing to go this path again. Why??? Why deliberately sabotage peoples way of using your stuff? Why restrict the possibilities of your work?

This goes for RoverDude as well, what is it with those "support issues"? What is that? Why not just like this:

"User: Your mod is broken"
"You: Do you use CKAN? Is it 64-bit KSP 0.90?"
"User: Yes."
"You: Sorry, can't help you. Bye."

And then be done with it? Or the approach that seems to work quite well in RoverDude's threads:

"User: Your mod is broken"
"Roverdude: -"
"Seasoned user: Do you use CKAN?"
"User: yes"
"Seasoned user: RD doesn't support CKAN installations. Either install manually or try doing this, this and that."
"Roverdude: -"

What is the issue here? If you don't want to deal with it, just don't! It's not like you get paid by closed support tickets.

 

Wow... This is Apples to oranges... (pun intended)...

Apple is extreme in their licensing... However, they get PAID, in $$$, for their work, time, & products...

ALSO, if you find you dont like the restrictions on their products, WHY BUY THEM, then?... YOU are making a CHOICE to opt-IN... What if Apple then turned around and said, Since you opted-IN to our products and services, there is NO opt-OUT option... You are stuck with us...

How do you think you would feel, if you had, say a Windows phone, with NOTHING Apple on it, yet Apple turned around and started sending a you bill for usage of a product of theirs?...
(WHAT?!?!, you say...) But TIME IS MONEY... Mod devs FREELY give their time, that they could always choose (or NEED) to make money outside modding KSP... Take away the ONLY thing they get out of offering their products to the community (the enjoymet of SHARING FREE STUFF), and how long do you think it takes before they say "Heck with this...I'm done!"...

So in my analogy, Apple represents CKAN/users of CKAN, and you, the mod dev, getting charged, and bothered with spending time trying to figure out the circumstances of why you are being charged for something you have NOTHING to do with, are stressing out, and getting upset... And finally say having a cell phone isnt even worth the trouble, so you throw it in the garbage...
Maybe a stretch, but...??

[cantab]

A question: Does CKAN have any concept of a "maintainer"? That is something Debian and other Linux distributions do - they have one person responsible for each package on an ongoing basis, and often encourage queries to be directed to that maintainer rather than to the upstream developer. As someone else mentioned, it's not uncommon for Linux package maintainers to be at odds with upstream developers, but at least Debian, Fedora, Arch, and so on don't just let every Tom Dick and Harry put a package in the official repository.

[Stone Blue]

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Being opt-in as opposed to opt-out would mean that the CKAN repo would be a barren, empty wasteland. I know you don't care, but neither users nor developers would ever accept that.

Opt-out should probably be an option though.

Really?... I dont think so at ALL... As people have already stated, if mod devs were supported by a friendly, working CKAN, and it did not cause them extra work and grief, but HELPED them in some way by contributing to troubleshooting bugs, or mod conflicts, or at least somehow did not cause the endless "your mod is broke...can you fix your meta?...etc" requests comments...
It was stated, mods could just ignore all the requests on their threads... REALLY??... Great!!... now the threads are cluttered, and discussion flow is intereupted, by slews of useless CKAN posts... I dont appreciate having to search thru mod threads (yes, "I" actually read as much of a thread as I can when I have an issue, (usually) BEFORE posting a support request), and having to wade thru these useless posts...
And I also dont LIKE having to respond to them, REPEATEDLY, with basic troubleshooting steps, or a link to the "How to Find Your KSP Log" thread...

I do it, because I choose to spend a lot of time, that I unfortunately have, on the forums every day, and I figure its a small way of me giving back to devs by intercepting simple, or useless, posts and hopefully providing a little support, that keeps the devs from having to do it...
But I dont LIKE it, thats for sure...lol

Anyway, back to the quote, since you brought this point up, I would like to see hard facts and numbers... It seems either CKAN or SpaceDock HAS those facts and numbers...
Lets see if either is willing to give up that info...
SpaceDock added in CKAN support, so devs can have CKAN meta generated automatically, and immediately when publishing a mod on that host...

Lets see hard data, about how many devs USE that, and how many do NOT...
I betcha $$ there are far more devs who DO opt-in to CKAN at that point than do NOT... And you might get MORE, IN, if CKAN's implementation was more friendly...

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Stone Blue

[Kobymaru]

37 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Wow... This is Apples to oranges... (pun intended)...

Apple is extreme in their licensing...

[...]

And finally say having a cell phone isnt even worth the trouble, so you throw it in the garbage...

Maybe a stretch, but...??

 

@Stone Blue I don't really understand your apple/windows analogies, nor do I want to get into an apple-flamewar. I was simply referring to the practice of artificially restricting the possibilities of hardware or software for the sake of controlling the users behaviour. I'm very opposed to that, that's all.

 

21 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Really?... I dont think so at ALL... As people have already stated, if mod devs were supported by a friendly, working CKAN, and it did not cause them extra work and grief, but HELPED them in some way by contributing to troubleshooting bugs, or mod conflicts, or at least somehow did not cause the endless "your mod is broke...can you fix your meta?...etc" requests comments...

[...]

Yes, this has been made sufficiently clear by mod authors, and understood by everyone. Now people can either keep reiterating the same argument over and over and over again, or we learn our lessons, try to find common ground and fix problems. Which one would you prefer?

[Stone Blue]

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

First, I am not CKAN. Second, what is it about this, that gets modders so annoyed?

REALLY??... No offense, but there is a whole thread, that THIS thread is a continuation of, and now there are a couple pages HERE, that explain in depth what gets modders so annoyed... No offense, but perhaps you should go back and review at least some of those posts...

7 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Yes, this has been made sufficiently clear by mod authors, and understood by everyone. Now people can either keep reiterating the same argument over and over and over again, or we learn our lessons, try to find common ground and fix problems. Which one would you prefer?

Well, based on the quote above, I guess these arguments DO need re-iterating for some people... ??

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Yes, this has been made sufficiently clear by mod authors, and understood by everyone. Now people can either keep reiterating the same argument over and over and over again, or we learn our lessons, try to find common ground and fix problems. Which one would you prefer?

well we can start by devising a fleshed out alternative de-indexing policy to submit as a pull request on the CKAN git-hub if they don't listen to that then its all the more reason to change the forum rules to prompt change

[Stone Blue]

Actually, here's a point no one I think has brought up yet...

SpaceDock... There was recently discussion about 3rd parties publishing mods there... The license allows it, but it can cause issues for an active mod dev... At first, IIRC, (and dont quote me), but the SpaceDock team was at first hesitant to do any enforcement of pulling these 3rd party published mods...
However, after discussion, (again IIRC, and dont quote me), the SD team did the RIGHT, ETHICAL thing, NOT the LEGAL thing, and I beleive have modified their policy, so that a mod dev can request to have 3rd party "unauthorized" submissions pulled...

I have not heard of ANY problems, or changes, or slow-downs of new mods being hosted there, due to this policy change... If anything, I think SD traffic has been increasing, and I have seen new mods there, that were formerly only on Github or Curse...

EDIT:
Ok, sorry... I guess I posted before getting completely up to speed and caught up with thread, as NOW see talk of de-indexing...

Edited June 24, 2016 by Stone Blue

[RoverDude]

TBH all they have to do is change that to be as simple as 'we will de-index at the request of the mod author'.  Done.  Right now, the ONLY option on the table is to move to an ARR license.

FYI - I am adding this to my various threads, as I am officially deprecating all CKAN support until this is sorted.  I would encourage like minded modders to do the same.

Note:  Installation via CKAN is not supported.  
If you wish to see this change, encourage the CKAN project to revise their de-indexing process, and allow modders to choose if they want in (or out) of CKAN without having to resort to restrictive licensing.

(edit)

Note that by deprecating support I mean requesting de-listing of all of my mods as they have ARR components and should be de-indexed per the current CKAN policy, no questions asked.

Edited June 24, 2016 by RoverDude

[Kobymaru]

9 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

REALLY??... No offense, but there is a whole thread, that THIS thread is a continuation of, and now there are a couple pages HERE, that explain in depth what gets modders so annoyed... No offense, but perhaps you should go back and review at least some of those posts...

1. There was a whole post to go with that one sentence, that explained why I didn't get it.
2. Between that post and your answer to it, both ferram and RoverDude and others have pretty well explained the reasons, and I did state that I understand them better now.

Maybe you yourself should go back and review some of the latest posts?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Kobymaru

[Stone Blue]

3 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

1. There was a whole post to go with that one sentence, that explained why I didn't get it.
2. Between that post and your answer to it, both ferram and RoverDude and others have pretty well explained the reasons, and I did state that I understand them better now.

Maybe you yourself should go back and review some of the latest posts?

Ok... I will concede this, as I HAVE been quoting as I read thru the thread, and I admit I have NOT gotten completely caught up yet... Sorry

[benad]

6 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Note:  Installation via CKAN is not supported.  
If you wish to see this change, encourage the CKAN project to revise their de-indexing process, and allow modders to choose if they want in (or out) of CKAN without having to resort to restrictive licensing.

This comes across as disingenuous. Your effectively drumming up support from your followers (who use CKAN on the basis you know they'll want/need CKAN support) for a policy change so that you can in future remove all your mods from CKAN which will leave your mods unsupported on CKAN . . .

Now if your just making a general protest, fair enough but that's not the way it comes across.