Mod managers should be regulated by forum rules

[passinglurker]

So it's no secret that CKAN is a point of contention between some forum dwellers. It's admitibly a useful tool for players and it's not technically doing anything illegal, but a number of its policies have caused an additional burden on many mod authors who are the life blood of this community.

Some of Ckan's controversial practises include...

1) Listing whatever mod any 3rd party has inputted even without the original modders knowlege or consent.

2) Automating installation with no quality assurance that has failed many times in the past resulting in an increased support load for the volunteer mod authors unfortunate enough to be a victim of such an event.

3) And finally refusing mod author's requests to be delisted from the system despite the problems it causes for them because the author chose an open licence. Even if this is legal it's unneighborly, discourages openness, and discourages mod authors in general.

If CKAN doesn't change it's ways the friction between the mod authors and the mod manager would eventually escalate, and come to a head with authors adopting closed licences, or making their mods intentionally incompatible, or even simply taking their ball and going home. Since CKAN needs mod authors but mod authors don't need CKAN it's a battle CKAN inevitably can't win but if it happens we stand to lose our openess or even a number of talented mod authors by the time the dust settles.

So in order to prevent this and avoid similar potential conflicts with any other mod managers in the future I propose that the forum rules be changed to ban the linking and discussion of mod managers that are not purely opt-in, and don't allow mod authors to opt back out once they are in.

End result is CKAN changes or relocates taking is discussion and support needs with them, no future competition to CKAN will make the same mistakes, and finally control is put back in the hands of the mod authors encouraging continued openness in the community. 

 

 

[Guest]

I retract the following statement due to an unfortunate misunderstanding.  I agree 110%

Spoiler

I see you tagging this as "flame war prevention" but all it is doing is inciting a flame war.  I can tell that you're frustrated, but banning something which has been on the forums for years just because someone got mad is unacceptable to me.  What you are proposing is blackmailing the CKAN developers in order to force them to comply with what you think is better for the mod makers.  For fellow mod makers, here's an idea: don't add it to CKAN if you don't feel like supporting it.

But what if I stop developing my mod, CliftonM?  Or, what if I want to stop CKAN support?

Well, it's simple as not updating the metadata when the next version is released.  Simple as that.  Yeah, you might end up with people asking for support for it, but your thread will either be locked, or you can simply inform them about what is going on.  If it gets bad enough, you can have it locked for a bit.  The mods will unlock it for you when you ask.

And if you don't find this satisfactory, then why not try making your own?  It's a lot harder than you think, and the CKAN guys put a lot of time and effort in helping make our lives a bit easier.  If you don't like it, then pretend it doesn't exist.  It's as simple as that.

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Guest

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

For fellow mod makers, here's an idea: don't add it to CKAN if you don't feel like supporting it.

First you didn't read the OP I said CKAN can at any time add your mod to its listings whenever you like it or not through 3rd party contributors. This is especially bad for large popular mods as there are more people more than willing to rush in and make metadata when a new version drops which results in errors and grief for the author who can't keep them out without resorting to closed licence.

second I don't consider myself a mod author but I've seen enough of the authors I follow express frustration about this and I'd rather not see them quit ksp over it. So to me this is no different from the new rule that bans repeat update requests. It's a rule made to make this a more comfortable place for mod authors.

[Sigma88]

4 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

I see you tagging this as "flame war prevention" but all it is doing is inciting a flame war.  I can tell that you're frustrated, but banning something which has been on the forums for years just because someone got mad is unacceptable to me.  What you are proposing is blackmailing the CKAN developers in order to force them to comply with what you think is better for the mod makers.

 

The fact that a bad behaviour has been going on for years it doesn't mean it should continue to do so.

I don't have any beef with CKAN but I think everything @passinglurker wrote is very relevant.

9 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

For fellow mod makers, here's an idea: don't add it to CKAN if you don't feel like supporting it.

But what if I stop developing my mod, CliftonM?  Or, what if I want to stop CKAN support?

Well, it's simple as not updating the metadata when the next version is released.  Simple as that.  Yeah, you might end up with people asking for support for it, but your thread will either be locked, or you can simply inform them about what is going on.  If it gets bad enough, you can have it locked for a bit.  The mods will unlock it for you when you ask.

this whole issue has escalated this far (pun not intended) exactly because there's no "opt out" from CKAN.

10 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

And if you don't find this satisfactory, then why not try making your own?  It's a lot harder than you think, and the CKAN guys put a lot of time and effort in helping make our lives a bit easier.  If you don't like it, then pretend it doesn't exist.  It's as simple as that.

"pretend it doesn't exist" is not an option when you receive bug reports from a lot of people and you have to spend time to understand which is the issue.

 

[Superfluous J]

If you don't want your mod on CKAN restrict the license so they can't distribute it legally.

You can't both allow and not allow redistribution.

Of course, be prepared if you do so for an incessant parade of posts where all the people say are "CKAN?" But that's not CKAN's fault per-se. People are just rude and lazy by nature.

[Sigma88]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

If you don't want your mod on CKAN restrict the license so they can't distribute it legally.

You can't both allow and not allow redistribution.

Of course, be prepared if you do so for an incessant parade of posts where all the people say are "CKAN?" But that's not CKAN's fault per-se. People are just rude and lazy by nature.

except CKAN does not redistribute mods. so those licenses may not be enough.

also, repeatedly asking for CKAN support would probably count as breaking rule 2.3.f

 

also, this rule is being proposed exactly to avoid modders going the route of choosing restrictive licenses because their experience is being poisoned by the fact that they have to bother about all these things.

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

 

If you don't want your mod on CKAN restrict the license so they can't distribute it legally

 

That is what is happening roverdude closeing his mods licence is a recent example but this means we go back to the kethane days of when an author leaves the players lose an important mod this rule is meant to prevent that.

And really why should an author need a closed licence in order to gain control of how ckan uses their mod? they should be doing every thing they can to help mod authors not point at a licence and thumb their noses.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

First you didn't read the OP I said CKAN can at any time add your mod to its listings whenever you like it or not through 3rd party contributors.

Yes, I did read the OP, however I was not aware that it was the case of the users adding to it as opposed to CKAN devs.  My apologies for that misunderstanding.

43 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

this whole issue has escalated this far (pun not intended) exactly because there's no "opt out" from CKAN.

Again, I misunderstood what was being said.  I do believe that this should change, but we need to keep in mind that they will need some time to make changes to it.  It would likely require adding quite a bit to the back-end.  Simply adding a rule without giving them this much needed time would just mean banning CKAN.

46 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

"pretend it doesn't exist" is not an option when you receive bug reports from a lot of people and you have to spend time to understand which is the issue.

Well, yeah.  Again, misunderstood.  I'd personally be mad if my software was on there without my approval.

[Sigma88]

1 minute ago, CliftonM said:

 I do believe that this should change, but we need to keep in mind that they will need some time to make changes to it.  It would likely require adding quite a bit to the back-end.  Simply adding a rule without giving them this much needed time would just mean banning CKAN.

if the rule was to be introduced I would expect a deadline to be given to anyone who is in breach before deleting stuff from the forums.

I don't think anyone is advocating for an elimination of CKAN. The rule would most likely serve as a guideline to assure a better experience for everyone.

[Guest]

Just now, Sigma88 said:

if the rule was to be introduced I would expect a deadline to be given to anyone who is in breach before deleting stuff from the forums.

I don't think anyone is advocating for an elimination of CKAN. The rule would most likely serve as a guideline to assure a better experience for everyone.

Understood.  We'll see what comes out of this.

[passinglurker]

7 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Again, I misunderstood what was being said.  I do believe that this should change, but we need to keep in mind that they will need some time to make changes to it.  It would likely require adding quite a bit to the back-end.  Simply adding a rule without giving them this much needed time would just mean banning CKAN.

Well once the changes are made they can certainly come back @politas said that they are trying to implement some long requested quality assurance changes but were short on man power and swamped with metadata work. This rule would give them the excuse they need to temporarily suspend operations catch up on the backend work they need to do and then relaunch better than before. 

Even if Ckan were allowed to voluntarily take the slow route in implementing this rule the rule would still be needed to ward off any other mod managers that try to implement these policies as a short cut to a larger user base.

Edited June 24, 2016 by passinglurker

[legoclone09]

I think before a mod is a added the author should get a PM asking if they want their mod on there. SImple, easy fix.

[passinglurker]

Just now, legoclone09 said:

I think before a mod is a added the author should get a PM asking if they want their mod on there. SImple, easy fix.

that's essentially the same as opt in just that in addition the mod manager is soliciting for mods to include.

[RA3236]

5 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

I think before a mod is a added the author should get a PM asking if they want their mod on there. SImple, easy fix.

Definately, as I got my mod on CKAN because someone didn't read about my post saying "don't add it" in the thread.

[kiwi1960]

I used to use CKAN, but I don;t anymore. Half the time, as a mere player, if was more time consuming using it than doing the hunting by hand...

Further, a lot of very serious bogus information at one point. I'm with the modders on this one, its not fair to be a part of something if you don;t want to...

 

[Sigma88]

I think this can help to understand which is the attitude of CKAN towards modders

copy pasted from the CKAN de-indexing policy:

Quote

De-indexing mods from the CKAN

From time to time mod authors ask their works be removed from the CKAN. Whether or not we should do this is a matter of licensing and public good. Our policy is based on two simple principles:

1. The CKAN, like the legal system, takes licenses very seriously.
2. The CKAN acts in the interests of its users.

Restrictive licenses, including the default "All Rights Reserved", allow the content author absolute control over what happens to their work. If an All Rights Reserved or other restrictive license author asks for their mod to be de-indexed, we do so promptly and without question.

Permissive licenses—which includes every license the CKAN is aware of that's not marked restricted or unknown, and includes the popular Creative Commons family of licenses—provide explicit and irrevocable permission to use and redistribute the content. Such a license is a strong, legally binding promise that the author cannot stop others from reproducing their work. One of the primary purposes of such a license is protection against the mod author changing their mind, or imposing further restrictions at a later date.

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

 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Sigma88

[Thomas P.]

15 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

If you don't want your mod on CKAN restrict the license so they can't distribute it legally.

You can't both allow and not allow redistribution.

Of course, be prepared if you do so for an incessant parade of posts where all the people say are "CKAN?" But that's not CKAN's fault per-se. People are just rude and lazy by nature.

One of the problems with this is that there are mods which can't switch to ARR anymore, because they got contributions under a different license,
like GPL, and all contributors would have to agree that their code gets relicensed (FAR for example. Kopernicus is an example too, even though I dont want to restrict it.)

[Ippo]

17 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

If you don't want your mod on CKAN restrict the license so they can't distribute it legally.

You can't both allow and not allow redistribution.

I'd like to point out that CKAN doesn't redistribute anything*. The metadata contains only instructions on where to download the mod and how to install it, and these instructions are machine-readable which allows for automated download and installation. But the download is still taken from the author's hosting choice, therefore there is no redistribution.

Imagine you write a post on the forum to explain how you download and install a mod: that would never count as redistribution, and could never be regulated by the mod's license. The same reasoning applies to CKAN's metadata: they are only instructions, and the mod's license does not apply.

That being said, I am 100% in favour of allowing authors to opt-out.

* although technically ckan keeps a mirror of freely-distributable mods as a backup, the downloads are not served from there.

[Sigma88]

24 minutes ago, Ippo said:

I'd like to point out that CKAN doesn't redistribute anything*. The metadata contains only instructions on where to download the mod and how to install it, and these instructions are machine-readable which allows for automated download and installation. But the download is still taken from the author's hosting choice, therefore there is no redistribution.

Imagine you write a post on the forum to explain how you download and install a mod: that would never count as redistribution, and could never be regulated by the mod's license. The same reasoning applies to CKAN's metadata: they are only instructions, and the mod's license does not apply.

That being said, I am 100% in favour of allowing authors to opt-out.

* although technically ckan keeps a mirror of freely-distributable mods as a backup, the downloads are not served from there.

I'd like to point out that if I didn't want my mods on CKAN the only solution would be using ARR license and hosting them on sites that CKAN cannot acces, like dropbox or curse.

this is the direction that will be taken by modders that do not want to be featured on CKAN.

I don't want this to be the future of this community. there is already another site that does this and it is banned on this forum

they have a huge collection of mods, and all the download links point to the download page (github, spacedock, whatever)

they also have my mod called SigmaBinary even tho it's ARR, but of course they can do that since they are not *technically* redistributing it

now, CKAN is doing exactly the same, care to explain why one should be banned on the forums and the other not?

[Ippo]

Because they are not redistributing it. Even if you chose ARR, you never had the right to prevent me from teaching someone how to download and install your mods, so you can't reserve that. You never had the right to prevent me from scripting the download and installation, so you can't reserve that. You never had the right to prevent me from sharing that script, so you can't reserve that.

The license we chose for our mods do not apply at any level to the work that someone else has done to script the installation. They are not taking your rights away in any form.

I believe ckan should delist any mod upon request because it's *nice*. I just feel that it's unfair to treat the ckan team like they are stealing.

I also think that if you are not ok with the consequences of open source licenses, you should stick with ARR. I mean this factually, please don't take this as an insult. I just noticed that many people seem to have chosen an open license without considering the full implications, and I see that many are now complaining when their word has been taken literally.

[Red Iron Crown]

This seems to be an attempt to backdoor a change to CKAN's policies by appealing to the forum's authority, which is not a good idea, IMO. If such a rule were enacted and CKAN didn't change their policies and was removed from here, it would continue to exist, just distributed elsewhere (like reddit or wherever). And the modders and users would lose an important channel of communication and feedback with the CKAN team.

FWIW I'm not a fan of CKAN's policy of giving more courtesy to restrictively licensed mod authors than those with open licenses, but it would be an abuse of my position to use it to enforce a change.

If you want to change CKAN's policy the way to do it is to convince the CKAN team to do so. Failing that, perhaps someone will feel motivated enough to start a CKAN competitor with different policies (and they could use CKAN's software, because it's FOSS so it's meant for that, right? ).

[passinglurker]

43 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

This seems to be an attempt to backdoor a change to CKAN's policies by appealing to the forum's authority, which is not a good idea, IMO. If such a rule were enacted and CKAN didn't change their policies and was removed from here, it would continue to exist, just distributed elsewhere (like reddit or wherever). And the modders and users would lose an important channel of communication and feedback with the CKAN team.

FWIW I'm not a fan of CKAN's policy of giving more courtesy to restrictively licensed mod authors than those with open licenses, but it would be an abuse of my position to use it to enforce a change.

If you want to change CKAN's policy the way to do it is to convince the CKAN team to do so. Failing that, perhaps someone will feel motivated enough to start a CKAN competitor with different policies (and they could use CKAN's software, because it's FOSS so it's meant for that, right? ).

Idealy this is an option of last resort should CKAN try to double down on its fanatical FOSS rhetoric (don't think some of these guys are zealots about thier right to take what you make and use it in a way that comes back to bite you? check out this thread on thier github!), and that if it comes down to removing CKAN there would indeed be a friendly policy'd replacement to cover the needs of most users. The ones savvy enough to chase down the original would probably be computer literate enough to not be a problem.

If ckan flees to the kerbal subreddit then we'd have to campaign for similar rules there but that's a bridge to cross later.

Anyway ideally it won't need to come to this but if it does I don't see it as much different from banning repeat update requests its all about doing what we can to reduce the annoyance and grief to mod authors.
 

[Raven Industries]

@passinglurker

I'm not sure what you see, but I see a group of reasonable people discussing a problem. I don't think that "Zealots" is the correct term for that.

Edited June 25, 2016 by KerbalSaver

[Sigma88]

9 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:

@passinglurker

I'm not sure what you see, but I see a group of reasonable people discussing a problem. I don't think that "Zealots" is the correct term for that.

maybe the log of their IRC chat can give you some more insights

1 hour ago, ferram4 said:

And here's a nice long #ckan log to be complete.  Statement doesn't seem to have too much context, tbh, simply being at the end.

It is nice to read explicit statement of what I suspected for a long time though: the sticking point is FAR.  The entire reason is to keep RO being installable through CKAN regardless of the support issues it causes.

Edit: Actually, I think it's kinda funny that you think calling me selfish is an insult @politas.  I've always been rather transparent about the fact that I only release my mods for the sake of feedback and bug reports to make it better; I'd have thought that the selfishness would be quite clear.

 

[superdavekerman]

I would argue that the best way to support the interest of the users is to encourage a healthy drama-free modding community, which implies attending to the concerns of mod authors.

And in turn, the best way for mod authors to reduce their own support costs is to work with CKAN (and other networks) to ensure they have automated installs working properly.