blu3wolf

No flaming going on here - by me, anyway. CKAN is dead, long live CKAN, etc etc. ckanbot already cced the discussion room on it.

Oh, so by mods to manage/install, you refer to mods being on CKAN? Ah... different axioms in our starting positions. No wonder our reasoning is confusing us! Sarbian and RoverDude just proved that mods can still exist, not be on the CKAN official repository, and still be installed by CKAN, is all.

If there are no mods to manage/install, there are no modders. So, modders not wanting to use it, is a situation that is impossible. Your reasoning is flawed, there. I can agree that this situation is largely caused by mismanaged metadata, yes. Seeing as its been claimed on here that better management of that metadata will not resolve the issue alone, Im not sure what else to suggest to you.

Well, CKAN is useful even if modders dont want to use it. That is kind of the point being made. No one was harmed by this action, but at the same time, no one has been harmed by CKANs actions either. In fact, until someone develops a method for delivering a punch in the face over standard TCP/IP, I suspect people remaining not harmed is likely to stay the status quo. Lots of mods use CKAN for something it advertises keenly; the ability to simplify complex installs greatly, for mods that require complex dependency chains. Its hardly an oversight, and a number of modders deliberately hide their direct download link to encourage use of CKAN, to decrease their support requirements for porked installs.

No - just pointing out that if it was his users, and he wasnt irked at CKAN, that would be a reasonable stance to take. Otherwise, its not his users at fault, as was claimed.

Only if you assume that 100% of users use mods (many dont), and that those that do use CKAN (some dont). Still; You, one person. RO CKAN users, 20K people. Given the scope of the discussion, literally everyone in it is a vocal minority.

This is misplaced anger, IMO. Sarbian requested metadata describing the mod he maintains be deleted from the CKAN. The concern should still be with the CKAN maintainers, for acceding to the request.

AVC does so by means of a config file included with the mod. Certainly been cases where that doesnt work, due to the modder failing to update the file, or updating it with faulty data. CKAN does have a robust mechanism to know what version of a mod is installed - provided that it installed the mod. Otherwise, all bets are off.

The former is clearly not his users, else he would be just as irked at CKAN (or is just a more reasonable modder). The latter is not feasible, because there is no way to actually verify the version of most mods manually installed. One reason that there has been not much luck with AD mods and managed ones.

In Sarbians defense, and with an eye to precise language, your mods will not have been delisted without your interaction, Malah. However, CKAN displays mods based on them being compatible with your install of KSP. If CKAN cannot install a dependency of your mod, it will not display your mod (by default). If you mod depends on Module Manager, it will not show up, if Module Manager is removed (as has happened). While your mods may not have been delisted, it is the same basic effect, in that your mods cannot be installed via CKAN - even though they are still there, with (I assume) valid metadata present.

Well, you are right that I really dont get it. Sorted - for some definitions.

Which frankly is reason alone that modders ought to license their works as they feel is correct. Restrictive licenses existed before CKAN, but there are some modders realising they prefer strict control of their copyright. I personally agree with the idea that they should have had a single policy for delisting, regardless of the license involved. I just think that policy should have been to not delist mods, rather than to allow the option. I guess you found you did have more to say.

Paragraph one - Ive seen contrary examples of that, too. P2 - the same corresponding factor is that new and inexperienced users of KSP with CKAN can mod their game successfully without making newb mistakes like dropping the mod folder inside AVC or similar. P3 - nowhere has a CKAN Contributor told a modder to F off. They have spent significant amounts of time to resolve their concerns, when and where they are raised. P4 - I agree. Still, if a modder does want to control the way their mod is distributed in original or modified form, restrictive licenses are the correct way to go about that. I doubt you will have much success in convincing modders away from that mentality though.

Yah, paranoid nonsense. My posts in this thread predate my comments on the IRC. You are not a majority of modders, CKAN contributors or users. You dont have an excellent voice to speak collectively for them, unfortunately. Ill start my thread when its ready. Be patient. Thats simply not true. Its quite common to see folks with manual installs having those issues, and worse. Only have to look at one of roverdudes threads to see folks with issues from dropping the folder into the wrong location, or having the wrong module manager, or any of a variety of issues. As a CKAN user, Ive not personally seen an issue with CKAN - although I have seen several from mod incompatibility, that had not been caught by CKAN. Fortunately that isnt difficult to fix for future users. As far as restrictive licenses - if thats something that happens as a reaction, its something that should have happened in the first place.

On the subject of vocal minorities - CKAN users is not really a minority... for instance, about twenty thousand installs of RO are queued through CKAN every time KSP updates. CKAN users actively having a say in this discussion - very much a vocal minority. CKAN users affected by the outcome of this discussion - not a minority.

Then I'll accept your gracious apology. In fairness to the modders complaining here, mamy of them have tried this, only to discover that users dont read when complaining about bugs, and rarely post useful bug reports. Instead someone complains the mod doesnt work, someone else replies with its working fine, the author asks for clarifying details, someone else confirms the issue, and then it comes out that its only CKAN users with the issue. In short, its hard to enforce, short of a few actually nuclear options proposed by some of the smarter cookies among the modders. Also, CKAN is not a mod.

Id like an apology for that. That, or you show me where I claimed mod authors are to blame for bugs in CKAN. My 1.1.2 install had 180 mods on it. My 1.1.3 install is presently clean, and will stay that way until CKAN is in proper working order. @Passinglurker if you cannot be accurate in your malignations then simply stay quiet.

CKAN works fine, most of the time. The issue stems from when it fails, a portion of users notifying the wrong people that it failed - usually the modders whose mod it broke, who likely had nothing to do with it being on CKAN in the first place. It is this question of support that is such a tipping point, for modders. Its not an overwhelming majority of users for whom it breaks - nor a majority of modders who take issue with pointing mistaken users to where they should be, either. Just a vocal minority.

Immaterial, in the case of how it relates to Napsters legal defense. The scripting of the installation is a machine readable version of the same instructions given to humans on the mod release page. Drawing dependencies from the original author of that mod is a key feature of CKAN, something widely advertised as well.

Which according to modders, it would not do. Its been asserted (likely with some accuracy) that folks seeking support would emulate underground win64 users, and take efforts to hide their use of CKAN. By the by, you mean for, not with. As a courtesy Im going to avoid speculating here on the issues with modders vice for modders.

These ideas have been brought up eslewhere today, and largely dismissed by authors. None of them are worth dismissing.

Yes, users not understanding things is the fault of CKAN, Im aware. Incidentally, Napster was materially different, and there is not corresponding legal precedent to be drawn from that case. In the case of CKAN, it only points users to where YOU personally, the modder, released your work for download by all. No such cast iron method exists, and this is not the fault of CKAN. You will always have users installing mods incorrectly - the only difference with CKAN is the volume of them. More users, more users that cant install something correctly.

Your reasons for giving an explicit permission to do something are largely irrelevant. Fortunately, unless you really didnt mean open license, thats not part of the license.

You have missed the point entirely. I will endeavor to make it, once more. I might point out that Freedom of Speech in the US at least does protect you from those who would otherwise have to listen to the inane rants. In this specific case though, Im not asking you to listen to me. The speech that is protected is the contents of the library. The metadata CKAN collects is not your work, and it is not your mod. It relates to your mod, and it describes your mod and some details about it, like where it can be found. You have as much power to say that CKAN should not index your work, as you have power to prevent discussions of your work. That applies whether your mod is ARR, or CC, or a book for that matter. End users want to install your mod. If that counts as disrespecting the wishes of the modder who deliberately put it out there, and distributed it themselves over http... well then. we are at an impasse. Your insults aside, if mod authors do not actually want their mods to be free or open, they ought not be releasing them under such licenses. Its not weaponising. Its also worth nothing that its hardly a defense, given that no mod manager interacts with the distribution license of your mods anyway.

As above, our differences are axiomatic - you say creators should have the right to override freedom of speech, I disagree. You say creators should be able to say their mods must only be downloaded using Firefox, I disagree. As things stand, your content is being distributed, by either you, or a website you personally nominated to do it for you. CKAN presents a list of the locations of such downloads, not a mirror of the downloads themselves. In short - you absolutely can take your content down when and if you choose. If you licensed it under an OSS license, mind you, you have no ability to prevent someone else from reuploading it. If you have a problem with that, then you really should have an ARR license to start with. As far as the issue being between mod creators and CKAN, Ill pay that. My issue is that the proposed solutions affect (in a number of cases severely) the users. I think if the solution to the issue presents another issue, then as a user of CKAN I have a stake in this discussion.