blu3wolf

I read the rest of the post, and your definition of workable and mine do not align. That gives me a hell of an incentive to see what things could fit into the spokes.

Depends on your definition of productive. When you say sort this, you refer to your own efforts in taking down CKAN. As Im opposed to that, Im going to be taking actions that are not productive towards that goal. That should be pretty obvious. Talk of being productive when our aims align. If your gifts have strings attached, count me out.

You are not gonna get that wish unfortunately.

I have to agree; If you give modders the ability to request a delisting (which is unfortunately the case here for a subset of modders), it should not matter whether your mod is required by other mods to function. Another reason to not delist any mods at all. I note that Module Manager is under a ShareAlike license, so there is nothing stopping anyone from forking it on Github, and asking it to be relisted.

Right, and Ferram should make the drag way lower in FAR, because I think its way incorrect. The CKAN policies are very misguided in their decision to only delist ARR mods on request; They really should not delist any mods on request, for their current repository. With the walled garden idea being promulgated above though, delisting suddenly becomes viable. Make new versions of the client produce a popup that requires you to type an acknowledgement to dismiss it, when trying to add a non official repository - or the Unsupported one. Include a short, single sentence warning that no support is offered by CKAN, or the modders involved, for using mods outside the official repo. Its sad, isnt it, that we are trying to go from Linux to Apple.

the unsupported repo, and even the experimental repo, should be completely off by default. Modders could opt out of the managed Stable repository, and their support would be required to get it there. Maintainers could add any mod to Experimental, but without approval of the modder it would not progress any further - and would be removed at their request. Unsupported would be just that. Users use at their own risk, no support from modders or CKAN maintainers, with the perk of being able to use mods by modders who hate CKAN on principle. Writing such a tool could be an interesting challenge. Beyond my abilities, unfortunately. All the actions you suggested, with the one exception, are done. You cannot force people to care. You cannot make modders like CKAN. They should, but those who dont are not going to change their minds because they get an editor.

1. Sounds good. 2. Ive already said my piece (several times, in several places) on having at least three official repositories. 3. Part of 2 really, I think there should be an Unsupported repo - basically equivalent to the current one. This obviously would take such. 4. Looks good, but there would never be a need to move it from Stable. If it is Stable it wont magically stop being so. 5. Sounds good. Possibly linking to the Issues setup, and @tagging the maintainer? 6. Cant hurt. 7. Never should be a position where that needs to happen, files should never have gotten out of Experimentals while unstable. 8. Cant agree. Just because a mod is depended on, doesnt mean it has a different license. Mods like ModuleManager should be treated just like any other mod with the same license. 9. This is already the case. Other than making a custom editor for people (completely unnecessary for people smart enough to make a mod) all that has been done. Suggested workflow - NetKAN is used to generate .ckan files, which are put into Experimentals repo automatically (The NetKAN files in the first place written by the modder/Maintainer). After a period of testing - say a week or two - those .ckan files are moved to Stable, for general use. The Unsupported repo remains a wild west of edit wars and errors, much like early Wikipedia.

Of course, if its an open and free license, that doesnt stop anyone else from rebuilding it and offering it without such a draconian license. On a per release basis, if thats what it takes. Seeing as moving install files by 'hand' is the same method that CKAN uses for installing (behind the GUI), you would actually be barring the use of your mod on personal computers. If thats what it takes...

Except according to the swamped modders, who are asserting that it is.

For several hundred mods, it actually is a large hassle. Not every mod uses AVC, and on my last KSP install, several modders accidentally screwing up their .version files caused me about as much grief as they claim CKAN causes them. As far as freedom of speech goes, you are allowed to suggest it shouldnt be a thing, but only because you have it.

To be honest thats probably taking it a bit far IMO. Still, I think modders shouldnt be supporting those folks anyway, so theres that.

The mod developers need not support CKAN for it to function.

This is the issue modders have, though. Having to point people at another thread is the complaint being made here.

On average perhaps. I learned nothing new.

You can of course write your own CKAN files to install ModuleManager that way. That makes it almost as much hassle as a manual install, though.

Or in this case, one thousand, two hundred and sixty four files into eighty three folders, assuming they use FAR, USI and MM.

Should still work.

well, Id ask the mod author which version is appropriate for the older version of KSP. You then should tell CKAN about it, and ideally they would fix the issue. Given that its an old version of KSP though... not much chance of it happening.

Naturally, I am most concerned with my own time. I have a given amount of time to play KSP in. Not as much as Id like, but I suppose thats little surprise. If the author wants to spend lots of time, or only a little time, on modding, that is their prerogative. If they spend that time working on support requests, that is also their prerogative. As far as my regard for any specific author's time, whether that time is spent modding or not, I have to agree with RoverDude's views on the matter:

As a mod user, Id say I have an interest in the outcome of this disputation. Ive done a couple PRs for CKAN in the past, but thats about it. I would naturally be fairly irked if the actions of some invalidated the best tool I have for maintaining my KSP install. Therefor, I am arguing against those who would do so.

telling other peoples computers where they can download your mod from is not taking advantage of you, and it provides you with testers. No paranoia required, but it seems to be popular lately anyway...

You have misunderstood it slightly, it should sound like the user would not be able to download the mod in the first place without the password. If they could download it but couldnt use it, that would still be distributing the mod, just not in a very useful format.

No sarcasm. If you want to control where your mod is distributed from, you can do that with an ARR - so basically not licensing it. That still doesnt legally prevent CKAN or any other mod manager from pointing to your mod download location, but with present policy for CKAN at least, you can ask for your mod to be delisted (As I am aware you have done so). You dont want to mess with the license, really. You want (I assume) to make a point about how you feel wronged by CKAN policies. Im pretty sure your mods (The ones I am aware of and have used, anyway) have not been messed up by CKAN installs. I dont think (and please correct me if I am wrong) you have had support issues wrongly sent to you that should have been for CKAN maintainers. You shouldnt have an issue primarily with the fact that your end users are installing your mod with a script instead of a browser download and manual install (I assume). As far as not wanting to distribute your mod, Im not sure what to say to that. Some of those are useful to me personally. I guess your current open licenses would permit me to reupload them if you decided you did not want to distribute them anymore. That is of course, as far as I am concerned, one of the great things about open source - the ability for someone else to pick up where you leave off, if you have not the time or inclination to carry on.

So far, the most foolproof method of controlling downloads is to password protect the file, and not give out the password.

you personally are not locked into anything. ARR is not a nuclear option, its the default option under copyright law virtually the world over. If you have a mod which is incapable of licensing its future releases under ARR, you have yourself to blame. Irrelevant to the point, but there you go. No force in question, nothing. As a mod author, the product in question isnt even aimed at you. Which, they dont. As discussed above, its policy to delist ARR works on request, not a legal obligation to do so. As pointed out in several places today, there exist good options to fix that exact thing you are complaining about.