Stone Blue

Ok... The one word in the whole thing, and why I posted it was: " For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material." Just to illustrate just because something CAN be legally done, does NOT meant it SHOULD be done... And this is off about as open a license you can get...

Funny... I was just reading up on Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) , an open license, and spotted THIS at the bottom... Seems relevant, and its funny how people on the open-source side do not seem to have noticed "The Fine Print": Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

What version of MFI do you have installed?... Would it by chance be something OTHER than version 1.1.5.0? If you do NOT have v 1.1.5.0, perhaps it might help if you read the post right above yours? Also have you noticed this in sarbian's signature? ----> No logs => No support

We are?...??? OH!... Right!!... IF, SOMEONE, (un-named), can fix the greenhouse animations... lol

Hmmm... interesting... Hopefully Beta will find that useful... Thanx, @Deimos Rast

Any way to add in or list known conflicting mods in the version file?

Yes, I mentioned Soylent to Beta, but we hadnt discussed yet if it was anything we wanted to pursue, as of yet... I also have a couple ideas for those panels, or at least something similar, for use with the Greenhouse...

Thanx for not only the update, but STILL updating 1.0.5... I for ONE thank you for that alone...

EXCELLENT point! And since SD is so new, I would like to see mod devs upload these older mod versions to SD, just FOR people who still wish to play old KSP versions, as well as for archival purposes... Of course, common sense should dictate in user's minds, that installing these old versions, SHOULD ONLY BE DONE, with the corresponding version of KSP, AND WILL NOT BE ACTIVELY SUPPORTED... Which should NOT be too much of a problem since most issues someone would be likely to run into will most likely already ahve been discussed and figured out in the release threads

If you are referring to ME and my posts, I dont believe "I" have lost my cool... I apologize if I ended up reiterating something that posted, that I had not read yet... The thread is moving fairly quickly, and some of the posts are quite long... With the way quotes work (horribly), its tough to read thru a full page of posts, THEN to go back and try to quote posts and reply, AND to remember my thoughts about said posts... I already conceded that I erred in doing so, and I will slow down on the quoting and replying to posts AS I READ them...Which is easier for me, but seems to tick off people... Gee, kind of like CKAN is doing: making things easier for SOME people, at the cost of, and ticking off OTHER people...

You CAN, but $20 says KSP will replce it with the next restart of KSP... I've deleted all the empty legacy folders from my installs, but KSP just keeps replacing them... i've also tried deleteing the Launcher stuff, but same deal.. it doesnt seem to break the game at all when you do so, they just get replaced

Good point @adsii1970 i did say "RELEVANT" phots/albums.. meaning anything NOT releveant to someones quote should definately be snipped.. And yes, there is the share link, which I actually DO use quite often, but I had forgotten about using in this context... Thanx for bringing it up...

Yup.. even using a mouse, with my laptop, i find it difficult to edit quotes... When I dont HAVE my mouse, and have to use the track pad, I dont even bother... I can only imagine how nasty it must be trying it on a PHONE... I STILL dont uunderstand exactly how to edit quotes, even after the new forum has been here for MONTHS, and I post, what, 10-20 posts a DAY on the forums?...MANY with quotes... Trying to edit quotes, there's times the "delete" & "backspace" buttons do not work like they do in every other Gigillionth computer program/interface out there... Also trying to separate a quote into separate quotes, so replies of your own can be made in between them, is horrendous and tedious at BEST... But yes, people NEED to start at least snipping photos & albums from posts they reply to.. AT LEAST, when the quoted posts are recent, and just a few posts above their reply... If a post from a page or more back is being quoted, I can kinda see allowing a full quote, even with relevant pic & albums... But yeah, when doing it with a post RIGHT above yours, yeah... thats not nice...

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

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...

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

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...

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...??

ALL very good points, and well stated.. (I ran out of "likes" after the 4th or 5th post in this thread...lol)

Aaaannndddd.... The last few posts are all gobble-dee-gook to me... So I'm glad @BetaguyGZT is Lead on BioMASS... lol

HA! HA,ha.... So am I... And I feel the same as well... (usually... :P) I see what you did there...

If this is the case, then I dont see why it should be such a big deal to allow opt-out...??... Is it just because those could be VERY popular mods, and users want to have THEIR cake and eat it too? I agree, legally mods give up distribution rights when they use open source... But again, there's the question of, just because something CAN be done legally, SHOULD it be ETHICALLY done?... I mean a good argument IS that mod devs provide ALL the content, that users get thru CKAN... So it DOES seem, that it IS a bit counter intuitive to alienate the providers, of the SOLE reason CKAN is in existence... Thank You... I believe this is a step in right direction... ALSO, a positive step in the right direction... Is it possible, and feasible, to integrate some function into CKAN, that allows mod devs to include in the metadata, known or possible mod conflicts?.. To where CKAN will either warn, or even not allow users to install conflicting mods? If so, maybe THIS is where mod devs who are willing, could maybe volunteer their time to do the coding or integration?...??? Sounds easy, but THIS is a step backward... Just look at how many GREAT, even popular mods, have lasted so long, because once a dev loses interest, someone else is allowed to pick up the mantle... If devs are forced into more restrictive, or even closed licenses, it WILL only hurt the community later on... And I think it is just down right selfish to think that way, because then you will not only be hurting CKAN users, you will hurt users who wont even touch CKAN with a 10ft pole... Well, yes... A good point, but if DEVS were the ONLY ones allowed to handle their own metadata, then that would take more of the onus off of you and the CKAN team, would it not?

Actually, I dont think it IS... Modders have stated they DO NOT have an issue with modmanagers... KSP ModAdmin, and KSP AVC havent gotten grief like CKAN, AND they ARE supported (especially AVC) by MANY modders... I think the issue is most certainly CKANs implementation and usage that most devs take umbrage to... And while we differ on opinion, THANK YOU for starting this thread, @phoenix_ca I ask everyone (myself included, as I seem to sometimes get heated and offend people ), to please lets keep at least ONE CKAN thread civil...

Well, @BetaguyGZT would be the one to explain better, but he's been having a heck of a time trying to get the TAC converters working, so he tried the stock ones (USI uses stock), and not only I think has Beta been having issues with THAT, but IIRC, RD has had issues as well on USI... THEN, I see just this AM that @Starwaster posted issues with whatever converters IonCross LS also uses... ??... So it may be an overall issue with KSP itself?...???.. IDK... I'm also trying to give ideas and ways we can try to make BioMASS kind of "modular", so besides basic REQUIRED parts, any "extras" can be removed or not... AND with a (hopefully) well-organized and "modular" folder structure, people cou ld potentially grab the "extra" parts for use WITHOUT needing the basic BioMASS functionality... Betaguy & I would still have to discuss specifics of that, as "extra" parts are being pushed as future features and things to look at... Right now, focus is on improving existing models & parts, cutting dupliacte models & textures out of the mod, getting existing functionality working, and hopefully shrinking the mod size from 100MB, down to around maybe 60MB or less... So right now, we are in maintenance and optimiztaion mode, to get a working release out as soon as we can...

@evileye.x No problem... it happens, and it WAS back a couple pages...