blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Im still a fan of the option presented above, where you would have the option to opt out of any repo other than Unsupported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 2 hours ago, blu3wolf said: Then I would humbly suggest, that open source licenses are not for you. I would also point out that a number of users do not have the time to set up an install of several hundred mods when those mods are sourced from a thread, or from Curse (aptly named)... but from CKAN, it suddenly becomes viable without spending days curating the install. For a subset of users, your mods not being on CKAN is equivalent to your mods not being available. Also, after you went to the trouble of having your mods removed from CKAN, I might point out that several are still floating around. The Community Resource Pack, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive, are both still present - as are deprecated versions of Asteroid Day, FirespitterCore, ORS Fork, Regolith, Sounding Rockets, and USI Tools. I would kindly suggest you to read up on the sourceforge mess of last year and come back again to tell us open source is not for us. They abused the opensource license in the same way (but for way more nefarious purpose) and the replies were exactly the same kind of reaction we are seeing in that thread. No one here is against sharing our code. We just want some control how the final packaged product is shared because we have to deal with the end users and not the CKAN team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ippo Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, sarbian said: No one here is against sharing our code. We just want some control how the final packaged product is shared because we have to deal with the end users and not the CKAN team. And yet module manager is distributed under a license that waives away your right to control the distribution, like most of the mods on the forum (including mine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) So @Ippo do you feel that sourceforge was right to repackage OSS software with adware because the license allowed them to do it ? Edited June 25, 2016 by sarbian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAS123 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 So i know im quite insignificant compared to the rest of you but what is this CKAN Licensing issue about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ippo Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, sarbian said: So @Ippo do you feel that sourceforge was right to repackage OSS software with adware because the license allowed them to do it ? I wasn't around when that happened and I honestly don't know what you are referring to. Where can I find out what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPLRepo Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, SAS123 said: So i know im quite insignificant compared to the rest of you but what is this CKAN Licensing issue about? suggest you read the previous six pages and the thread linked in the OP if you want the background. It's a long story. 9 minutes ago, Ippo said: I wasn't around when that happened and I honestly don't know what you are referring to. Where can I find out what happened? Can start with these three. First three that come up in google. (of course the last one is wiki, and we all know how we can believe wiki) but it also has links. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/sourceforge-grabs-gimp-for-windows-account-wraps-installer-in-bundle-pushing-adware/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/03/sourceforge_to_offer_only_optin_adware_after_gimp_grump/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAS123 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 So i neither for nor againest CKAN and i dont use it anyway because manually downlading mods aloows for more flexibility but Whats the problem with getting a license that allows the distribution of the mod with the exception that it cannot be distributed by third party software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 1 hour ago, sarbian said: So @Ippo do you feel that sourceforge was right to repackage OSS software with adware because the license allowed them to do it ? If the license permitted it, its not particularly an issue... I suspect I would have stopped using them as I disagree with adware on principle, but its not like they did something wrong - legally. If you want to control distribution of your work, thats fine, and there is nothing wrong with that. You just need to say so - and not release your work under a permissive license, if you do not want to grant blanket permissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPLRepo Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 56 minutes ago, SAS123 said: So i neither for nor againest CKAN and i dont use it anyway because manually downlading mods aloows for more flexibility but Whats the problem with getting a license that allows the distribution of the mod with the exception that it cannot be distributed by third party software? One might argue CKAN is not actually distributing mod software. But indeed, we may see a lot of mod authors changing their licenses going forward to All Rights Reserved, which is not a good thing for the mod community of KSP. As we have seen such restricted license awesome mods fall into oblivion and lost to us all when the author has vanished in the past. 27 minutes ago, blu3wolf said: If the license permitted it, its not particularly an issue... I suspect I would have stopped using them as I disagree with adware on principle, but its not like they did something wrong - legally. If you want to control distribution of your work, thats fine, and there is nothing wrong with that. You just need to say so - and not release your work under a permissive license, if you do not want to grant blanket permissions. So as per previous. Do you think that restricted licenses is a good thing for the KSP community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 1 minute ago, JPLRepo said: One might argue CKAN is not actually distributing mod software. But indeed, we may see a lot of mod authors changing their licenses going forward to All Rights Reserved, which is not a good thing for the mod community of KSP. As we have seen such restricted license awesome mods fall into oblivion and lost to us all when the author has vanished in the past. So as per previous. Do you think that restricted licenses is a good thing for the KSP community? No, I think FOSS licenses would be better. But we have already established that modders dislike such licenses, because they dislike blanket permissions. A FOSS license that has the caveat you may not use it in a certain way, is neither free nor open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 1 hour ago, SAS123 said: So i neither for nor againest CKAN and i dont use it anyway because manually downlading mods aloows for more flexibility but Whats the problem with getting a license that allows the distribution of the mod with the exception that it cannot be distributed by third party software? As above, CKAN does not actually distribute mod files. It merely tells the end users computer from where your mod can already be downloaded. If you were to prohibit the use of computers to download your mod, you might have some difficulty in distributing it IAW your license. Its no different to having a text file on your hard drive with a list of your preferred mods on it, and making sure to install those mods whenever KSP updates. Other than efficiency, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) No. What we have established is that modders do not want to deal with bugs that are unrelated to their code and that CKAN just don't care about the burdens it puts on us. This is not about license but decency. Edited June 25, 2016 by sarbian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politas Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 A quick point. CKAN does care about problems caused by CKAN's messed up installations. That's completely covered by our commitment to our users. If CKAN messes up an installation, CKAN isn't working right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, politas said: A quick point. CKAN does care about problems caused by CKAN's messed up installations. That's completely covered by our commitment to our users. If CKAN messes up an installation, CKAN isn't working right. I want to believe that but I am having a hard time given some of the comment here and in github. Or by users did you mean everyone but the modders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politas Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 1 minute ago, sarbian said: I want to believe that but I am having a hard time given some of the comment here and in github. Or by users did you mean everyone but the modders ? I mean people who use CKAN to install mods. They are our users. Modders , in their publishing of mods, are not users; they are providers. I am trying to get CKAN's policy to a better state with regard to our providers, because antagonising them is also bad (in the long run) for our users. I attempted to make a very precise and limited comment. Please do not extrapolate nefarious intentions from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarbian Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Yeah. You are so nice. Let me quote #CKAN Quote <politas> pjf, I think we _need_ to disadvantage those thousands of RO users to bring them into the discussion. Currently, all the annoyance is on the modders side, and they have an unfettered forum to poodle about CKAN. Edited June 25, 2016 by sarbian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferram4 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) 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. Edited June 25, 2016 by ferram4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) @sarbian @ferram4 Well I guess that confirms we can't let our guard down around CKAN. :/ Should have figured that be the case since it took beating down the gates to get them to listen. Edited June 25, 2016 by passinglurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuoDex Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 This thread has become incredibly heated incredibly fast. Please try to keep it polite, or move the impoliteness to a different form of communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 3 hours ago, blu3wolf said: As above, CKAN does not actually distribute mod files. It merely tells the end users computer from where your mod can already be downloaded. This is legal nitpicking. From an end-user's point of CKAN is effectively distributing the mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 As my reply was to a comment about legality, legal 'nitpicking' is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 3 hours ago, sarbian said: No. What we have established is that modders do not want to deal with bugs that are unrelated to their code and that CKAN just don't care about the burdens it puts on us. This is not about license but decency. THIS ultimately is the problem with this CKAN mess. Solve this and things would likely be fine. You will never have a perfect system but right now the biggest issue with CKAN goes something like this. When a user has an issue with FAR, they post in the FAR thread. When a user has an issue with KIS, they post in the KIS thread. When a user has an issue with CKAN they post in the CKA...Mod's thread. (see what I did there?) If CKAN issues were left in the CKAN thread and didn't clog up modders threads, modders would probably be pretty happy no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blu3wolf Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, goldenpsp said: THIS ultimately is the problem with this CKAN mess. Solve this and things would likely be fine. You will never have a perfect system but right now the biggest issue with CKAN goes something like this. When a user has an issue with FAR, they post in the FAR thread. When a user has an issue with KIS, they post in the KIS thread. When a user has an issue with CKAN they post in the CKA...Mod's thread. (see what I did there?) If CKAN issues were left in the CKAN thread and didn't clog up modders threads, modders would probably be pretty happy no? Thats not the impression Ive gathered today. I dont think the impression matters, though. Plenty of modders have already tried to segregate CKAN and non CKAN install issues by thread, with varying and limited success. The suggestion I made further up was an attempt at fixing this issue at the stem; make the default CKAN install an opt in, stable release only setup, as modders have requested elsewhere at length. Add two other official repositories, one for official experimental releases by mod authors, and one for absolutely anything, with no support by the mod authors - so basically what we have now. Users would have to manually add experimental or unsupported repos to their mod list, and could have them visually differentiated within that list - perhaps unsupported ones being highlighted a cautionary orange, or a pale red glow. Still not a perfect system, but one that would at least make it significantly harder for the average user to screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpsp Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, blu3wolf said: Thats not the impression Ive gathered today. I dont think the impression matters, though. Plenty of modders have already tried to segregate CKAN and non CKAN install issues by thread, with varying and limited success. The suggestion I made further up was an attempt at fixing this issue at the stem; make the default CKAN install an opt in, stable release only setup, as modders have requested elsewhere at length. Add two other official repositories, one for official experimental releases by mod authors, and one for absolutely anything, with no support by the mod authors - so basically what we have now. Users would have to manually add experimental or unsupported repos to their mod list, and could have them visually differentiated within that list - perhaps unsupported ones being highlighted a cautionary orange, or a pale red glow. Still not a perfect system, but one that would at least make it significantly harder for the average user to screw up. Today you are seeing the results of modders having their support via their threads get choked with CKAN this and CKAN that. If Modders never saw a CKAN question they wouldn't care about CKAN working or not. IMO CKAN should own their solution start to finish. CKAN issues should be brought up with the CKAN people. At the very least they would be like the tier 1 support. Then if necessary the CKAN people could reach out directly to modders when necessary. This outreach would be coming from someone knowing what's up, not a clueless end user, and as such would still be far less frustrating to a modder when that support comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts