SpaceDock.info (Mod Hosting Site)

[inigma]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Well yeah you kinda have that   Which is it's own rather delicate topic.

But I believe the current context is whether or not CKAN (well, SpaceDock) should also get into the file distribution business using that same model (i.e. distribution without the modder's explicit and direct involvement and opting in)... which is a very bad idea.  

SpaceDock will be opt-in. All modders will have to provide the latest and greatest versions. We will not be hosting files without permission. At all.

Edited February 16, 2016 by inigma

[uglyduckling81]

5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Well yeah you kinda have that   Which is it's own rather delicate topic.

But I believe the current context is whether or not CKAN (well, SpaceDock) should also get into the file distribution business using that same model (i.e. distribution without the modder's explicit and direct involvement and opting in)... which is a very bad idea.  

Rover CKAN is a great system. I'm not sure why you are against it. Is it just because your now part of Squad and are pushing a Curse agenda? If so how about getting onto them to actually do some work to support KSP rather than it just being a one way street.

Honestly if a mod is only on Curse I will never know about it and never use it. I find almost all my mods via CKAN, I see them in the list, look them up and decide whether to try them out. I imagine most people work the same way. Good luck with your mods if they aren't on CKAN.

Curse responded to a post I made at the end of 2014 and stated they would update KSP's section for us which has still yet to happen. 

[swjr-swis]

32 minutes ago, JedTech said:

Please don't go with Opt-In just because a few CKAN critics don't like CKAN. I truly think CKAN will fail if it follows this route.

The intention and spirit of free distribution licenses is exactly that (unrestricted distribution). Those licenses should not be used if an author has objections to the principles of the license. CKAN should not be an automatic-feeling detector which probes modders feelings on if they really intended to use their license or not.

CKAN is all about auto-magically installing mods so that users can focus on playing KSP. It provides a service that looks for mods that allow distribution and then it distributes them.

Like I stated before: I like CKAN and I promote it freely. From a mod user perspective (which I am), it provides a way of centralizing mod information and access.

Out of principle however, and even to the detriment of my own user experience, I have to stand squarely by the mod authors in protection of their right to be the ones to decide when and IF their mods are to be listed in CKAN. Please do not be the next ones to try and argue that an opt out 'respects everyone's wishes' or is there 'for everyone's benefit'; this has been done many times before now and I'm tired of that discussion.

There are sound reasons of workflow for some mods to not be included for broad distribution until the mod author explicitly decides it's the right time, as RoverDude already clarified. There is also the matter of having a small measure of control over what versions mod authors get badgered about, distracting them from legitimate issues or upgrades.

Even ignoring all that, being given the right to do something according to the letter of a chosen license does not imply that we get to demand or impose it, which is what this comes down to. Do not squander the goodwill of volunteers - there are precious few of them with the will, capability and drive to create and support good mods (or services, like KS).

 

47 minutes ago, Yemo said:

The problem with "unchecked by default" would be the same as today. There is no simple/external way to differentiate between modders who ask people for help to add their mod to ckan because they can not check that box after the initial upload and lack the time or knowledge to do so, and modders who do not want to be on ckan. While that is easy to remember for the prominent mods/modders, it becomes the same mess as today for the not so prominent ones.

Contrary to that, if the box is unchecked, but was "checked by default", there is no question about it that the modder made the choice to stay away from ckan.

If there is any ambiguity or mess in the current system, then I not so humbly suggest that the current system is flawed. We should not be making it the mod author's problem to find out after the fact that one of their mods has been 'integrated' into something they did not explicitly choose for. If the current system somehow makes it difficult or complicated to 'check that box after the initial upload', then the upload/update method is in the wrong, and that is what needs to be corrected.

We have enough commercial and governmental services out there that constantly try to enforce or slip by us things without our explicit consent; let's not make a community service, which to exist and survive depends on the goodwill of volunteers freely providing their time and ideas, part of that trend. Please.

 

9 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Multiple hosting and discoverability choices are good.  Making that choice for people either against their wishes or without their knowledge is bad.

I like CKAN, I want CKAN, and I wish all mods could be found and installed through it. But not at the expense of a mod author's wishes.

I am pretty sure a lot of people would very loudly complain if SQUAD were to make things so that the only way we can download a mod from SpaceDock or any other community alternative, would be to first visit Curse and tick an opt-out that only then gives us the option to use SpaceDock or some other place. Please let's give mod authors the same courtesy that we as mod users are implicitly asking for (bordering on demanding really) when we implement an alternative mod repository like KS/SpaceDock - to have the freedom of choice of not using a service, no matter how good it seems to others or how big the group is that advocates for it.

 

[Yemo]

7 minutes ago, GreenWolf said:

Isn't the whole opt-in vs opt-out disccusion made moot by the fact that the CKAN folks add things to netKAN anyways? It just takes a bit longer if the little tickbox isn't checked.

Or am I completely misunderstanding how netKAN indexes stuff?

That was kind of the idea behind my "opt-out of ckan via spacedock" proposal. It would provide the clear information that the modder does not want to be on ckan.

Whereas the "opt-in of ckan via spacedock" leaves it open to interpretation if the modder simply does not know or care about it and would potentially be grateful for being added manually (which is pretty common going through the threads of newer modders/mods where modders are asked for ckan support) or whethe the modder did not want to be on ckan. So opt-in leaves us pretty much exactly where we are at the moment. Which is fine by me, I just thought the possibility to simply opt out of ckan without the need to talk to someone or raise an issue and so on would improve things compared to the status quo.

2 minutes ago, inigma said:

SpaceDock will be opt-in. All modders will have to provide the latest and greatest versions. We will not be hosting files without permission. At all.

It is about my proposal concerning what was formerly the ckan checkmark on kerbalstuff.

[CobaltWolf]

7 minutes ago, uglyduckling81 said:

Rover CKAN is a great system. I'm not sure why you are against it. Is it just because your now part of Squad and are pushing a Curse agenda? If so how about getting onto them to actually do some work to support KSP rather than it just being a one way street.

Honestly if a mod is only on Curse I will never know about it and never use it. I find almost all my mods via CKAN, I see them in the list, look them up and decide whether to try them out. I imagine most people work the same way. Good luck with your mods if they aren't on CKAN.

Curse responded to a post I made at the end of 2014 and stated they would update KSP's section for us which has still yet to happen. Pretty much that site go can go f*ck it self after the abysmal effort they have made.

CKAN is great for the user, but Rover and other modders (not all of them) are leery of CKAN. It introduces a lot of potential for issues that subsequently land themselves on the plate of the mod author, instead of the people that manage CKAN. It has nothing to do with Curse, which is not even a platform that Rover uses. It is just about not wanting to introduce more headaches for modders, especially ones that they wouldn't even know were coming.

EDIT: It seems to me that the ambiguity could be removed completely by having a link to a separate CKAN opt-in page rather than having it be a checkbox. That way you know its the mod author 100% opting in.

EDIT2: I'm still chuckling over the implication that Rover is somehow pushing some dark SQUAD agenda...

Edited February 16, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[RoverDude]

5 minutes ago, uglyduckling81 said:

Rover CKAN is a great system. I'm not sure why you are against it. Is it just because your now part of Squad and are pushing a Curse agenda? If so how about getting onto them to actually do some work to support KSP rather than it just being a one way street.

Honestly if a mod is only on Curse I will never know about it and never use it. I find almost all my mods via CKAN, I see them in the list, look them up and decide whether to try them out. I imagine most people work the same way. Good luck with your mods if they aren't on CKAN.

Curse responded to a post I made at the end of 2014 and stated they would update KSP's section for us which has still yet to happen. Pretty much that site go can go f*ck it self after the abysmal effort they have made.

1.  CKAN is a fantastic idea, with some flaws in execution.  I've invested time (and thankfully, had a huge amount of help from my users) to partially mitigate it.  Not 100%, because I can't stop CKAN's lag time, but good enough to get through the worst of it.

2.  Where did I even mention Curse?  I use GitHub.  And within this context, my work with Squad has about as much to do with my hosting choices as ham does with hamsters.

3.  Regarding discoverability - you might be under the flawed impression that we make mods for other people and care about market share.  I make mods for myself, and like that I get a ton of testers, good feedback and ideas, etc. - plus it's a nice thing to do.  And tbh, I have never had an issue with discoverability of the stuff I make and choose to share - both before and since CKAN came around.  What I have had are more support headaches, and had to take time off making cool stuff to mitigate.

4.  Again, No idea why you're even bringing Curse into the equation.... I use GitHub as my primary release mechanism, and the forums as the main place for support/discoverability.

 

2 minutes ago, Yemo said:

That was kind of the idea behind my "opt-out of ckan via spacedock" proposal. It would provide the clear information that the modder does not want to be on ckan.

That actually is a good idea, since I know some modders explicitly do not want to be listed.

[Yemo]

@swjr-swis It seems as if we were arguing from two different perspectives.

You argue that opt-out toggle would be worse than opt-in toggle in a perfect world/situation. edit: I agree with that!

I argue that opt-out toggle would be an improvement to the current world/situation whereas opt-in toggle would not change the current situation at all, given all the other parameters.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Yemo

[Kolago]

1. I dont use Curse and CKAN at all.

2. I had a list of my favorite mods at KS I was watching via email update notifications.

3. I watch all my favorite mods I can find on github directly. The notifications there very informative on whats going on. I like to see every mod on github!

4. I like KSP-AVC as a tool to see what updates I have missed in 2. and 3.

5. I install all my mods manual and look a lot into the changes on file per file level.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Kolago

[GreenWolf]

If I understand what @Yemo is saying, they're proposing that SpaceDock index mods on netKAN by dedault, but include an opt-out options that also flags the mod so that people know not to manually add it to netKAN.

Gotta say, this sounds a lot better than the current system, where things get added to netKAN eventually anyways, regardless of author wishes.

[MatterBeam]

To be honest, I think opt-in advocates are mostly modders who know what they're doing and are worried by CKAn installation issues. 

As an amateur modder, I'd love a hassle-free CKAN integration that does not require me to learn about APi, hooks, pulls, pushes and rotations.

[HebaruSan]

As what I hope is a conscientious CKAN user, I'm wary of losing functionality because some of my peers post problem reports in the wrong places. It's exceedingly nice to have a curated, relatively complete, up-to-date, easy-go list of community content. An opt-in "unauthorized NetKANs" option wouldn't be a possibility, would it? Show a big red warning in my face that if I tick this box, I must solve any problems myself instead of bothering busy mod authors. Or even hide the option in a config file and make it a pain to enable it.

I tend to see checkbox defaults as giving new users a sense of community norms. If we generally expect that a SpaceDock mod is indexed on CKAN, then it would make sense to express that to a first time uploader by checking the box. If we expect that only certain mods that the author deems suitable for CKAN are there, then it makes sense to leave the box unchecked. And by all means, whatever the default is, make it sticky per-user or per-mod so RoverDude or whomever doesn't have to change it every time.

[Elway358]

12 minutes ago, MatterBeam said:

To be honest, I think opt-in advocates are mostly modders who know what they're doing and are worried by CKAn installation issues. 

As an amateur modder, I'd love a hassle-free CKAN integration that does not require me to learn about APi, hooks, pulls, pushes and rotations.

I think it's more a case of the opt-in advocates wanting 100% control period, which is fine if they rewrite their licenses to say that. Otherwise, they really need to go with the flow.

It's not about "getting something free" or " I made this for myself." If you made it for yourself, then take it down and keep it to yourself. That wont happen because they enjoy the internet fame that comes with it. The second reason is that some of the opt-in advocates have mods that are extremely unstable and buggy on a constant basis with each release version. CKAN is an easy blame target instead of just manning up that they have a buggy product that needs work.

I certainly appreciate the work of some modders but tbh, others should either change their license to suit their fragile feelings/wishes or suck it up and go with the flow. *shrug*

Edited February 16, 2016 by Elway358
typos

[JamesL86]

I am a bit fuzzy on this whole CKAN opt-in opt-out license modder thingy kerfuffle everyone is talking about.  Basically what I am hearing is that...

1) Modders want less headaches that would be brought on by CKAN user mod installations, especially if the mod listing on CKAN was out of date to begin with.

2) CKAN users want everything listed through CKAN because its simple and easy to use and often alleviates some of the headache of mod use.

3) On top of these issues is the issue that CKAN is already ruffling some feathers with users being able to list mods themselves despite modders wishes which has already been causing some tension even before the KS incident.

 

From my personal perspective, I pretty much use CKAN exclusively and would love all mods to be listed there by default.  However, mods will, in my mind, always fall under the jurisdiction of the authors and not the users.  

With that said, Opt-in is probably the best way to go.  However, I do have a suggestion to the CKAN people as follows...

Would it be possible to integrate AVC in with CKAN so that with CKAN's current ability to see manually installed mods it could then indicate that a new version is available from outside the game?  The issue I have always had with AVC is that I have to start the game for it to tell me that a mod is out of date.  Having mod version checks in CKAN with manually installed mods using the already existing AVC database might just save a lot of headaches all the way around for both users as well as modders.

[GreenWolf]

A closed licensed wouldn't actually stop CKAN, legally anyways. CKAN isn't rehosting or distributing the mods, it's just downloading them from source the modder provides. It's not different than using a web browser to download it, legally speaking. If you're providing a public facing download link for people to download stuff from, you can't really control what they use to download it.

[MrHappyFace]

19 minutes ago, MatterBeam said:

To be honest, I think opt-in advocates are mostly modders who know what they're doing and are worried by CKAn installation issues. 

As an amateur modder, I'd love a hassle-free CKAN integration that does not require me to learn about APi, hooks, pulls, pushes and rotations.

KerbalStuff had that. You just checked a checkbox and it automatically generated a netKAN file for your mod, and added it to CKAN.

For SpaceDock, it would be cool if we could provide our own netKAN/CKAN files, and then a bot would add it to CKAN for us so we don't have to go through the arduous process of making a pull request. That would be opt-in of course. Mod authors should be able to choose where their content gets distributed, including metadata distributions such as CKAN.

Edited February 16, 2016 by MrHappyFace

[swjr-swis]

2 minutes ago, Yemo said:

@swjr-swis It seems as if we were arguing from two different perspectives.

You argue that opt-out toggle would be worse than opt-in toggle in a perfect world/situation. edit: I agree with that!

I argue that opt-out toggle would be an improvement to the current world/situation whereas opt-in toggle would not change the current situation at all, given all the other parameters.

It's a matter of principle, @Yemo.

The ambiguity that you think exists in the current situation is only there because you start from the assumption that 'of course most people would want this'. Whereas me, no matter how good I think my stuff is (mod, service, product, opinion, whatever) or how many people might agree with me, I will never presume that what I have to offer is wanted and liked by even one single other person on this entire planet, let alone 'the majority' or 'everyone', until and when that one other person actively expresses this out of their own free will or action.

I actually do agree with you that I personally 'want this' in the context of SpaceDock and CKAN, and even that there is clearly a significant number of other people besides you and me that 'want this', but that still does not now nor ever warrant us as a group deciding that 'therefore, everyone wants this, by default, until expressed otherwise'.

'No means no', as well-intentioned as it may sound and appear, is one step too late: it should be 'Only yes means yes; otherwise always assume no'. Doing otherwise will inevitably result in situations where we infringe on someone else's freedom of choice and free will.

 

I saw that @inigma already clearly stated it will be an opt in system. I am satisfied with that, even if that means I as a mod user have a little less convenience. No further words from me on this issue, let the thread go back to be about how to get SpaceDock up and running, please.

[RoverDude]

8 minutes ago, MrHappyFace said:

KerbalStuff had that. You just checked a checkbox and it automatically generated a netKAN file for your mod, and added it to CKAN.

For SpaceDock, it would be cool if we could provide our own netKAN/CKAN files, and then a bot would add it to CKAN for us so we don't have to go through the arduous process of making a pull request. That would be opt-in of course. Mod authors should be able to choose where their content gets distributed, including metadata distributions such as CKAN.

You can do that now - just host your own metadata, then there's never a need for SpaceDock to ever send a PR again, or for anyone to ever send a PR to CKAN.  Best bit being that when stuff is reorganized, you can publish the modified metadata along with the release.

 

[Buster Charlie]

I'm fine with an opt in system,  but is there a way to add an option for the user to use ckan to check for mod updates on non can opt in mods? Maybe similar to those services that can generate a rss feed?

 

There are some must have mods not in ckan, but I would still love to be able to monitor all my mods for updates if that's possible, even if I need to manually go to a website to download and install. 

[RoverDude]

Best way to do that would be something similar to KSP-AVC where it can check an external source for version data (i.e. the raw version file from a github repo).  

[Yemo]

7 minutes ago, MrHappyFace said:

KerbalStuff had that. You just checked a checkbox and it automatically generated a netKAN file for your mod, and added it to CKAN.

For SpaceDock, it would be cool if we could provide our own netKAN/CKAN files, and then a bot would add it to CKAN for us so we don't have to go through the arduous process of making a pull request. That would be opt-in of course.

I would imagine an opt-out like this in the beginning:

CKAN checkmark is set by default

Iff
"unchecked"
=> set flag that this mod is not allowed on ckan by express decision of modder and thus any manually added or other wise existing netkan entry is ignored as long as that flag is set

Else
=>
a1. Bot creates file and pull request with default entries
a2. If complications, someone from ckan takes a look
a3. Netkan entry can be modified by pull request

When it is more developed it would go like this:

b1. Bot creates file with default entries
b2. User can modify file using UI (dropdowns for options, dependent/recommended mods and so on)
b3. When done, bot submits modified file to netkan as pull request
b4. User can "fork" his netkan file using spacedock UI like in b2
b5. And then create a pull request from spacedock UI for the modified file, everything with dropdowns, no coding within spacedock UI, but code is displayed in a preview window.

"Experienced" ckan users can always externalize their metadata to their own github repositories and ignore all that. Maybe a way to still use the spacedock UI except that they have to copy paste the previewed code into their metadata file.

5 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

It's a matter of principle, @Yemo.

The ambiguity that you think exists in the current situation is only there because you start from the assumption that 'of course most people would want this'. Whereas me, no matter how good I think my stuff is (mod, service, product, opinion, whatever) or how many people might agree with me, I will never presume that what I have to offer is wanted and liked by even one single other person on this entire planet, let alone 'the majority' or 'everyone', until and when that one other person actively expresses this out of their own free will or action.

I actually do agree with you that I personally 'want this' in the context of SpaceDock and CKAN, and even that there is clearly a significant number of other people besides you and me that 'want this', but that still does not now nor ever warrant us as a group deciding that 'therefore, everyone wants this, by default, until expressed otherwise'.

'No means no', as well-intentioned as it may sound and appear, is one step too late: it should be 'Only yes means yes; otherwise always assume no'. Doing otherwise will inevitably result in situations where we infringe on someone else's freedom of choice and free will.

 

I saw that @inigma already clearly stated it will be an opt in system. I am satisfied with that, even if that means I as a mod user have a little less convenience. No further words from me on this issue, let the thread go back to be about how to get SpaceDock up and running, please.

 

I start from the logical deduction that there can be a great many reasons for not clicking "ckan-checkbox" but there can practically be only one reason for deselecting "ckan-checkbox". It is not a matter of my personal preference, just a matter of the informational value deductible from those actions.

@inigma talked about how mods get on spaceport, not about the suggestion regarding a ckan-checkbox-toggle.

[ferram4]

Look, on the subject of opt-in vs. opt-out, it's important to know that as of right now, we don't even have opt-in or opt-out with respect to CKAN.  It's currently a case of "it will be indexed whether you like it or not," the only exception being full-blown All Rights Reserved licenses (which can push CKAN into the position of engaging in Napster-style facilitation of copyright infringement, hence the exception).  The CKAN advocates can stop arguing for opt-out, you already have compulsory CKAN indexing at this point; accept your old victory and be happy already.

And on the subject of what any hosting site should do, you also already won because (IIRC) KerbalStuff already had auto-generation of netkan files as an opt-out, so assuming SpaceDock uses the same code, that's already there.

So... yeah.  I'm actually not sure what people are arguing over at this point.

[John Nowak]

Set up a Patreon and I'm in.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour ago, uglyduckling81 said:

Rover CKAN is a great system. I'm not sure why you are against it. Is it just because your now part of Squad and are pushing a Curse agenda? If so how about getting onto them to actually do some work to support KSP rather than it just being a one way street.

Honestly if a mod is only on Curse I will never know about it and never use it. I find almost all my mods via CKAN, I see them in the list, look them up and decide whether to try them out. I imagine most people work the same way. Good luck with your mods if they aren't on CKAN.

Curse responded to a post I made at the end of 2014 and stated they would update KSP's section for us which has still yet to happen. Pretty much that site go can go f*ck it self after the abysmal effort they have made.

He didn't say he was against it.  But redistributing someone's art in a form without explicit permission is a legal minefield.  Tick for "Yes I'd like to CKAN this" gives approval and everything's then fine.  But without that, automating is a bad idea.  Yes, it'd be amazingly convenient, but open to legal proceedings that no-one really wants.

[inigma]

SpaceDock update: Going Live Soon (tm)!

@godarklight gets first mod upload honor.

standby.

Edited February 16, 2016 by inigma

[Kolago]

Great! I love this community!