SpaceDock.info (Mod Hosting Site)

[GreenWolf]

21 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

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.

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by GreenWolf

[MrHappyFace]

33 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

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.

 

Well yes, of course we can do that, I'd just rather not. It's a matter of convenience. 

[Yemo]

22 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

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.

The arguing is about my suggestion of striving for an actually achievable opt-out toggle to create something better than status quo vs chasing the dream of an opt-in toggle for the sake of principle.

Sorry for trying to argue for something that I believe would improve the situation for you particularly. I personally am fine without the opt-out. I ll stop arguing about it since the people who would imho actually benefit from my suggestion seem to be determined to keep everything the way it is.

Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for the bashing as a "ckan advocate", have a nice day.
I m out of here.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Yemo

[TiktaalikDreaming]

2 minutes ago, GreenWolf said:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/132186-official-ckan-spacedockinfo-kerbalstuff-replacement-site-project-dev-thread-check-for-updates/&do=findComment&comment=2413397

No, it's legally the same as having an independent website that refers to a version of the mod hosted elsewhere.  I'm not saying there's any breach of ownership, but it's a hazy line that's made clear as day by explicit opt-in.

[Foxxonius Augustus]

I think there is a question that keeps getting danced around and not answered. Can a Spacedock dev please answer this question with a yes/no. Does a user have to use CKAN to download a mod from Spacedock?

[hoojiwana]

I love that the community is having this discussion, shows a great deal of care on all sides.

Looking forward to seeing SpaceDock up and running, amazing to have it sorted out as quickly as it has been. Thanks to all the people who have been working so hard this last day or so.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour 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.

There's always the "Don't care" default.  Which-ever option is unmodified should be assumed "don't care".  That said, maybe this should be a three way selection instead of a tickbox.  "Yes, auto-list" "Don't care" and "Never list".  Then there's an explicit opt out, and explicit opt-in, and a don't care, other people can put in pull requests to add this if they like.

I do think the auto-bot-netKan entry needs more data from the mod author.  It was getting pretty rare to see an immediately usable netkan pull request by the bot.  A lot of that could be mitigated by asking the mod author a few questions.  Especially for us monkeys who aren't familiar with Github and stuff up their pull requests.
excrements, I should be working.

 

Which reminds me, patch glibc before going live.  :-)

Edited February 16, 2016 by TiktaalikDreaming

[MrHappyFace]

8 minutes ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

I think there is a question that keeps getting danced around and not answered. Can a Spacedock dev please answer this question with a yes/no. Does a user have to use CKAN to download a mod from Spacedock?

No. It's like KerbalStuff, a separate site where mod authors can upload their mods.

[GreenWolf]

15 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

No, it's legally the same as having an independent website that refers to a version of the mod hosted elsewhere.  I'm not saying there's any breach of ownership, but it's a hazy line that's made clear as day by explicit opt-in.

CKAN is not doing any rehosting. It's not doing any recompiling. It's downloading the mod from the link the author provides. Please explain how this is at all different, legally, from a user downloading the mod using a different method. Because right now, the legal precedent would suggest that it's not.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

11 minutes ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

I think there is a question that keeps getting danced around and not answered. Can a Spacedock dev please answer this question with a yes/no. Does a user have to use CKAN to download a mod from Spacedock?

No.

It will be (at first anyway) using the code from Kerbal Stuff, so will function exactly as KerbalStuff did.  The cross-over of developers is confusing the matter, as is the voluminous discussion about how to do CKAN opt-in/out, but the idea behind this appears to be "let's replace KerbalStuff, and seeing we're a group of people, maybe we can improve on what one dude could possibly have had time to".

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 minutes ago, GreenWolf said:

CKAN is not doing any rehosting. It's not doing any recompiling. It's downloading the mod from the link the author provides. Please explain how this is at all different, legally, from a user downloading the mod using a different method. Because right now, the legal precedent would suggest that it's not.

It sits in front of the hosting provider.  It's not re-hosting the mod, but it's allowing access to the mod without looking at the pages the mod author put around the main download.

Some mod authors want you to look at their page about the mod before downloading, for very good reasons.  So, yes, the mod file is still from the same website, but it's not got to via the same path, and that is different.

Example: Say the mod author releases a new update, and (s)he knows the mod will break saved games if the mod is updated over a game that already has the mod.  She might go to great lengths on the mod page on KerbalStuff, Curse, where-ever to warn about that.  CKAN bypasses all that, grabs just the mod itself, and splats a save game.  There's no breach of copyright, but there's more to a mod than having a single file available.

Hell, I have mods where the ZIP file contains more than what CKAN ever installs.  If you grab it via CKAN, good luck to you, but you'll never see a bunch of the content.  And you're not going to find out about it reading netkan metadata.

[GreenWolf]

And how is that different from using a CLI to download the mod, or one of any number of other perfectly legal methods that don't involved looking at the text on the page.

The only thing that matters, legally speaking, is whether there is a breach of copyright. There is not, and you even admit that there is not.

Now, whether CKAN chooses to index or not index certain mods for whatever reason is entirely up to them. But legally, they are in the clear to index whatever they want, as long as they're using the download link provided by the mod author.

[MrHappyFace]

It appears that it's up now: spacedock.info

[Foxxonius Augustus]

@GreenWolf Just because they are legally allowed to does not mean they should. A million peoples convenience should never trump one persons free will.

[godarklight]

It turns out that registration emails aren't getting sent out (It was working on our test domain). PM me your username if you don't get the email - I can manually activate you.

[GreenWolf]

7 minutes ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

@GreenWolf Just because they are legally allowed to does not mean they should. A million peoples convenience should never trump one persons free will.

Did I say that anywhere? Please stop equating legal obligations with moral ones. Whether it's ethical for CKAN to do so is not being discussed (at least, not by me). What we are discussing is whether it is legal for them to do so.

[inigma]

SpaceDock.info is now live.  Updating OP.

[linuxgurugamer]

Mazel tov on the release.  Great job

Fyi, [email protected] is not valid. 

 

I sent a message about the confirmation message not arriving

[inigma]

OP updated. SpaceDock is now live. Some users reporting not getting emails. Manual activation is option. Read OP for details. Also image loading is an issue atm.

Also CKAN linking is completely broken atm. this was a decision by the team to roll u the site first, fix CKAN later.

[daniel l.]

I cant put in custom banners for my mods.

[inigma]

Just now, daniel l. said:

I cant put in custom banners for my mods.

known issue. https://github.com/KSP-SpaceDock/KerbalStuff/issues/25

[Farix]

Let me add in my two cents, for all that it is worth.

For starters, I'm glad that this new repository is starting completely over. The only reason to "save" the old KerbalStuff repository is to prevent CKAN from breaking in the interim. However, mod authors should be given a month or two to update their links to another repository before CKAN drops the mod from its listing. If the mod developer doesn't update his/her information in that time, then they are not likely to provide support for that mod anyways.

Second, I agree with RoverDude in that CKAN support should be opt-in and entirely at the digression of the mod developer. For starters, some mod authors may want to send out an early beta release for testing, but not have it listed on CKAN where users think that it is a full, stable release. At this time, CKAN doesn't distinguish between experimental, beta, and stable releases.

Third, I would like to see SpaceDock be primarily a listing or indexing site instead of primarily a repository. This allows mod authors to upload their mods to their preferred repository (Curse, GitHUB, SourceForge, Dropbox, etc.) without also having to upload to SpaceDock.

And finally, I would like to see mod authors who do opt-in for CKAN to be able to edit their NetKAN data, either directly or through a web interface. This way, if certain mods need a special installation arrangement, the mod authors can do it directly without have to do a pull request on GitHub.

As a post note, I hope that SpaceDock has some form of verification system to ensure that those uploading or linking modes to its index are the mod authors themselves instead of random individuals. It seems that this was a problem with CKAN and that an integrity check is done to ensure that all of those NetKAN/CKAN-meta files where added by the mod authors themselves (either directly or through KerbalStuff) and not some third party. If it was submitted by a third party, it should be pulled from CKAN immediately until the mod author submits a request for a listing.

[Andem]

5 minutes ago, Farix said:

 

Let me add in my two cents, for all that it is worth.

For starters, I'm glad that this new repository is starting completely over. The only reason to "save" the old KerbalStuff repository is to prevent CKAN from breaking in the interim. However, mod authors should be given a month or two to update their links to another repository before CKAN drops the mod from its listing. If the mod developer doesn't update his/her information in that time, then they are not likely to provide support for that mod anyways.

Second, I agree with RoverDude in that CKAN support should be opt-in and entirely at the digression of the mod developer. For starters, some mod authors may want to send out an early beta release for testing, but not have it listed on CKAN where users think that it is a full, stable release. At this time, CKAN doesn't distinguish between experimental, beta, and stable releases.

Third, I would like to see SpaceDock be primarily a listing or indexing site instead of primarily a repository. This allows mod authors to upload their mods to their preferred repository (Curse, GitHUB, SourceForge, Dropbox, etc.) without also having to upload to SpaceDock.

And finally, I would like to see mod authors who do opt-in for CKAN to be able to edit their NetKAN data, either directly or through a web interface. This way, if certain mods need a special installation arrangement, the mod authors can do it directly without have to do a pull request on GitHub.

As a post note, I hope that SpaceDock has some form of verification system to ensure that those uploading or linking modes to its index are the mod authors themselves instead of random individuals. It seems that this was a problem with CKAN and that an integrity check is done to ensure that all of those NetKAN/CKAN-meta files where added by the mod authors themselves (either directly or through KerbalStuff) and not some third party. If it was submitted by a third party, it should be pulled from CKAN immediately until the mod author submits a request for a listing.

It is opt in, as far as I can tell, I just tested it out...

[ultrasquid]

37 minutes ago, godarklight said:

It turns out that registration emails aren't getting sent out (It was working on our test domain). PM me your username if you don't get the email - I can manually activate you.

My registration email arrived promptly but was caught in my spam filter, so anybody missing theirs should check that folder to see if it was diverted. I added spacedock.info to my contacts so that wouldn't happen again.

[godarklight]

Yeah we launched with it broken it seems - but they are definitely working now, I think a vast majority are getting them sent to the spam folders though :-/