Should repo uploaders be allowed to delete their contributions at will?

[skeezix]

The dev must be able to remove his works; you're going to force them to keep somethign in their account they nolonger want?


"Your WoW character is my friend.. you are not permitted to delete him, I may lose something!" ..


Of course the dev can delete his work, its stupid otherwise; of course, someone who has downloaded it, can then reupload it. Simple, right?


jeff

 

[moxie]

Loads of people giving well-reasoned replies. Just wanted to add that the idea that somebody is to decide what is a properly valid reason for someone else is somewhat revolting.


Now, it is probably fairly well known that I'm not StreaKs greatest supporter. Still, I can quite easily see that he deleted all his stuff because he didn't want to be associated with the people on or around the repo. Is that a valid reason? Well, for him, obviously. For me (quite hypothetical, since I haven't gotten around to pnding anything yet), if I figured out that milkshake used repo traffic to funnel email adresses to the Church of Scientology (we are already in hypothetica, remember?), then I would most certainly not want my stuff to be part of that. For _wb_, maybe if ED was running for political office for the conservative xtian right party and used the repo download count as an argument that God was on his side?


Silly - yes. The point is: who can presume to decide what constitutes a valid reason for someone else to not want to be a part of something?To decide whose opinions are valid opinions, and whose are not? I most surely don't want to go there.

 

[_wb_]

Well, I don't think any single person should be in charge of the decision to permanently remove something from the repo, not even the dev himself. If the need arises to remove something, it should be discussed in public (e.g. on this forum), and a consensus should be reached in some kind of democratic way. I see the repo as an archive, a "big backup", a library, a museum if you want. Others see the repo only as convenient web hosting for devs with no notion of permanence.


This is not a matter of forcing anyone: you can still put stuff on your personal web site and delete it the next day if you're really into that kind of thing. Or you can even put it on the repo, NOT tick the "redistribution allowed" box, and delete it the next day. But it would be nice if there was also a way to indicate "I'm contributing this to the community, and I'm not going to change my mind about whether or not I want to keep sharing this in the future". So users can at least "use the repo as a backup" for those PNDs.

 

[moxie]

I do believe that you are quite welcome to state, on the repo, in the description of your application, that you're contributing this to the community, and that you're not going to change my mind about whether or not you want to keep sharing this in the future. Go ahead, just write it, and then honor it. Simple as that


But we don't want this to be what happens if you carelessly upload your newly packed pnd without checking. And we don't want potential developers to be scared away from putting their software on the main repository for the Pandora, less it suddenly backfires into a lifelong obligation. And if the repo is the main software source and one-stop-shop for any pandorian, then it is forcing, in the same way as Apple forces developers to comply with their conditions unless they want to hawk their apps from out in the digital wilderness. Which is not forcing - You are free to choose to be outside. Which, of course, is a false choice.


Besides, I don't think this could be legal. Even Apple don't claim deletion veto on the apps in their store, and the only reason possible for that is that they can't. Not unless you contractually transfer the rights of the software to the app store, but that really is not playing in the Free arena at all.

 

[Binky]

Not unless you contractually transfer the rights of the software to the app store, but that really is not playing in the Free arena at all.

If a dev uploads it under the GPL, why doesn't ED/milkshake have the rights to decide weather the app should be deleted?


GPL says you can redistribute it, if you feel like it, as long as you redistribute it under the GPL too, right?

 

[moxie]

My understanding there is that the dev has the right to delete it, and that ED has the rights to re-upload it. Which, at least to me, is different. In particular, it'll show ED as the current maintainer and the one responsible for the distribution, not the original dev.

 

[Binky]

^ maybe have a system whereby, if the dev has allowed redistribution, they can choose to abandon the app (is then transferred to an official OP-free_software account), instead of deleting it

 

[ZXDunny]

This is one of the reasons I didn't push for GPL on the two games I have on the repo - if I decide to delete them (or the original authors request that I delete them) then they're gone. And if anyone uploads either of them then there will be stern words indeed. If it does transpire that the rights to deletion/distribution falls to the community and not the developer or original author then I for one will no longer be using the repo. And just to make sure, I'll revoke the GPL and close the source for any and all projects I'm working on where I am able to do so. For those projects, such as ports of GPL software, that I am unable to revoke the GPL, I'll stop developing those entirely.


That might seem a bit strong, but I don't want people like _wb_ dictating what I can and cannot do with the software I create.


D.

 

[Wally]

Yes developers should most definately have the right to remove their projects at their own will.


Lets not get remotely close to DRM.

 

[_wb_]

Well, at least in my humble opinion, a repo that empowers devs to "manage their digital rights" by having full control over when they do and when they don't allow people to download their PNDs is closer to DRM.


In my ideal world, for everything on the repo you would be free to share it, redistribute it, and not have to worry about having to quickly catch new releases before the dev changes his mind and undoes the "release". I can live with having a commercial section where sharing and redistribution are obviously not allowed, and since companies rarely exist forever, that means their software probably at some point becomes abandoned and no longer legally available (unless they're really nice and decide to release it to the public before that happens).

That might seem a bit strong, but I don't want people like _wb_ dictating what I can and cannot do with the software I create.

Well, I don't want people like ZXDunny dictating when I can and when I cannot use the software they claim to have "released to the public". ZXDunny would probably also want to have a PND Manager that automatically deletes software you downloaded with it when he decides he no longer wants you to use it, if he could somehow force people to use that PND Manager. Since one cannot do that (since it would be trivial to fork the PND Manager project and remove that functionality), he is willing to settle for just controlling distribution, not actual use. But the underlying idea is the same: "I wrote the code, I control it". I don't really like that attitude.

^ maybe have a system whereby, if the dev has allowed redistribution, they can choose to abandon the app (is then transferred to an official OP-free_software account), instead of deleting it

This is a good idea. We could use a mechanism to deal with orphaned packages. Simply deleting them and hoping that somebody else will re-upload them is an awkward system.

 

[_wb_]

Right. So maybe this discussion only applies to those repo entries that allow redistribution. This should be the vast majority of the repo entries though.

Adding a second question for this.

Well I guess there are two somewhat conflicting points of view on what the repo is or should be:


1) the repo is a convenient proxy to not have to do your own hosting, but it is essentially the same as putting it on your personal website


2) the repo is an archive that collects and safely and reliably stores all software that has ever been released for the Pandora


I'm arguing in favor of 2), but I can see why someone would want it to be 1). If we decide that it has to be 1), that's fine, but then I still think there is a need to have 2).

Adding a third question for this.

 

[pmprog]

Well, at least in my humble opinion, a repo that empowers devs to "manage their digital rights" by having full control over when they do and when they don't allow people to download their PNDs is closer to DRM.

Yeah, and if you remove the delete button, you're taking part of their digital rights away.

Well, I don't want people like ZXDunny dictating when I can and when I cannot use the software they claim to have "released to the public".

But it *is* his right...


Why are you so bothered about this? If it's "redistributable", just re-upload the PND after the dev has left. If it's not redistributable, you are already under the authors whim, whether they stick it on the repo or not.


If you're desperate for a backup, periodically copy your SD cards to your PC, or use some sync software.


I'm not sure if ZXDunny was actually wanting downloaded copies to be removed (that would be practically infeasible anyway), but the point is he has deemed his software no longer distributable (at all). In this case, if he can't delete his work, the repo becomes like the whole issue with Dredd's repo - unauthorised distribution of works.


And the whole community vote thing... don't agree with that. You could use it to petition the developer to leaving the software on the repo, but not to determine if they can take it off, that's how it generally works IRL

 

[Binky]

How much disk space do the most recent versions of each app take up in total?


The obvious (perhaps impractical) solution is download everything while its there


Would it be possible for the repo to auto-generate compressed downloads for entire categories?


Someday, somebody will find my pandora in the back of a cupboard, will think its really cool (in a kind of retro way), and find that the repo has closed, this community has moved on and that the documentation is missing too


That would be a shame

 

[_wb_]

But it *is* his right...

Yes of course. I'm not talking about what someone can do from a legal point of view. I'm talking about what the community considers to be good practice. We can decide to be nicer to one another than what is strictly required by the law.


Randomly deleting stuff from what I consider to be a community software archive, even if you legally have the right to do so, and even if others are allowed to re-upload it, doesn't feel "nice" to me, and I don't see the need to automate this process, which makes it very easy to do (like it is now).

 

[pmprog]

Yes of course. I'm not talking about what someone can do from a legal point of view. I'm talking about what the community considers to be good practice. We can decide to be nicer to one another than what is strictly required by the law.

But you're talking about violating the legal right. You even list *only* 4 deletes in the years it's been running. I think it's safe to say it's quite a rare occurance in any case.


The consumer of anything is always at the mercy of the creator. Zzap64 went out of production, despite me buying all the issues I was able. I still have a number of them, but I'll probably never have any more, or replace existing ones. I used to really like Birds Eye Potatoe Fritters, they aren't made any more (or at least they don't seem to be on sale around here any more).


What do you do in this situation with PNDs? Well, if it's freely redistributable, reupload it; if it's not, petition the creator, or finally, create your own alternative of the software. Consumers might struggle with the last one, but they can set a bounty or learn to code.

 

[Znirk]

I'm not talking about what someone can do from a legal point of view. I'm talking about what the community considers to be good practice. We can decide to be nicer to one another than what is strictly required by the law.

_wb_, I think that's exactly the big disconnect here. While you focus your arguments on what's desirable, most other participants in this discussion are talking about what is legally, technically or otherwise possible.


Look at the situation from the other side. If someone's written and released some software, how "nice" is it if someone else just comes along and assumes control over how that work is distributed?


Let me try a simple statement: "If the repo disallows deleting for any reason, that is a limitation to one of the authors' rights in their work granted by copyright". I'm guessing we can all accept that much as true? I think it's obvious, but I want to be explicit on whether we can agree on the basics and move on.


The thing is, the repo can't just introduce that kind of rule without consulting the authors. The repo now has a license to redistribute; but it would need an irrevocable license to redistribute. If milkshake/ED/whoever decide to implement this rule, they have to take everybody's software offline (unless it's already under a license which irrevocably permits redistribution, like the GPL), and ask authors for permission to put their work back up for public access under the new repo rules. Any devs who aren't comfortable with such unlimited redistribution will at that point withdraw their work.


I'm not saying your idea is a bad one. I'm saying I'm not going to waste any effort on deciding whether this idea is good or bad, because it clearly isn't practical. There is no way you can end up with the current repo (including all the files it has now) but not allowing maintainers to pull their work. The best case you could hope for is that the current repo shrinks to GPL and similarly-licensed software, and everything else is on a new parallel repo which uses the kind of rules we have right now. Worst case? Shouting matches, pissed-off devs leave the community, and ED gets taken to court for violating someone's copyright because a file on his servers was mistakenly identified as freely redistributable.

 

[sebt3]

I have to say I agree with ZXDunny.


I havent written a single line of code since this drama started and i'm unsure I will restart given the content of this thread....

 

[moxie]

Possibly there is an underlying clash of basic political outlook here, too. I imagine _wb_ has a very different view on the value of individual property and the individual vs. the collective than most on here.

Sebt3, ZXDunny: Although I understand completely, I think you can look to the poll results to conclude that this discussion has no probability to be put into actual practice. So it really isn't a problem.

 

[_wb_]

To be clear: I'm not suggesting to "change the rules in the middle of the game", and take away the delete button for software that is currently on the repo and whose authors expect and need that delete button to be there. I'm just saying it might be useful to have a section on the repo (or a different repo) which contains software for which you don't have to worry about keeping backups because it might get deleted overnight...

 

[Edglex]

This really is quite infuriating. Developers are everything to this community, the pandora is nothing without its devs. For the most part they all care about the users. They give a lot, and enjoy doing it because of the nature of the pandora. The repo cares about the users and lots of effort has gone into making it useful for users and developers alike. Developers like having a repo that is functional and truly free - and moreover the repo is a great bit of work that embodies the openness and spirit of the project. Taking away developers rights would be a real kick in the face, and would stymie all the great work that goes on here and push a lot of people from working on the pandora all together.


I'm only glad that this more or less can't happen because the people in control of the repo are clearly sitting on the right side of the fence. But even the fact that we are having this discussion just makes the whole place feel less friendly all of a sudden and is making a lot of people uncomfortable.


If people want a repo like that then fine, make one, but dont expect many contributions because most people would prefer to write apps for the iphone than to spend their time working for something to give to the community only to be forced to sign away all rights to their work.


How exactly will the pandora survive if 'open' pandora is the system thats so 'open' it doesnt give a shit about its developers and steals their work?


I'm taking away distribution rights to homeworld right now, BTW. And no, its not GPL.


I kind of cant believe this discussion is still continuing.