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

[sebt3]

But frankly, all this talk about "rights" and the dev's "freedom" makes me sick. Being able to force someone else to not distribute a work is power, not freedom, and in my mind, power over someone else is never a right.

You're reading things wrong.


ZXDunny, pickle, I and a few others have ported closed-source software on which we dont not own any copyright on.


To be able to port theses softwares we had to make agreement with the copyright owner.


On my side my agreement for pewpew2 on distribution is only on the repo. Before distributing it on anything else, I _need_ to talk to Jyaif first. Because else I'm breaking the copyright law in either his and my country.


It goes the same for the others.


It's not about power, but the ability to comply the law.

 

[_wb_]

I think we all agree that for non-redistributable software like the closed-source ports of sebt3 and ZXDunny, and like commercial software, redistribution is not in general allowed (duh!), and the repo would become potentially less useful for them if deletion would be disabled, because the power to retract distribution is something they might need. So let's not do that for that category of software.


The more interesting question is: should the power to delete also be granted to software that has been marked as "redistributable" by their author/uploader? I don't think it serves any purpose, and might be potentially harmful, so I am in favor of removing this feature for that class of packages. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself sufficiently clear, I'm not proposing to retroactively take away the right of devs of proprietary software to ragequit and take their property with them whenever they feel the need.


Also it would be useful to make it more clear to the repo users (I mean downloaders) exactly to which category (let's call it free/nonfree to use the usual terminology) each package belongs, so they know when making backups is a good idea and when it is essentially redundant because the repo can be their backup. Or to allow Free software purists to more easily avoid nonfree stuff.

 

[diligentcircle]

You're reading things wrong.


ZXDunny, pickle, I and a few others have ported closed-source software on which we dont not own any copyright on.


To be able to port theses softwares we had to make agreement with the copyright owner.


On my side my agreement for pewpew2 on distribution is only on the repo. Before distributing it on anything else, I _need_ to talk to Jyaif first. Because else I'm breaking the copyright law in either his and my country.


It goes the same for the others.

No, I get that. But we're talking about being able to delete software from the Repo. Not about being able to stop redistribution elsewhere.


If that developer decides he/she no longer wants the Repo to distribute the software, then copyright of course grants them power to force the Repo to cease distribution. But it does not grant them the power to force the software's deletion, anywhere, unless the copy was unauthorized in the first place. Therefore, unless you blindly signed a contract that gets you in trouble if the software exists on the server when the copyright holder decides he doesn't want it there (and, to be blunt, that would be an incredibly stupid contract to sign), a system that merely disables the program (stops distributing, but keeps an archival backup) would work just fine.

It's not about power, but the ability to comply the law.

No, it is about power, even in cases like yours. It's just that it's about someone else's power (the copyright holder's).

 

[skeezix]

I actually find it a very interesting point of view, something I had not considered.


ie: If a _freeware_ application is on the repo (We're not talking commercial stuff here, etc, leave that aside), then I simply say that the uploader shoudl be able to remove it; why not? IT is his right to say 'I no longer support or endorse this'; people change.


But everyone has the right to say 'I downloaded this with a Free understanding, so I'm reuploading it!'


ie: Don't be a douche


But the idea of .. you've ujploaded it _at all_, you've _donated it to the public_, so you _cannot remove it_ is interesting.


But WRONG.


No one has ever been able to remove somethign _from the community_; impossible.


What the dev is saying is 'I do not suppor this anymore'; if someone else uploads it, they (and if 10 peopel upload it) become the maintainers of it, of that pnd.. of that _distribution_.


...


So, milkshae coudl add a 'support flag' if he wanted.. are you the author? the packager? or just uploader?


But anyone who maintains an app _must_ be able to say _I nolonger care about it and want it gone so I can stop thinking about it_. Why not?


You could 'automate it', so that if a dev deletes a _public_ applciation, it automatically gets assigned to an "Unknowned" account, thats' fine, but it woudl be a pissoff.


Better to let someone reupload it, and thus claim 'ownership' of that particular distribution.


..


Why is this such drama? It seems an easy non-douchey way to proceed.. like every repo has _For all of time_. This is not a new problem or concern .. I recall having this same question about 25 years ago


..


It depends on the license of the application, that is all.


jeff

 

[_wb_]

I agree that it is useful to have some way to orphan packages and change the maintainer if the previous maintainer, for any reason, cannot continue maintaining the package. I am in no way saying that once you submit a package, you have a lifelong obligation to keep fixing bugs and producing updates


I'm just saying that maybe deletion + reupload is not the best mechanism to do it. It would be better to have a status flag "orphaned" on the repo, which can be set by either the original uploader or the repo admins (only to be used if the original uploader is nowhere to be found), and a way for anyone with a repo account to get a list of orphaned packages and become the new maintainer of such packages.

 

[Binky]

Could apps be deleted, but added to a list of ones that need re-uploading?

 

[crow_riot]

well just throwing in my 2cent ... not going to directly answer the previous posts. just want to throw in my opinion


i always want to be able to delete the stuff i upload to the repo. well i've only uploaded one game till now, but still, i see it as my right to delete it IF i ever want it (which I doubt will ever happen).


If it's going to be forbidden or let alone I need to ask for permission that I'm allowed to delete, it will remain the only app i've ever uploaded.


after receiving the repo mail and seeing the changes, i also disallowed redistribution. the reason is simple: i actually just want one place to maintain. I also want one download counter, one page where i can read comments. I'm always interest in what people think about and if people like what i've created. and i just dont want to search the web for forums and other places for that information.

 

[_wb_]

Seems a bit excessive to disallow redistribution just because you want accurate download statistics and only one source of user comments. But I guess it's better to do it that way than to allow redistribution but add spyware to it to make your own download (and usage) counter.


I can see why you like to have an accurate download counter, but number of downloads is not a very useful statistic anyway - some of those downloaders may never play your game, while others may play it 3 hours a day.


About the comments: I think it's easy enough for users to assume you're not going to read their comments if they post them in some obscure forum you never visited. I think they're smart enough to post their comments where you can see them. Unless they don't want you to hear their comments.


About other places to maintain: I think it's clear that if you mirror the repo and then stop syncing your mirror for a year, then things might have become outdated. This is the mirror's problem, not yours. Mirrors should be automatically synced, and if they're not, they're not very useful, so people will just not use them.

 

[Edglex]

TBH, homeworld, my only contribution to the repo, isn't legally re-distributable anyway. The license allows only developers from the homeworldsdl project to distribute it. This allows me to distribute it but not others, so it's a good thing that it can now be marked as non-distributable. It makes me a bit more comfortable as relic haven't been all that clear about licensing. Though if I was asked to remove it, I wouldnt have a problem with people passing around copies or even hosting it elsewhere as long as they are happy to deal with the consequences... I wont be chasing them.


I dont see how this is about power over people, its about power over your work output, and in legal terms, your intellectual property, and being responsible with other peoples IP. Sure, you can use that power to annoy people by removing stuff vindictively, which is power over people, but that is not preventable except by taking rights to peoples work away, which is wrong. I also dont see how saying you have certain rights over work youve produced is sick.


What really annoyed me about this whole discussion is that it started out as a call to change the way the whole repo works, including existing work, by preventing developers from removing stuff as though they had no rights or control at all over their output, with at best their reasons for wanting to remove something requiring vetting for some degree of 'reasonableness' before allowing them to make decisions. (As I've already been very clear about) I for one would not be happy about contributing to a repo like this. Only later has the discussion here changed to seeing if there's a way to change the system in less imposing ways and make archiving possible in a way that wont upset everyone and isnt actually illegal. With this cleared up I dont really mind what you do as long as it isnt forced on either existing or new uploaders.

 

[Foxgod]

Personally i would say they should be able to disable a download, but not delete them.

 

[pmprog]

Personally i would say they should be able to disable a download, but not delete them.

There is no difference between deleted and disabled for end users (except maybe for the hint of "here's some software you can't have"). In fact, in some respects, deleting is probably better, as you're not dangling the carrot in front of the horse.

 

[PokeParadox]

I seriously thought this discussion would be open and shut by now... Regardless - a good mirror could also relay download stats and comments, if setup the right way?


Also of course the dev should be allowed to remove his wok should the unlikely need arise.


e.g. In a hypothetical situation I could ask for permission to port and release a game on the repo. I would ask for the permission from the original author. What if it turns out that the person that gave me permission, didn't actually have full rights to give said permission? I'd be in a predicament if I couldn't remove the PND, since the person with rights could get "annoyed" with me.


There are many genuine reasons why a dev may need to remove software from distribution... Yes it might be inconvenient for the end-user, but that's life. As Skeezix said, there is nothing stopping another user reuploading a discontinued software and thus taking responsibilities for support, and/or and legal requirements... so yeah I don't really get why this whole thing is seen as an issue still.

 

[crow_riot]

yeah i think we should just keep the repo as it is now. there's no need to change anything that castrates the uploaders rights.

 

[_wb_]

(Poll reply


The repo, to me, isn't only a sort of proxy for hosting nor is it a community managed super archive.


To me it's a central place where I can upload and manage all my work and ratre, comment and check out on others work.

OK, of course it also has that functionality. But do you consider it to be some kind of convenient proxy for individual dev websites (say, like a marketplace where it all comes together, but anyone can decide to pull his wares at any time) or rather some kind of archive (say, like a library, where anyone can publish a book but you cannot easily un-publish your book)?


DREDD and onpon4: you also picked the "something else" option, could you please elaborate?

 

[diligentcircle]

I view it as a service to help developers distribute their programs. This makes it similar to #1, but it's not the same as putting it on their own website; it's not their server, it's ED's. So I think it's perfectly fine for uploaders to have to agree to reasonable terms, e.g. that "deleting" a program doesn't actually remove it from the server immediately, but simply stops it from being downloaded and then deletes it for real in some amount of time (e.g. 30 days).

 

[pmprog]

but simply stops it from being downloaded and then deletes it for real in some amount of time (e.g. 30 days).

I asked Foxgod this - If you've just disabled downloads, how is that any different from deleting it? All you're doing is leaving a repo page up showing an application that is no longer available, and what good is that?!

 

[_wb_]

My current position is as follows:


- the non-redistributable (nonfree) part of the repo should be run as a marketplace: "sellers" have full control to stop selling their wares at any point (even if they're "selling" it for free), they can delete their stuff whenever they feel like it, etc.


- the redistributable (free) part of the repo should be run as a library: you can publish new "books" (in this case PNDs), but burning books or otherwise "unpublishing" them (deleting PNDs) is not allowed here. However, there should be an easy mechanism to "orphan" a package if you no longer care to maintain it, and an easy way for new volunteers to adopt such abandoned packages.


- it should be made very clear to the downloader which part of the repo he is in, e.g. by having separate front pages (topmost categories) for free/nonfree or by using different background colors or something. Also it would be nice if I could configure PND Manager to show the distinction, or to only show one category (e.g. for Free Software purists who don't want to use the nonfree stuff).

 

[diligentcircle]

but simply stops it from being downloaded and then deletes it for real in some amount of time (e.g. 30 days).

I asked Foxgod this - If you've just disabled downloads, how is that any different from deleting it? All you're doing is leaving a repo page up showing an application that is no longer available, and what good is that?!

That's not what I meant. Pages for "deleted" programs would no longer show up; only the programs themselves would be kept on the server, in an archive with access restricted to admins. This would allow free software that is "deleted" to be easily restored by ED or an admin.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I believe uploaders should be entitled to specify if their application maybe redistributed and have the right to delete their applications. If an application is 'pulled', someone else who has grabbed the PND has the option of uploading it once again if they are happy with the legal position that places them in and if they are happy to be listed as the uploader. If noone is willing to take on either of these duties it feels like the application is either not worth bothering with, or has sufficient legal/moral ground against it that should stoop distribution anyway.


I guess my underlining feeling is things should be made as nice as possible for the uploader, as that encourages more developers to upload software, and worse case, it is probably better to have an awesome application uploaded, and later removed, rather than developers put off so the application never exists on Pandora in the first place.


That said, I have appreciated some other views on this thread, and can see the point of the debate.


Steve

 

[Exophase]

When you get down to it, isn't this thread basically a rehash of the old GPL argument we most recently had in the GNU/Linux thread? Even the same people are taking the same stances. It all boils down to rights of the developer, having been "earned" due to having done the work, versus the rights of the users/community, which benefits the selfless "greater good."


While on this surface this might look like a more pragmatic spin it's really the same matter of ideological alignment at its core. You aren't going come to a unanimous answer. Dividing the repo into separate sections does seem like a reasonable compromise, but it's kind of an ugly segmentation and I can see why people might not like the implications it puts forth.


(personally, when I upload something to the internet I wouldn't dream of trying to get people to not distribute it, regardless of whether or not I provide the source, and I wouldn't be particularly bothered by an inability to remove it from the PND repo)