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

[_wb_]

Who is talking about stealing anything?


I'm talking about _allowing_ devs who _want_ to do that to share with no string attached (e.g. like you do on Wikipedia), not about making this obligatory!


If you think no dev would want to do that, think again, because that's how GNU/Linux was built in the first place.

 

[moxie]

And as we've already said: Nothing is stopping anyone to do that right now. Nothing. If that is all you want, you're kicking in open doors (and kicking up a shitstorm for no reason). But you are talking about something else.

 

[Binky]

I think, to some extent, this topic is justifying itself.


devs are panicking and threatening to take down work because they don't want to loose control over their work.


ragequits could be very damaging to the pandora software scene


I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that milkshake seize powers over uploads without warning/negotiations


I think an ideal system would be:

• devs upload their own work, its fully under their control, with powers to delete and licence as they choose
  
• If a pnd is redistributable (GPL or suchlike), anyone can re-upload it to an 'abandoned software' section
  
• If this reupload were already on the repo, or were under the wrong licence, it would be blocked
  
• these reuploads would only be deletable by mods
  

 

[Dimacus]

(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.


I agree that the new box for allowing the work to be redistributed is a good idea, though I wish it was unchecked by default, independent on what license is specified.


Mainly because I have always thought that the specified license is for the binary and game code and not necissarily for the provided assets.


Now that I think of it that is probably a misstake on my part tough, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who have made that misstake.

 

[_wb_]

And as we've already said: Nothing is stopping anyone to do that right now. Nothing. If that is all you want, you're kicking in open doors (and kicking up a shitstorm for no reason). But you are talking about something else.

Well yes, nothing is stopping a dev to do that. However, from the user perspective, it's not easy to see at the moment which part of the repo is "safe" (it won't get deleted) and which part is "get it now, keep multiple backups" (it may at any point get deleted). It is true that an individual dev can choose either model - but there's not necessarily a way for the users to tell which is which. At the moment, even PNDs containing GPL'ed software can be deleted without prior notice - and yes, nothing stops somebody else from repackaging and reuploading, but that's not the point.

 

[pmprog]

it's not easy to see at the moment which part of the repo is "safe" (it won't get deleted) and which part is "get it now, keep multiple backups" (it may at any point get deleted).

This is ludicrous. Chances are, if a user is interested in an app, they'll download it; if they're not, they won't be bothered. And if it's not there when they go looking, they'll probably ask on the boards.


Dimacus raises an interesting point about assets, if and when I get around to releasing "P01: Trigger Happy", the engine (P01) is an open source shoot'em up engine (licence not yet selected), but the game (Trigger Happy) might be free, but not "open". I'm not sure that's the way P01/TH will roll.


Anyway, the poll thankfully shows that this is unlikely to happen on the current repo, time to move on...

 

[_wb_]

Well, until now I never made backups of software, only of my own data, because I always assumed I could just redownload the software if disaster struck. This is apparently an incorrect assumption, at least for some percentage of the software on the repo. It would be helpful for me to be able to easily identify this kind of "temporarily available" software, so I can either avoid it or take care to make backups of it.

it's not easy to see at the moment which part of the repo is "safe" (it won't get deleted) and which part is "get it now, keep multiple backups" (it may at any point get deleted).

This is ludicrous. Chances are, if a user is interested in an app, they'll download it; if they're not, they won't be bothered. And if it's not there when they go looking, they'll probably ask on the boards.

So what are they gonna ask on the boards? Please give me an illegal copy of this piece of software that you managed to download in time but I didn't? Are you encouraging piracy here?

 

[moxie]

it's not easy to see at the moment which part of the repo is "safe" (it won't get deleted) and which part is "get it now, keep multiple backups" (it may at any point get deleted).

This is ludicrous. Chances are, if a user is interested in an app, they'll download it; if they're not, they won't be bothered. And if it's not there when they go looking, they'll probably ask on the boards.

So what are they gonna ask on the boards? Please give me an illegal copy of this piece of software that you managed to download in time but I didn't? Are you encouraging piracy here?

Are you being willfully contradictory now? If we are talking about redistributable, free software, in which way would it be illegal to send you a copy?

 

[_wb_]

it's not easy to see at the moment which part of the repo is "safe" (it won't get deleted) and which part is "get it now, keep multiple backups" (it may at any point get deleted).

This is ludicrous. Chances are, if a user is interested in an app, they'll download it; if they're not, they won't be bothered. And if it's not there when they go looking, they'll probably ask on the boards.

So what are they gonna ask on the boards? Please give me an illegal copy of this piece of software that you managed to download in time but I didn't? Are you encouraging piracy here?

Are you being willfully contradictory now? If we are talking about redistributable, free software, in which way would it be illegal to send you a copy?

No, we are talking about non-redistributable software here, the "get it now, before it's too late!" kind.

 

[pmprog]

So what are they gonna ask on the boards? Please give me an illegal copy of this piece of software that you managed to download in time but I didn't? Are you encouraging piracy here?

That's a quick assumption to make. No, I envisaged:


"Has anyone (ported/compiled/created) an (x) app?"


or


"Is there an app to do (y)?"


with a response of:


"Yes, but it's no longer available, you can ask [developer] if they are willing to provide you a copy"


or


"Source code is here, you'll have to build it yourself"


or


"I've built it for you: download it here"

 

[Binky]

I agree that the new box for allowing the work to be redistributed is a good idea, though I wish it was unchecked by default, independent on what license is specified.

What if having it unchecked conflicts with the licence chosen?

 

[sswam]

svn://alistairsserver.no-ip.org/specbas/

Good, thanks for letting me know. I mirrored it including the history using "git svn".


Hopefully it makes you happy that some of your source code is now a little safer.

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

For the repo, it's 7.4GB. It's very practical. I wrote a dodgy script to do it by scraping the html.


You could also use the JSON masterlist I guess. Or you can use wget -m pandoria.org/pnd/

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....

I'm sorry to hear that, and I do hope you cheer up again.


We all respect you and are very grateful for your work.


Maybe you just need a holiday!


Forum dramas like these are really quite ridiculous.


For me I think the biggest missing thing in free software development, the developers need a bit more "thank-you".


I might do an "installer" PND which patches or wraps or monitors pnd_run somehow, to solicit happy feedback.


Like, "you played microbes for 200 hours, would you like to say thanks to the dev? and/or give some donation?" or whatever.

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.

Please remain calm and happy ZXDunny. We love you and your games.


This thread is just exploring an idea. It clearly won't be implemented because many people don't agree to it.


Any one of our developers is worth much more to the community, than any new repo feature. The repo already works fine as it is.


Perhaps instead of removing the "delete" button, we could add an "abandon" or "give to" button.

So what are they gonna ask on the boards? Please give me an illegal copy of this piece of software that you managed to download in time but I didn't? Are you encouraging piracy here?

Listen up, Citizen. Piracy is an abominable crime against art and civilisation.


Software pirates corrupt the moral fabric of reality and the only fitting punishment is DEATH!


When I play mame, I use ONLY those games that I have personally copied


from the many arcade cabinets I purchased over the years, with the proceeds


from my patent and copyright enforcement troll^W company.


I believe that all other Pandora community members have that similar habit like me,


to STRICTLY observe copyright laws and EULA minutiae at ALL times. Above all, we wish


to conform to the publisher's requirements. Enjoying games is entirely secondary to this moral duty.


Now on a different subject, I wish there had been some precious blessed software pirates


back in the 1960s to preserve "Not only ... but also". This classic comedy show


by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, two of the 20th century's greatest comics,


was largely destroyed by their publisher (the BBC). The BBC as a matter customary idiocy,


used to record over all old tapes to avoid buying new tapes.


There's most likely a place in hell reserved for whatever idiot recorded over those tapes.


So yeah, if only there had been some precious blessed software pirates back then...


In fact someone did record the audio, so that at least might see the light of day again.

 

[bzar]

After discussing the issue with multiple stakeholders I've formed my opinion that the probability of the cases where requiring an indefinite distribution license for software submitted to the repo is not sufficient to justify the probable (and already visible) loss in developers and contributions. I do acknowledge the reasoning behind the proposal to require such a license to protect the community from developer ragequits, but I consider the price too high. Such a move will more probably antagonize some of the developers enough to actually pull their stuff, and so actually cause the software pulling it's meant to prevent.


If a developer wants his (or her, not taking gender into account from now on) software to be freely distributable, he can license his software to permit redistribution or leave the relevant repo option ticked. If a user feels he wants to protect himself against ragequits he can keep a private mirror of the non-redistributable PNDs. This is an inconvienience, but a lesser evil when compared to the alternative. Redistributable PNDs can be mirrored in other ways, such as DREDD's repo. If a developer removes a redistributable package it can be re-added by someone else, as long as the license is adhered to. Later versions of a previously redistributable (but currently non-redistributable) can of course not be added by others.

 

[Dimacus]

I agree that the new box for allowing the work to be redistributed is a good idea, though I wish it was unchecked by default, independent on what license is specified.

What if having it unchecked conflicts with the licence chosen?

Sorry, first off i just realized that i wasn't entierly clear; i meant for the already existing stuff on the archive, the newly added stuff dosn't matter since the author should read through all the options before pressing submit.


But for the already existing stuff, I belive it's better to restrict by default rather than allow by default, since it's easier to give out that right if the license requires it, rather then trying to find every single last person who downloaded the application and tell them there was an error.


And just as the repo itself say: "If your app is GPL or similar license then this option can be ignored by anyone wishing to redistribute your app."

 

[Binky]

IMO no changes whatsoever should be forced upon already existing apps


Devs should have full control over whatever has been uploaded so far, and current licences should still apply


Should an email be sent round to authors of existing work encouraging them to clarify thier position on redistribution and deletion?

 

[milkshake]

Should an email be sent round to authors of existing work encouraging them to clarify thier position on redistribution and deletion?

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

Tbh I cant think of any valid reason to remove any software at all except if there was a legal issue.tis pedantry to remove stuff if you ask me especially if no reason is given.

 

[Binky]

^ that doesn't mean devs should not be allowed to remove stuff


As winess this thread, talk of taking powers away from devs make some of them want to take their work off-line.


What do the devs here think of having a limit on how often they can delete work? e.g. you may only delete one app every 36 hours. This would prevent people leaving and taking everything with them before people have had a chance to grab a copy, but without preventing reasoned deletion of particular apps

 

[diligentcircle]

I don't think requiring any software to stay on the Repo is a good idea. It would just piss developers off and accomplish nothing useful. Instead, if a developer decides to be a control-freak prick and delete his free software, someone who has the software should re-upload it (of course, this doesn't apply to proprietary software, since that would risk violating copyright).


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.


Keep in mind, people, that the Repo is on ED's server. Or maybe a bit more complicated than that, but the point is: the server does not belong to the devs. Exactly what freedom, then, do they lose if they can't force their program to be removed from the Repo? Do devs also deserve the "freedom" to force individuals to delete software they authored from their computers?


Here's what can potentially be done, though it may not be worth it: instead of actually deleting a program when requested, instead just unlist it and keep it in an archive. This satisfies the power granted to copyright holders to control distribution. Of course, the agreement made when devs upload programs may need to be updated, which is why it might not be worth it.


If this were done, programs "deleted" can then be investigated and, if they are free software, ED or someone else can re-upload them, and otherwise, the program could be deleted.

 

[mcobit]

Only one last thing to consider:


What about software like StreaKs Mame ex etc. That uses free software with a proprietary launcher?


Those pnds cannot just be reuploaded, but someone would have to replace and repack it wih another launcher etc.