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

Should repo uploaders be allowed to delete their contributions whenever they want to?


  • Total voters
    54

Status
Not open for further replies.

_wb_

Microbe
Staff member
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
5,390
Age
42
Location
Brussels, Belgium
OK, let me try to motivate the reasons for this poll. First of all, I'm putting this poll in the dev section because I'm mostly interested in what the devs think about this.


My personal opinion is that we should be cautious and make it not too easy to delete things from the repo.


As far as I understand, the repo was created in the first place to give devs full control, because the way things were done on Craigs apps.openpandora.org was not satisfactory: most devs couldn't maintain their own entries themselves, which caused a lot of frustration. In my opinion it is a good idea to give the devs a lot of control, especially to update and fix their entries themselves instead of having to rely on third parties who may or may not be available 24/7. But perhaps the current repo gives them a little too much control.


In particular, the power to decide to disable or delete your entries in the repo unilaterally seems somewhat dangerous to me. Of course usually this power will not be abused, and there can be valid reasons to delete things, so I'm not against deletion as such.


But consider the following scenario: because of some personal conflict, a dev ragequits the Pandora community, and in his rage, he removes all his contributions from the repo just to be nasty. Or maybe there is a flamewar on the forum about some controversial topic, e.g. some aspect of the design of the Pandora 2, and things get out of hand. The losing side of the argument might decide to pressure the community into accepting their views by removing their contributions from the repo (probably just temporarily), as a kind of "PND boycott" measure.


Maybe I'm being paranoid and those things will never happen. But at the moment nothing prevents this from happening.


The way I see it, uploading a PND to the repo implies that you are releasing something to the public. Of course it depends on the license what exactly you are releasing, but at least the binary executables are at that point "published" (well, for non-commercial software anyway). I don't think this act should be retractable. If you really want to make a "temporary" release (which can be fine, e.g. to get people to betatest something you want to sell later), you shouldn't use the community repo, you should use your own website or use your own way to distribute things.


Consider the way Wikipedia works. As is the case with the repo, anyone can make a contribution, and for example write a new article about some topic. This is a very nice way of doing things, because it makes it really easy to contribute to the community. However, on Wikipedia, you cannot just delete an article you started, whenever you want. You can try to remove or vandalize your own article, but the history is kept and the Wikipedia community can undo that. As soon as you press the commit button, your text will be saved permanently to the records, even if you later change your mind and decide you didn't want to contribute after all. This doesn't mean that articles cannot be deleted from Wikipedia: if some article is considered to be irrelevant, there is a deletion procedure to deal with that. Reasons for deletion are considered and weighed against reasons for not deleting. But this decision is made in a democratic way, not unilaterally by whoever started the article.


So what I'm suggesting is that repo package maintainers should not get the power to decide unilaterally to delete their packages. Instead, there should be a public button (well, for registered users) to report a PND to the mods/admins and nominate them for deletion. Of course the maintainer can press that button himself if needed. If the reasons for deletion are sufficiently uncontroversial (e.g. the upload contained illegal things, or the package is an obsolete duplicate of some other package), the deletion can happen instantly. But if things are not that clear, a public discussion should be started on the forum, and if necessary, a vote.


Many people consider the repo to be their "backup" in case their SD card fails or something like that. I think that's a good idea - I also don't make backups of the GNU/Linux distribution I'm using, because I know this software will not just disappear from the internet. Currently, the repo doesn't offer me the same kind of reliability, because whether or not some PND will still be there next year (or next week for that matter) depends not just on the ability of ED to keep his server running (this I could live with, although a few mirrors wouldn't hurt - but that's another discussion), but also on the mood of the package maintainers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see why anybody would delete their content... because the repo is such a feature rich and supported service. there has been no need to spread out our wings, but I would be worried to see people deleting their releases.


They have the power to do so.
 
my opinion has always been "trust the dev" if some dev decides to rage quit and delete his PND's then the backlash is on him and its the respect people may have for that developer that could be affected.


As much as we would like things to last forever its never certain that things will, software availability is one of those things.


If someone didn't get the grab a specific PND while he had the chance do who's fault is that?


My vote is to leave things as is - if you mess with the current formula it may or maynot persuade people not to add their contribution to the repo.
 
I say it should depend on the licence.


Things that can be legally redistributed should only be deletable by a mod or admin, its pointless to delete re-distributable stuff anyway - it can be re-uploaded at any time.


Devs should be able to delete things with stricter liscences.
 
Agreed (with Milkshake). Technically, the rights to the PND are still owned by the developer.


A few reasons a dev might want to remove their PND

  • Application has been superceeded (but not just an update, by another app)
  • Multiple developers code/port the same project (FBA), they either get combined, or one is depreciated
  • Developer changes the license


I'm glad it sounds like Milkshake prefers to leave it as is, because if I am unable to revoke my own apps, I would cease posting them on the repo. I doubt I ever would (revoke them), but that's not the point.


Edit: Clarity on some points
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd argue if it can be re-posted to the repo, then let people do it. Wouldn't milkshake have to start hardcore reading licenses if we started doing it just for certain ones? Maybe he already is, I don't know, seems like more work to me.


I agree they should be able to delete, if they rage and take down good stuff it sucks for sure. But hopefully there shouldn't be too many of these incidents.


Anyways, if there's enough demand, stuff will generally be revived one way or another. Our project is still a bit small yet for this to happen quickly though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
_wb_, I think your proposal is legally impossible. When someone uploads something to the repo, they still retain whatever copyright they had on it. As a result, they get full rights to decide how it gets distributed, including the right to request that the repo cease distribution. If there was no "remove" button, there would instead be emails to milkshake saying "taek it down NAO!!11!" and he would have to comply with them at the risk of legal action.


You cite Wikipedia as always keeping content, but Wikipedia requires that your contributions be licensed to allow free redistribution. When you submit to Wikipedia, you're agreeing to release what you created under a Creative Commons license, thereby giving anyone the right to redistribute it at will. But contributions to the repo are released under whatever license the contributor chooses, which can include the right to withdraw distribution rights. And if we want to enforce certain licenses on the repo, I think we're going to make some people unhappy.
 
Leave it the way it is. I should be able to have full control about the stuff I upload. If ever something gets taken down, a reason will most likely be provided on the forums. No need to fill out some form and have validation of the reason by a moderator.


What's more interesting: Since we have this new option of "redistribution allowed" - I don't think that the dicussion about taking PNDs down is worth it when there's sites like sam's alternative repo where stuff gets mirrored anyway. Proven stubborn, I bet PNDs taken down on the repo will remain there and possibly in other places, too.
 
does this means we're getting StreaK's PNDs back onto the repo?
 
I prefer full control. And if you are worried about a flame war / about developers leaving in a rage taking everything away as they slam the door, I think the best remedy is not to remove their freedom, but rather being extra nice to all members of the community who develop software for Pandora.
 
_wb_, I think your proposal is legally impossible. When someone uploads something to the repo, they still retain whatever copyright they had on it. As a result, they get full rights to decide how it gets distributed, including the right to request that the repo cease distribution. If there was no "remove" button, there would instead be emails to milkshake saying "taek it down NAO!!11!" and he would have to comply with them at the risk of legal action.


You cite Wikipedia as always keeping content, but Wikipedia requires that your contributions be licensed to allow free redistribution. When you submit to Wikipedia, you're agreeing to release what you created under a Creative Commons license, thereby giving anyone the right to redistribute it at will. But contributions to the repo are released under whatever license the contributor chooses, which can include the right to withdraw distribution rights. And if we want to enforce certain licenses on the repo, I think we're going to make some people unhappy.

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.
 
Let's say that I release a PND, with source, under the GPL, on my own hosting. I later decide to delete it. Is that legal?


Yes it is. Regardless of what license I use, it's still my code. If I used some GPL'd libraries or whatever then that code should still be available from the same place that I got them from originally. If my own code is GPL then I have the right to revoke that license and delete it. I can't control copies that others may have downloaded, but I can certainly remove it from my own hosting. So why not the repo?


If I don't control the software that's uploaded, then I'll refrain from uploading in the future.


D.
 
If my own code is GPL then I have the right to revoke that license and delete it.

Aaaactually, wrong: You can't revoke the GPL. Quoting section 2 of the GPL (version 3): "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."


So you can stop distributing your code under the GPL, and you can start distributing it under a different license as long as it's all your own work. But the GPL remains valid for anyone who received a copy of your software under GPL and never violated its conditions, and those people have the right to redistribute the code under the same terms.
 
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).
 
My point of view is that there are copyright laws, and it'd be a good idea to comply with them. "The repo" needs an author's permission to redistribute that author's work.
 
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.
In which case, even if the author deletes their upload, that won't stop somebody else uploading the PND - as per the redistribution rules...


So you don't need to change the system, because technically if the license would let you redistribute, even if the original owner deleted their distribution, you (or somebody else) could upload it again. Might not look too favouriable to the dev (if they're still about), but you're entitled to do that.


Also, if you're worried about just having a backup, CD, DVD, and BluRay writers are awfully cheap these days ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If my own code is GPL then I have the right to revoke that license and delete it.

Aaaactually, wrong: You can't revoke the GPL. Quoting section 2 of the GPL (version 3): "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."


So you can stop distributing your code under the GPL, and you can start distributing it under a different license as long as it's all your own work. But the GPL remains valid for anyone who received a copy of your software under GPL and never violated its conditions, and those people have the right to redistribute the code under the same terms.

Which is exactly what I said. Do keep up.


D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top