3 ms·

"Un-un-publishing"... THIS is one reason i highly distrust any online service that is not under my full control (e.g.: I can only fully trust a server in my bas

"Un-un-publishing"... THIS is one reason i highly distrust any online service that is not under my full control (e.g.: I can only fully trust a server in my basement). If i want some services, code or programs i have created gone i want the power to MAKE them gone for good.

MichaelBurge 5y ago
Unfortunately websites like archive.org mean that if you post any code anywhere online at any time, you forever lose the ability to stop your code from replicating, even if it was originally posted on a server you control.
Nyra 5y ago
You are right. Part of the magic that drives FOSS is that everyone is willingly contributing. If a developer no longer wants to do that, they should be able to make that decision, not npm. That’s without mentioning that the fallout was a direct result of their poor decision-making up that point anyway. npm should have just laughed at kik for coming to them about an unrelated, unmalicious package like this.
- ivanhoe 5y ago
  If you don't want to contribute anymore you don't have to, just go and do something else - but once the code was published it's not just "yours" anymore, it belongs to the community, that's the whole idea behind OSS. You give it away to everyone and anyone to use it and fork it and un-unpublish it as much as they like...
  - RalfWausE 5y ago
    This is (in my opinion) the problem with (most? all?) OSS licence models: What if your software or parts of your software are used against your will or intention? What if your software or parts thereof is taken by the "Big Tech", commercialized and you think this is a total perversion of the intention you had while writing this software? The more i think about the possibilities the less i like the idea...
- amne 5y ago
  when you "contribute" bricks to a house you don't get to come back later to reclaim "your" bricks
sime2009 5y ago
If you want the power to make your creations disappear whenever you want, then the last thing you should do is publish them under an Open Source software license. An important aspect of OSS and Free Software is that other people can use the software, modify it, and redistribute it, and there is no one out there, not even the creator, who can withdraw permission whenever they feel like it. NPM had every right to republish those packages. Koçulu gave full consent when he originally published them as OSS. If this bothers you, then maybe you should reconsider your licensing choices.
chana_masala 5y ago
Kind of ironic in the Alanis way to say that inon HN where you can't even delete your own comments after the threshold. It makes me more careful what I comment here

MichaelBurge 5y ago

Unfortunately websites like archive.org mean that if you post any code anywhere online at any time, you forever lose the ability to stop your code from replicating, even if it was originally posted on a server you control.

Nyra 5y ago

You are right. Part of the magic that drives FOSS is that everyone is willingly contributing. If a developer no longer wants to do that, they should be able to make that decision, not npm. That’s without mentioning that the fallout was a direct result of their poor decision-making up that point anyway. npm should have just laughed at kik for coming to them about an unrelated, unmalicious package like this.

ivanhoe 5y ago
If you don't want to contribute anymore you don't have to, just go and do something else - but once the code was published it's not just "yours" anymore, it belongs to the community, that's the whole idea behind OSS. You give it away to everyone and anyone to use it and fork it and un-unpublish it as much as they like...
- RalfWausE 5y ago
  This is (in my opinion) the problem with (most? all?) OSS licence models: What if your software or parts of your software are used against your will or intention? What if your software or parts thereof is taken by the "Big Tech", commercialized and you think this is a total perversion of the intention you had while writing this software? The more i think about the possibilities the less i like the idea...
amne 5y ago
when you "contribute" bricks to a house you don't get to come back later to reclaim "your" bricks

sime2009 5y ago

If you want the power to make your creations disappear whenever you want, then the last thing you should do is publish them under an Open Source software license. An important aspect of OSS and Free Software is that other people can use the software, modify it, and redistribute it, and there is no one out there, not even the creator, who can withdraw permission whenever they feel like it. NPM had every right to republish those packages. Koçulu gave full consent when he originally published them as OSS. If this bothers you, then maybe you should reconsider your licensing choices.

chana_masala 5y ago

Kind of ironic in the Alanis way to say that inon HN where you can't even delete your own comments after the threshold. It makes me more careful what I comment here