Isn't that like a service like Github saying 'you will maintain access to any of your public projects' as in administrative access to one's own projects. After that period, you are no longer the owner of that repo and you no longer have "access". So I can still clone your github project but alas you no longer can commit to it.
Doesn't sound like it to me. If they meant "administrative access" they should have said "administrative access". They didn't, they just said "access" which unambiguously means just "access". Would've been very easy for them to make a one word correction somewhere in the dozen or so people who should have read this before it went out. But they didn't, they just said "access". If they wanted unambiguous meaning, they could have easily just said what they meant.
Well, methinks otherwise. Lack of access does not mean files deleted. Organization data deleted means account deleted. Contention here was the claim that they have done a uturn but they never said they will delete images. This entire somewhat useless thread is about whether lack of access actually meant images deleted. (Administrative is a word that I used in my comment and a red herring to pick on, quite frankly.)
> They didn't, they just said "access" which unambiguously means just "access".
Not only that, they said access to your public images. Not "access to your account" or "access to your project". They explicitly mention "any images in your public repositories" as a thing that you will "maintain access" to "during that time".
Pretty unambiguously means "after that period you may not have access to any of your public images".