5 ms·

Seems reasonable if they copied the code and stripped all attribution and licenses.

sp332 11y ago
Instead of a takedown request, it would probably have made more sense to ask those projects to add the required license information.
- dublinben 11y ago
  If the complaint is to be believed, most of these weren't really 'projects' but just copies of the original source code.
  - tacone 11y ago
    The kind of copies one does to be safe in the case the original repo disappears for some reason. Ironic.
    - striking 11y ago
      Usually using the "fork" option suffices... these changed the original repo to remove GPL and such.
      - tacone 11y ago
        According to the notice, they were unchanged or mostly unchanged forks of the master.
    - yuvipanda 11y ago
      I presume one wouldn't strip copyright in those cases.
      - tacone 11y ago
        They didn't. The master repository did, they probably weren't aware of the issue.
        striking 11y ago
        Thank goodness GitHub doesn't employ the YouTube 3-copyright-strike system. Otherwise there would actually be an issue with this.
- dubcanada 11y ago
  What if he did? You have no idea if he did or didn't, you can't assume that the first action he took was to send a DCMA notice.
  - sp332 11y ago
    The second option under "remedy the infringement" is to add the license back to the projects, but a DMCA request is not the right way to ask for that.
- dlanouette 11y ago
  That was an option that he gave (towards the bottom). I have no idea if GH passes these on to the repo owner or not. GH may have just removed the repos. But, the original author did give that option.
  - jcoby 11y ago
    github is pretty accommodating to DMCA notifications [1]. They give the infringing repo 24 hours to comply with the terms of the notice. 1. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/ https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/
- ascendantlogic 11y ago
  While I agree with you, if they went through the trouble to copy the code and strip out the obvious attribution and license information, I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do it with intent. I'm no DMCA fan but you'll have a hard time selling me that this was an honest mistake that is easily remedied via some friendly emails. But maybe I'm wrong.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Well maybe that first one was. But all the others that forked from it probably had no idea what was missing.
- tzs 11y ago
  If I didn't botch counting, there were 69 of them. Thats a lot of projects to deal with. Dealing with a single point of contact (Github's DMCA procedure) is a lot more efficient than dealing with 69 points of contact.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

sp332 11y ago

Instead of a takedown request, it would probably have made more sense to ask those projects to add the required license information.

dublinben 11y ago
If the complaint is to be believed, most of these weren't really 'projects' but just copies of the original source code.
- tacone 11y ago
  The kind of copies one does to be safe in the case the original repo disappears for some reason. Ironic.
  - striking 11y ago
    Usually using the "fork" option suffices... these changed the original repo to remove GPL and such.
    - tacone 11y ago
      According to the notice, they were unchanged or mostly unchanged forks of the master.
  - yuvipanda 11y ago
    I presume one wouldn't strip copyright in those cases.
    - tacone 11y ago
      They didn't. The master repository did, they probably weren't aware of the issue.
      - striking 11y ago
        Thank goodness GitHub doesn't employ the YouTube 3-copyright-strike system. Otherwise there would actually be an issue with this.
dubcanada 11y ago
What if he did? You have no idea if he did or didn't, you can't assume that the first action he took was to send a DCMA notice.
- sp332 11y ago
  The second option under "remedy the infringement" is to add the license back to the projects, but a DMCA request is not the right way to ask for that.
dlanouette 11y ago
That was an option that he gave (towards the bottom). I have no idea if GH passes these on to the repo owner or not. GH may have just removed the repos. But, the original author did give that option.
- jcoby 11y ago
  github is pretty accommodating to DMCA notifications [1]. They give the infringing repo 24 hours to comply with the terms of the notice. 1. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/ https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/
ascendantlogic 11y ago
While I agree with you, if they went through the trouble to copy the code and strip out the obvious attribution and license information, I'd have a hard time believing they didn't do it with intent. I'm no DMCA fan but you'll have a hard time selling me that this was an honest mistake that is easily remedied via some friendly emails. But maybe I'm wrong.
- sp332 11y ago
  Well maybe that first one was. But all the others that forked from it probably had no idea what was missing.
tzs 11y ago
If I didn't botch counting, there were 69 of them. Thats a lot of projects to deal with. Dealing with a single point of contact (Github's DMCA procedure) is a lot more efficient than dealing with 69 points of contact.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]