8 ms·

DMCA notice against oh-my-fish

53 points by dvcrn 11y ago

striking 11y ago
The DMCA is finally protecting the people it is meant to protect: content creators that otherwise were powerless against people who stole work. And to people who say this could have been solved more amicably in a different way: This is obviously being used as a last resort in this case. Obviously all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - striking 11y ago
    It only allows copying with attribution. And this DMCA will take it down unless it has the necessary attribution.
- irl_zebra 11y ago
  I'm not sure I would go that far in this case. The licence of Wahoo is as follows: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." To me, that means anyone can fork it and do whatever they want with it, as long as they keep that copyright notice intact.
  - tinco 11y ago
    > To me, that means anyone can fork it and do whatever they want with it, as long as they keep that copyright notice intact. Which they didn't, and that's why this is a great reason to file a DMCA.
  - striking 11y ago
    The copyright notice was missing that person's name.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- charles2013 11y ago
  > Obviously all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. could you elaborate? it's not clear to me what other avenues of resolution were attempted.
  - striking 11y ago
    > Soon after the merge and due to conflicts with @bpinto regarding the direction of the project and other issues, we decided to not continue working together and ended our relationship > @bpinto has continued to use the entire "wahoo" source code without my consent and expelled me from oh-my-fish organization. They also failed to state "oh-my-fish" is a complete copy of "wahoo" or provide copyright attribution since our separation. They've clearly had some (admittedly non-specific) history. It looks like long talks were had, with little or no progress. Make what you will of this, but it seems a DMCA is the only way that this could be taken care of.
    - charles2013 11y ago
      @striking, the comments you mention appear to be from one side. @bucaran's alleged censoring of the discussion [0] makes it difficult to know what was actually discussed, but it's telling at the same time, especially in the context of everything else that appears to have happened: - @bucaran appears to have usurped an open source repo from two other owners - @bucaran appears to have deleted comments posted by people who objected to his alleged usurpation - @bucaran filed a DMCA takedown when omf community members tried to reboot their project without him i've heard of hostile takeovers in the corporate world, but never for a github repo. i thought transparency was guard enough against machiavellian behavior like this. i mean, who would want to work with someone who has a history of hijacking repos, censoring comments, and filing DMCA takedowns on open source repos? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10273780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10273780
      - striking 11y ago
        Look, I'm not saying he's a good person. But a DMCA is warranted when copyright isn't followed. As annoying as this guy is, it's still his work and he should be identified in the copyright of that project (unless all of his code has been removed/rewritten. Then a counter-notice should be filed.) If the copyright notice is wrong, then it's wrong, but then you get into a very weird legal quagmire where people were committing code under someone else's copyright. I don't know if they were giving up their copyright in that case or not. And if there's something wrong with the DMCA notice (like if it was submitted for no reason), a counter-notice should be filed. And if this person is in the wrong, he'll get more than he bargained for when he began throwing his weight around. Someone's going to get what they deserve. I don't know who, but someone will.
kardos 11y ago
Err, is that how DMCA works? Can the copyright owner retroactively change conditions of the license [1]? [1] https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE
- lcswi 11y ago
  Nope
- johnmaguire2013 11y ago
  > Permission is hereby granted [...] and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. In his DMCA notice on Github, the author states that the copyright was not left intact. I'm not certain whether he can void the whole license for "oh-my-fish" because of that or not.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    That's exactly what the "subject to the following conditions" means. They have no right to use the code if the copyright notice provisions are not followed, following those conditions are what gives you the right to use the code. If I give a license to use my code on the condition you pay me money, if you don't pay you also don't get to use my code.
    - johnmaguire2013 11y ago
      I guess what I'm saying is: If they adjusted their code to comply with the license (i.e. add the copyright back), can they retroactively agree to the terms of the license? Or in fact, does the creator of the original project have the ability to say "I no longer offer this license to you"?
sethherr 11y ago
Github issue discussion: https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95
- zaphar 11y ago
  He said/He Said blah blah blah. TLDR: Oh My Fish got replaced by Wahoo. But rather than start a new project and declare Oh My Fish unsupported they replaced the Oh My Fish code in the repo with Wahoo code. Breaking userspace in the process, and thus starting them on the path that caused all this drama. At least that is what appeared to happen according to that thread.
- matheweis 11y ago
  Also this: https://gitter.im/fishline/fin https://gitter.im/fishline/fin And this: https://github.com/derekstavis/diary-of-a-stolen-repository https://github.com/derekstavis/diary-of-a-stolen-repository This is about a lot more than the MIT license. Folks, be clear about the copyright assignment of code that you contribute to projects, and project admins, keep an eye on those copyrights.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- icebraining 11y ago
  But that wasn't the repository they asked to take down...
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  Although it sounds from the context like permission was given independent of the license to completely replace the source code of a project and name it "oh-my-fish". In fact, Jorge admits to being actively involved in that process. That's distinct from the MIT license currently distributed with Wahoo. Bruno doesn't need to call "no-take-backsies", from what the DMCA says happened. >> I do not wish any of the source code in "wahoo" to be used in any form by "oh-my-fish" That is not enforceacble with the MIT license. He can (and does) accuse them of violating copyright, but he can't distribute it under one license and say he's making an exception for specific people. I am not a lawyer.
knodi123 11y ago
Without additional context, it appears this is just some high school drama going on in a relatively minor project? I mean, yeah, clearly the MIT License would seem to be at odds with his stated reasoning... But this is not a war between companies. It's just some young guy who decided to let his friends clone his project, and then he had a falling out with them, so he unilaterally tried to un-clone it and use the DMCA to do so? Childish, and maybe it will succeed and maybe it won't.... but it's just one doofus on a nothing project....
- irl_zebra 11y ago
  Looks like it has already been taken down, according to the links. So looks like it did succeed, at least for now.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > Looks like it has already been taken down IIRC that's effectively a requirement of DMCA takedown requests. In theory the host can refuse to execute a compliant DMCA notice but that means they become party and lose their safe harbour exemption. Most OSPs don't really bother validating notices at all.
- Tzadeck 11y ago
  Before Wahoo, the DMCA filer worked as an OMF core member, and months later created Wahoo, which is a totally different project. Eventually all collaborators decided to reunite, and the code base was completely replaced with wahoo, sans the name, but due to "disagreements" they split. The project actually has a long history.
- ncr100 11y ago
  So ... Companies rights are more important than individuals?
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Is this your first day in the modern western world.
dfranke 11y ago
Although this takedown notice evidences some... confusion... about how open source is supposed to work, it looks to me like the target actually did infringe the filer's copyright by stripping his name off the copyright headers, which is the one thing that the MIT license doesn't allow.
chrisdew 11y ago
Didn't they give everyone a license to copy their work? (Due to the DCMA takedown, I can't see whether they honoured the MIT copyright condition.) https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE ... Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. ...
- linksbro 11y ago
  They did, under the condition that "above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." If oh-my-fish didn't include the copyright notice and permission notice for wahoo's code they were using, then this is a valid use of the DMCA. MIT doesn't mean you're free to use with abandon. You still have to credit and provide the license.
azurelogic 11y ago
What are the broader implications of this with respect to the rather permissive nature of the MIT license? I mean, it grants users the ability to outright copy the code, provided that they include a copy of the license. If oh-my-fish included the copyright notice, then regardless of any disagreement between the repo owners, it seems that the author of wahoo has no ground to stand on here. Can someone explain otherwise?
- linksbro 11y ago
  You are correct. If oh-my-fish properly included the copyright and permission notice of the MIT license, then they are within the bounds of the license. It doesn't matter what the author's requests are, they can use it if they attribute properly. Of course, the author can henceforth change the license for any future code, preventing any unauthorized forks, which would be against then open-source spirit of the MIT license.
  - azurelogic 11y ago
    Thanks for validating my logic. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some major gotcha in the MIT license that I missed.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
So many comments are focusing on the MIT license. That is the license that applies if you obtain it via Github and redistribute it. But this... >> On August 26, 2015, I, @bucaran, and "oh-my-fish" collaborators, led by @bpinto, decided to replace the entire source code of "oh-my-fish!" with the entire source code of "wahoo", but keeping the "oh-my-fish" name. ... sounds like giving he consented to give ownership of the code to the oh-my-fish project, and is retroactively trying to apply the terms of the MIT project now that they've had a falling out. I think the takedown needs to be reversed.
- linksbro 11y ago
  This is an interesting take. I think if they continued to any new wahoo code after the disagreement and breaking up, then that new code is infringing. However, the agreed upon merge code might not be subject to the DMCA.
  - Tzadeck 11y ago
    Yes, but you missed the nuts and bolts of MIT subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. In the DMCA it's stated that his copyright is not credited, so they are in violation of MIT. Which is what is happening here.
    - linksbro 11y ago
      It depends on what happened to the license when the merge happened. Did the author of wahoo transfer the license to the authors of oh-my-fish? If so, then the code at the time of the merge is not subject to this DMCA notice. However, as I brought up, if after they had this tussle and split up, and oh-my-fish kept pulling new code from wahoo, then that code would be under wahoo's license and would need to be attributed as such (and I don't think it was attributed, hence this takedown request). My point is that if they agreed to merge projects and wahoo didn't keep their license on it, then that code at the time of agreement is no longer under the exclusive copyright of the wahoo author.
geofft 11y ago
17 USC 512(f), come back, we miss you.
kriro 11y ago
So apart from bruised egos and non-attribution the major issue seems to be repo-stars? I don't claim to understand what's going on at all or who is in the right/wrong but reading the GH issue discussion it's about repo ownership? Maybe I'm naive and easy to push around but why not just fork, re-add your copyright and start from 0 stars...only the code should matter, right?
- Roodgorf 11y ago
  From my understanding the oh-my-fish project has been around for a while and likely has some size of following. So the problem I see is the members of the organization using that existing notoriety to gain credit for the work the Wahoo creator did without citing it as his/hers. The fork and re-add wouldn't have the desired effect then because likely the core audience of OhMyFish still wouldn't see it. Although I'm not sure if I'm missing something here as well, your guess is as good as mine.
Tzadeck 11y ago
If oh-my-fish properly included the copyright and permission notice of the MIT license, then they are within the bounds of the license. It doesn't matter what the author's requests are, they can use it if they attribute properly. But they failed to do so and the creator's copyright was not credited, so they are in violation of MIT, which is pretty lame considering how easy it is to use MIT code in a compliant way. I am afraid this DMCA is legit.
justinmayer 11y ago
As with most things, this probably began as a communication problem between Jorge and Bruno, and it quickly went south from there. https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 If you'd like to try a Fish shell framework with a bit less drama, my I suggest my alternative? (^_^) https://github.com/justinmayer/tacklebox https://github.com/justinmayer/tacklebox https://github.com/justinmayer/tackle https://github.com/justinmayer/tackle
- Tzadeck 11y ago
  Or just use https://github.com/wa/wahoo https://github.com/wa/wahoo
- jimmy123 11y ago
  Your plugins are copy and paste of several plugins used by Oh My Fish. Lucky for you Jorge has no ownership on those so he can't claim a DCMA Takedown.
  - justinmayer 11y ago
    That's not a fair claim. While some of the plugins come from OMF, proper attribution is given in the license. Moreover, the majority of plugins in the repository do not, in fact, come from OMF.
    - jimmy123 11y ago
      You might want to add the LICENSE to the following plugins then: extract, grc, pip and python. (4 out of 7 plugins)
      - justinmayer 11y ago
        We disagree regarding the provenance of some of those plugins. That said, I'll take another look and see if I can do a better job at giving proper credit where it is due.
  - deleted 11y ago
twinklehood 11y ago
Does anybody know what bucaran's role is on the fish team? I see he's part of the fish-shell organization? That'd be the first time I have a clear reason to go back to zsh.
CyberShadow 11y ago
For another perspective, here is a comment by @bpinto (OMF creator I think?) which @bucaran deleted from https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 : http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7ff5a1088842959fb4d8d4be7d3ab0b7/00000194.png http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7ff5a1088842959fb4d8d4be7d3ab...
- twinklehood 11y ago
  This is a really important point. Bucaran copied his code over voluntarily, into a project that already had a license. He can't just change the copyright notice to his own. He had the copyright, and hence the ability to deter from it. He chose to do so. Tough luck.
- jimmy123 11y ago
  Jorge Bucaran stole the project and destroyed it? An open source project? Shame on you! That everyone that work with you know about your actions here!
justinlardinois 11y ago
Since you can't read oh-my-fish's repository now, can anyone answer this: did oh-my-fish's code give attribution to bucaran?
- bucaran 11y ago
  No, they did not. The copyright was changed from my name to "Bruno Ferreira Pinto".
  - jimmy123 11y ago
    I have the code here and it's LICENSED for Oh My Fish, not for you bucaran. Update: It seems like the solution is simple: 1. Oh My Fish repo changes the LICENSE to Licensed for Oh My Fish. 2. As Fin is a separate project that won't even share the same code, it is going to be licensed to bucaran. 3. Community is happy again! :D
- th3m4ri0 11y ago
  The repository as of Aug 25 has been restored here : https://github.com/oh-my-fish/framework https://github.com/oh-my-fish/framework
bucaran 11y ago
We decided to reconcile and end the litigation amicably adding an AUTHORS file and the following copyright: * Copyright (c) 2015 Oh My Fish!

53 points by dvcrn 11y ago

The DMCA is finally protecting the people it is meant to protect: content creators that otherwise were powerless against people who stole work. And to people who say this could have been solved more amicably in a different way: This is obviously being used as a last resort in this case. Obviously all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- striking 11y ago
  It only allows copying with attribution. And this DMCA will take it down unless it has the necessary attribution.
irl_zebra 11y ago
I'm not sure I would go that far in this case. The licence of Wahoo is as follows: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." To me, that means anyone can fork it and do whatever they want with it, as long as they keep that copyright notice intact.
- tinco 11y ago
  > To me, that means anyone can fork it and do whatever they want with it, as long as they keep that copyright notice intact. Which they didn't, and that's why this is a great reason to file a DMCA.
- striking 11y ago
  The copyright notice was missing that person's name.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
charles2013 11y ago
> Obviously all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. could you elaborate? it's not clear to me what other avenues of resolution were attempted.
- striking 11y ago
  > Soon after the merge and due to conflicts with @bpinto regarding the direction of the project and other issues, we decided to not continue working together and ended our relationship > @bpinto has continued to use the entire "wahoo" source code without my consent and expelled me from oh-my-fish organization. They also failed to state "oh-my-fish" is a complete copy of "wahoo" or provide copyright attribution since our separation. They've clearly had some (admittedly non-specific) history. It looks like long talks were had, with little or no progress. Make what you will of this, but it seems a DMCA is the only way that this could be taken care of.
  - charles2013 11y ago
    @striking, the comments you mention appear to be from one side. @bucaran's alleged censoring of the discussion [0] makes it difficult to know what was actually discussed, but it's telling at the same time, especially in the context of everything else that appears to have happened: - @bucaran appears to have usurped an open source repo from two other owners - @bucaran appears to have deleted comments posted by people who objected to his alleged usurpation - @bucaran filed a DMCA takedown when omf community members tried to reboot their project without him i've heard of hostile takeovers in the corporate world, but never for a github repo. i thought transparency was guard enough against machiavellian behavior like this. i mean, who would want to work with someone who has a history of hijacking repos, censoring comments, and filing DMCA takedowns on open source repos? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10273780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10273780
    - striking 11y ago
      Look, I'm not saying he's a good person. But a DMCA is warranted when copyright isn't followed. As annoying as this guy is, it's still his work and he should be identified in the copyright of that project (unless all of his code has been removed/rewritten. Then a counter-notice should be filed.) If the copyright notice is wrong, then it's wrong, but then you get into a very weird legal quagmire where people were committing code under someone else's copyright. I don't know if they were giving up their copyright in that case or not. And if there's something wrong with the DMCA notice (like if it was submitted for no reason), a counter-notice should be filed. And if this person is in the wrong, he'll get more than he bargained for when he began throwing his weight around. Someone's going to get what they deserve. I don't know who, but someone will.

kardos 11y ago

Err, is that how DMCA works? Can the copyright owner retroactively change conditions of the license [1]? [1] https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE

lcswi 11y ago
Nope
johnmaguire2013 11y ago
> Permission is hereby granted [...] and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. In his DMCA notice on Github, the author states that the copyright was not left intact. I'm not certain whether he can void the whole license for "oh-my-fish" because of that or not.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  That's exactly what the "subject to the following conditions" means. They have no right to use the code if the copyright notice provisions are not followed, following those conditions are what gives you the right to use the code. If I give a license to use my code on the condition you pay me money, if you don't pay you also don't get to use my code.
  - johnmaguire2013 11y ago
    I guess what I'm saying is: If they adjusted their code to comply with the license (i.e. add the copyright back), can they retroactively agree to the terms of the license? Or in fact, does the creator of the original project have the ability to say "I no longer offer this license to you"?

sethherr 11y ago

Github issue discussion: https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95

zaphar 11y ago
He said/He Said blah blah blah. TLDR: Oh My Fish got replaced by Wahoo. But rather than start a new project and declare Oh My Fish unsupported they replaced the Oh My Fish code in the repo with Wahoo code. Breaking userspace in the process, and thus starting them on the path that caused all this drama. At least that is what appeared to happen according to that thread.
matheweis 11y ago
Also this: https://gitter.im/fishline/fin https://gitter.im/fishline/fin And this: https://github.com/derekstavis/diary-of-a-stolen-repository https://github.com/derekstavis/diary-of-a-stolen-repository This is about a lot more than the MIT license. Folks, be clear about the copyright assignment of code that you contribute to projects, and project admins, keep an eye on those copyrights.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 11y ago
But that wasn't the repository they asked to take down...
TallGuyShort 11y ago
Although it sounds from the context like permission was given independent of the license to completely replace the source code of a project and name it "oh-my-fish". In fact, Jorge admits to being actively involved in that process. That's distinct from the MIT license currently distributed with Wahoo. Bruno doesn't need to call "no-take-backsies", from what the DMCA says happened. >> I do not wish any of the source code in "wahoo" to be used in any form by "oh-my-fish" That is not enforceacble with the MIT license. He can (and does) accuse them of violating copyright, but he can't distribute it under one license and say he's making an exception for specific people. I am not a lawyer.

knodi123 11y ago

Without additional context, it appears this is just some high school drama going on in a relatively minor project? I mean, yeah, clearly the MIT License would seem to be at odds with his stated reasoning... But this is not a war between companies. It's just some young guy who decided to let his friends clone his project, and then he had a falling out with them, so he unilaterally tried to un-clone it and use the DMCA to do so? Childish, and maybe it will succeed and maybe it won't.... but it's just one doofus on a nothing project....

irl_zebra 11y ago
Looks like it has already been taken down, according to the links. So looks like it did succeed, at least for now.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Looks like it has already been taken down IIRC that's effectively a requirement of DMCA takedown requests. In theory the host can refuse to execute a compliant DMCA notice but that means they become party and lose their safe harbour exemption. Most OSPs don't really bother validating notices at all.
Tzadeck 11y ago
Before Wahoo, the DMCA filer worked as an OMF core member, and months later created Wahoo, which is a totally different project. Eventually all collaborators decided to reunite, and the code base was completely replaced with wahoo, sans the name, but due to "disagreements" they split. The project actually has a long history.
ncr100 11y ago
So ... Companies rights are more important than individuals?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Is this your first day in the modern western world.

dfranke 11y ago

Although this takedown notice evidences some... confusion... about how open source is supposed to work, it looks to me like the target actually did infringe the filer's copyright by stripping his name off the copyright headers, which is the one thing that the MIT license doesn't allow.

chrisdew 11y ago

Didn't they give everyone a license to copy their work? (Due to the DCMA takedown, I can't see whether they honoured the MIT copyright condition.) https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/wa/wahoo/blob/master/LICENSE ... Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. ...

linksbro 11y ago
They did, under the condition that "above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." If oh-my-fish didn't include the copyright notice and permission notice for wahoo's code they were using, then this is a valid use of the DMCA. MIT doesn't mean you're free to use with abandon. You still have to credit and provide the license.

azurelogic 11y ago

What are the broader implications of this with respect to the rather permissive nature of the MIT license? I mean, it grants users the ability to outright copy the code, provided that they include a copy of the license. If oh-my-fish included the copyright notice, then regardless of any disagreement between the repo owners, it seems that the author of wahoo has no ground to stand on here. Can someone explain otherwise?

linksbro 11y ago
You are correct. If oh-my-fish properly included the copyright and permission notice of the MIT license, then they are within the bounds of the license. It doesn't matter what the author's requests are, they can use it if they attribute properly. Of course, the author can henceforth change the license for any future code, preventing any unauthorized forks, which would be against then open-source spirit of the MIT license.
- azurelogic 11y ago
  Thanks for validating my logic. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some major gotcha in the MIT license that I missed.

TallGuyShort 11y ago

So many comments are focusing on the MIT license. That is the license that applies if you obtain it via Github and redistribute it. But this... >> On August 26, 2015, I, @bucaran, and "oh-my-fish" collaborators, led by @bpinto, decided to replace the entire source code of "oh-my-fish!" with the entire source code of "wahoo", but keeping the "oh-my-fish" name. ... sounds like giving he consented to give ownership of the code to the oh-my-fish project, and is retroactively trying to apply the terms of the MIT project now that they've had a falling out. I think the takedown needs to be reversed.

linksbro 11y ago
This is an interesting take. I think if they continued to any new wahoo code after the disagreement and breaking up, then that new code is infringing. However, the agreed upon merge code might not be subject to the DMCA.
- Tzadeck 11y ago
  Yes, but you missed the nuts and bolts of MIT subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. In the DMCA it's stated that his copyright is not credited, so they are in violation of MIT. Which is what is happening here.
  - linksbro 11y ago
    It depends on what happened to the license when the merge happened. Did the author of wahoo transfer the license to the authors of oh-my-fish? If so, then the code at the time of the merge is not subject to this DMCA notice. However, as I brought up, if after they had this tussle and split up, and oh-my-fish kept pulling new code from wahoo, then that code would be under wahoo's license and would need to be attributed as such (and I don't think it was attributed, hence this takedown request). My point is that if they agreed to merge projects and wahoo didn't keep their license on it, then that code at the time of agreement is no longer under the exclusive copyright of the wahoo author.

geofft 11y ago

17 USC 512(f), come back, we miss you.

kriro 11y ago

So apart from bruised egos and non-attribution the major issue seems to be repo-stars? I don't claim to understand what's going on at all or who is in the right/wrong but reading the GH issue discussion it's about repo ownership? Maybe I'm naive and easy to push around but why not just fork, re-add your copyright and start from 0 stars...only the code should matter, right?

Roodgorf 11y ago
From my understanding the oh-my-fish project has been around for a while and likely has some size of following. So the problem I see is the members of the organization using that existing notoriety to gain credit for the work the Wahoo creator did without citing it as his/hers. The fork and re-add wouldn't have the desired effect then because likely the core audience of OhMyFish still wouldn't see it. Although I'm not sure if I'm missing something here as well, your guess is as good as mine.

Tzadeck 11y ago

If oh-my-fish properly included the copyright and permission notice of the MIT license, then they are within the bounds of the license. It doesn't matter what the author's requests are, they can use it if they attribute properly. But they failed to do so and the creator's copyright was not credited, so they are in violation of MIT, which is pretty lame considering how easy it is to use MIT code in a compliant way. I am afraid this DMCA is legit.

justinmayer 11y ago

As with most things, this probably began as a communication problem between Jorge and Bruno, and it quickly went south from there. https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 If you'd like to try a Fish shell framework with a bit less drama, my I suggest my alternative? (^_^) https://github.com/justinmayer/tacklebox https://github.com/justinmayer/tacklebox https://github.com/justinmayer/tackle https://github.com/justinmayer/tackle

Tzadeck 11y ago
Or just use https://github.com/wa/wahoo https://github.com/wa/wahoo
jimmy123 11y ago
Your plugins are copy and paste of several plugins used by Oh My Fish. Lucky for you Jorge has no ownership on those so he can't claim a DCMA Takedown.
- justinmayer 11y ago
  That's not a fair claim. While some of the plugins come from OMF, proper attribution is given in the license. Moreover, the majority of plugins in the repository do not, in fact, come from OMF.
  - jimmy123 11y ago
    You might want to add the LICENSE to the following plugins then: extract, grc, pip and python. (4 out of 7 plugins)
    - justinmayer 11y ago
      We disagree regarding the provenance of some of those plugins. That said, I'll take another look and see if I can do a better job at giving proper credit where it is due.
- deleted 11y ago

twinklehood 11y ago

Does anybody know what bucaran's role is on the fish team? I see he's part of the fish-shell organization? That'd be the first time I have a clear reason to go back to zsh.

CyberShadow 11y ago

For another perspective, here is a comment by @bpinto (OMF creator I think?) which @bucaran deleted from https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 https://github.com/wa/wahoo/issues/95 : http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7ff5a1088842959fb4d8d4be7d3ab0b7/00000194.png http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7ff5a1088842959fb4d8d4be7d3ab...

twinklehood 11y ago
This is a really important point. Bucaran copied his code over voluntarily, into a project that already had a license. He can't just change the copyright notice to his own. He had the copyright, and hence the ability to deter from it. He chose to do so. Tough luck.
jimmy123 11y ago
Jorge Bucaran stole the project and destroyed it? An open source project? Shame on you! That everyone that work with you know about your actions here!

justinlardinois 11y ago

Since you can't read oh-my-fish's repository now, can anyone answer this: did oh-my-fish's code give attribution to bucaran?

bucaran 11y ago
No, they did not. The copyright was changed from my name to "Bruno Ferreira Pinto".
- jimmy123 11y ago
  I have the code here and it's LICENSED for Oh My Fish, not for you bucaran. Update: It seems like the solution is simple: 1. Oh My Fish repo changes the LICENSE to Licensed for Oh My Fish. 2. As Fin is a separate project that won't even share the same code, it is going to be licensed to bucaran. 3. Community is happy again! :D
th3m4ri0 11y ago
The repository as of Aug 25 has been restored here : https://github.com/oh-my-fish/framework https://github.com/oh-my-fish/framework

bucaran 11y ago