4 ms·

> First via GitHub where I have reached them before, and then two times via their support people on their home page. I don't know why you thought dev/tech supp

> First via GitHub where I have reached them before, and then two times via their support people on their home page. I don't know why you thought dev/tech support would be the path you go down. This is a legal issue, so if this matters to you, send them a legal notice. I've done the work of exporting their contact for you abuse@discordapp.com (from https://discordapp.com/tos https://discordapp.com/tos)

zelon88 10y ago
Lawyers didn't write the Discord source, and they probably wouldn't even know where to look on a repo for the license of an included package. If it was a mistake, an oversight, or just a total afterthought I'd say he started in the right place. Being that the transaction happened on Github it's likely that the exchange will be public record should litigation ever take place.
geofft 10y ago
Informally, sending a question via legal avenues is a good way for a company to go into "Our lawyers will be in touch, we can't say anything more on advice of counsel" mode - if you think a question can be satisfactorily resolved without lawyers (and I'd hope that "can you follow the rules" is a question that most people can answer with "yes"), everything will be more pleasant on all sides if the company doesn't go into lawyers-only mode. Formally, neither the (US) legal code nor the zlib license says that you need to contact a violating company via some particular channel. A company is a single legal entity, and if you've contacted them somehow, you've contacted them, and they're now willfully violating the license. Practically, abuse@ seems wrong; that's likely to reach an abuse department (which is just a specific support role that's empowered to do a specific subset of tasks), not a legal department.
- dsp1234 10y ago
  More specifically, the abuse@ is clearly their DMCA department, whose response is very likely to be something along the lines of, "this isn't a valid DMCA complaint, please review the instructions at X, and submit the appropriate documentation. Once we have that, we'll remove the 3rd party content."
chrisan 10y ago
> I don't know why you thought dev/tech support would be the path you go down. Dev would be the first path I go down in this case. I'd like to think it was an honest mistake and if I made that mistake and someone brought it to my attention I'd be grateful this wasn't immediately escalated to legal. I'd like to think everyone is chill/friendly, but I could be naive :)

zelon88 10y ago

Lawyers didn't write the Discord source, and they probably wouldn't even know where to look on a repo for the license of an included package. If it was a mistake, an oversight, or just a total afterthought I'd say he started in the right place. Being that the transaction happened on Github it's likely that the exchange will be public record should litigation ever take place.

geofft 10y ago

Informally, sending a question via legal avenues is a good way for a company to go into "Our lawyers will be in touch, we can't say anything more on advice of counsel" mode - if you think a question can be satisfactorily resolved without lawyers (and I'd hope that "can you follow the rules" is a question that most people can answer with "yes"), everything will be more pleasant on all sides if the company doesn't go into lawyers-only mode. Formally, neither the (US) legal code nor the zlib license says that you need to contact a violating company via some particular channel. A company is a single legal entity, and if you've contacted them somehow, you've contacted them, and they're now willfully violating the license. Practically, abuse@ seems wrong; that's likely to reach an abuse department (which is just a specific support role that's empowered to do a specific subset of tasks), not a legal department.

dsp1234 10y ago
More specifically, the abuse@ is clearly their DMCA department, whose response is very likely to be something along the lines of, "this isn't a valid DMCA complaint, please review the instructions at X, and submit the appropriate documentation. Once we have that, we'll remove the 3rd party content."

chrisan 10y ago

> I don't know why you thought dev/tech support would be the path you go down. Dev would be the first path I go down in this case. I'd like to think it was an honest mistake and if I made that mistake and someone brought it to my attention I'd be grateful this wasn't immediately escalated to legal. I'd like to think everyone is chill/friendly, but I could be naive :)