5 ms·

Looks like the author is upset, but doesn't explain or refute anything. In any case, it seems it's true -- the author should follow the original AGPL terms here

by lxe 6y ago

Looks like the author is upset, but doesn't explain or refute anything. In any case, it seems it's true -- the author should follow the original AGPL terms here, otherwise it's a violation. Well, now what? I bet nothing will happen -- the only way these licensing violations pique the lawyers' interest is when they are perpetrated by a high profile company with some money in the bank.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
I don't know the details of this project but if he is the sole author of the software then he owns the full rights over it and can decide to do whatever he wants. Of course a major issue is that such projects often accept submissions from other people, which creates major headaches if a change a license is later sought. Edit: an issue that it is very often not discussed or clear on what basis people can make contributions, and I think that the default position must be that they retain the copyright over their contributions (but is it implied what licensing they are agreeing with?) Edit 2: I understand that he is not the the sole author, but that does not make anything I wrote incorrect or irrelevant. A lot of drama for some reason...
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > if he is the sole author of the software Absolutely, but he isn't the sole author: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors I'd imagine that he knows this, which is why he's pretending that the proprietary Octotree is a "complete rewrite".
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Well he does not need a complete rewrite. He needs to remove the contributions of the third parties, which may or may not be substantial. From your link the contributions do not look huge so it seems that removing them is quite doable.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      The problem is that many of the contributions are deeply intertwined with the current codebase, which is a derivative of those contributions. Example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719980414 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom... If the maintainer wants to remove the AGPL without copyright infringement, I think they'd need to delete most/all of pjax.js and have someone else write a clean-room implementation that isn't built on contributions from someone else.
      - wegs 6y ago
        Cleanroom is an overstatement. The reason people do cleanroom is to eliminate risk of liability, it's simple, and it's foolproof. You can't mess it up. It also eliminates other potential issues (like tortious interference with someone who signed an NDA). Legally, it's overkill. It's like using a thermonuclear bomb to swat a fly. If you're going up against Microsoft, overkill absolutely makes sense; you might be legally right, but it will take millions of dollars in legal fees to show that. Programmers are cheaper than lawyers. In the general case, though, you can just rewrite the old code and be done with it. Yourself. Looking at the old code too, so long as you don't borrow it. You want to be a little bit careful since it's not just the literal words (you can break copyright on a novel if you rewrite the same plot in your own words; same thing with code), but "a little careful" suffices. It's a bit harder to transform a piece of code into something non-infringing, rewriting section-by-section, but most lawyers say that's not impossible either. (Of course, clearly, none of that happened in this case)
- paulgb 6y ago
  Here's the contributors page[1]. He's clearly the core contributor, but there are a handful of other significant authors and dozens of minor contributions[2]. [1] https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors [2] Not to diminish the effort of submitting even a one-line PR, just in the sense of "de minimis" in terms of copyrightability.
detaro 6y ago
DCMA takedown? Doesn't need a lawyer (but they should nevertheless make sure they have a proper argument with code examples etc)
- olliej 6y ago
  Based on how they’re used it doesn’t even require a copyright violation \o/
- uberman 6y ago
  You can't issue a takedown notice or take legal action if you don't have standing. The only people who do are those who contributed to the project under the understanding that their contributions were covered under the main license.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Obviously. If your rights haven't been hurt you don't get to do anything about it. Rather the point that DCMA doesn't need "lawyers involved" if a contributor has a legit complaint.
the8472 6y ago
> Well, now what? I bet nothing will happen Well, if they don't fulfill the license conditions and keep distributing theirs they're violating copyright. Would a DMCA takedown from one of the authors be valid? Bonus question, since mozilla has made themselves the single trust root of all addons, could one request that they refuse code-signing (something something contributory infringement) of the extension as part of the DMCA process?
- gruez 6y ago
  >Would a DMCA takedown from one of the authors be valid? Well there's this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160726212936/https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown https://web.archive.org/web/20160726212936/https://github.co...
- woofie11 6y ago
  One thing will happen. If you do a web search for Buu Nguyen, this cesspit will come up. I think Buu Nguyen just made himself unhireable for life, at least by any organization which values IP. That's probably a much worse outcome for Buu than a DMCA notice or otherwise.

by lxe 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

I don't know the details of this project but if he is the sole author of the software then he owns the full rights over it and can decide to do whatever he wants. Of course a major issue is that such projects often accept submissions from other people, which creates major headaches if a change a license is later sought. Edit: an issue that it is very often not discussed or clear on what basis people can make contributions, and I think that the default position must be that they retain the copyright over their contributions (but is it implied what licensing they are agreeing with?) Edit 2: I understand that he is not the the sole author, but that does not make anything I wrote incorrect or irrelevant. A lot of drama for some reason...

jhardy54 6y ago
> if he is the sole author of the software Absolutely, but he isn't the sole author: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors I'd imagine that he knows this, which is why he's pretending that the proprietary Octotree is a "complete rewrite".
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Well he does not need a complete rewrite. He needs to remove the contributions of the third parties, which may or may not be substantial. From your link the contributions do not look huge so it seems that removing them is quite doable.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    The problem is that many of the contributions are deeply intertwined with the current codebase, which is a derivative of those contributions. Example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719980414 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom... If the maintainer wants to remove the AGPL without copyright infringement, I think they'd need to delete most/all of pjax.js and have someone else write a clean-room implementation that isn't built on contributions from someone else.
    - wegs 6y ago
      Cleanroom is an overstatement. The reason people do cleanroom is to eliminate risk of liability, it's simple, and it's foolproof. You can't mess it up. It also eliminates other potential issues (like tortious interference with someone who signed an NDA). Legally, it's overkill. It's like using a thermonuclear bomb to swat a fly. If you're going up against Microsoft, overkill absolutely makes sense; you might be legally right, but it will take millions of dollars in legal fees to show that. Programmers are cheaper than lawyers. In the general case, though, you can just rewrite the old code and be done with it. Yourself. Looking at the old code too, so long as you don't borrow it. You want to be a little bit careful since it's not just the literal words (you can break copyright on a novel if you rewrite the same plot in your own words; same thing with code), but "a little careful" suffices. It's a bit harder to transform a piece of code into something non-infringing, rewriting section-by-section, but most lawyers say that's not impossible either. (Of course, clearly, none of that happened in this case)
paulgb 6y ago
Here's the contributors page[1]. He's clearly the core contributor, but there are a handful of other significant authors and dozens of minor contributions[2]. [1] https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors [2] Not to diminish the effort of submitting even a one-line PR, just in the sense of "de minimis" in terms of copyrightability.

detaro 6y ago

DCMA takedown? Doesn't need a lawyer (but they should nevertheless make sure they have a proper argument with code examples etc)

olliej 6y ago
Based on how they’re used it doesn’t even require a copyright violation \o/
uberman 6y ago
You can't issue a takedown notice or take legal action if you don't have standing. The only people who do are those who contributed to the project under the understanding that their contributions were covered under the main license.
- detaro 6y ago
  Obviously. If your rights haven't been hurt you don't get to do anything about it. Rather the point that DCMA doesn't need "lawyers involved" if a contributor has a legit complaint.

the8472 6y ago

> Well, now what? I bet nothing will happen Well, if they don't fulfill the license conditions and keep distributing theirs they're violating copyright. Would a DMCA takedown from one of the authors be valid? Bonus question, since mozilla has made themselves the single trust root of all addons, could one request that they refuse code-signing (something something contributory infringement) of the extension as part of the DMCA process?

gruez 6y ago
>Would a DMCA takedown from one of the authors be valid? Well there's this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160726212936/https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown https://web.archive.org/web/20160726212936/https://github.co...
woofie11 6y ago
One thing will happen. If you do a web search for Buu Nguyen, this cesspit will come up. I think Buu Nguyen just made himself unhireable for life, at least by any organization which values IP. That's probably a much worse outcome for Buu than a DMCA notice or otherwise.