3 ms·

What I suspect happened is that the HackerRank test legitimately (fair use) included parts of the docs (the exercise could’ve been about the library those docs

What I suspect happened is that the HackerRank test legitimately (fair use) included parts of the docs (the exercise could’ve been about the library those docs are for), DMCA enforcement has been outsourced to the lowest bidder and these idiots just did a blanket search for some phrases from the test, found the official docs and DMCA’d it.

smorgusofborg 5y ago
The CC licenses should probably be adjusted to make a DMCA attempt a permanent revocation of license. That way DMCAs can flow in the opposite direction and people can learn things.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Realistically speaking, you’d still need to enforce breaches of whatever license you choose but most open-source projects don’t have the resources to pursue those cases. Maybe there’s a case for a consortium of open-source projects that can pool its resources and serve as an insurance policy to fight back against license violations or malicious/stupid DMCA takedowns.
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    Whenever you file a DMCA appeal with GitHub/etc you would have the option to file a takedown on the jack ass. Some projects doing it occasionally would trigger the right conservative fears at corporations to reduce the market.
  - anyfactor 5y ago
    We have so many organizations but in the last 2 decades nobody has thought of creating colloborative legal fund and insurance system to combat and in many cases enforce licensing violation. Open source projects should have a kind of union of their own. Then again I wonder if it would ever be possible because corporate money has became a key donation source and in many cases many OS projects themselves have become corporatized.
    - sciurus 5y ago
      There are organizations that help with license enforcement, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy
- josephcsible 5y ago
  We already have precedent for this kind of thing too, for patents. For example, the Mozilla Public License says this: > If You initiate litigation against any entity by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions, counter-claims, and cross-claims) alleging that a Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software under Section 2.1 of this License shall terminate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
g_p 5y ago
This seems plausible. The only real solution here seems to be to find a way to hold HackerRank to account for this (in the most costly way possible), so they face an incentive to do meaningful due diligence and evaluate before partnering with someone that acts as their agent. Ultimately it wasn't them that did this, but unless they bear a significant cost from doing so, which causes them to pursue their DMCA agent for negligence or breach of contract (or whatever other remedy is available to them), I don't see this type of thing changing. Once a DMCA agent becomes a liability, the market will be forced to mature, and buyers will need to do due diligence to minimise their likelihood of being opened up to a large and costly battle as a result of the negligence of their agent.

smorgusofborg 5y ago

The CC licenses should probably be adjusted to make a DMCA attempt a permanent revocation of license. That way DMCAs can flow in the opposite direction and people can learn things.

Nextgrid 5y ago
Realistically speaking, you’d still need to enforce breaches of whatever license you choose but most open-source projects don’t have the resources to pursue those cases. Maybe there’s a case for a consortium of open-source projects that can pool its resources and serve as an insurance policy to fight back against license violations or malicious/stupid DMCA takedowns.
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  Whenever you file a DMCA appeal with GitHub/etc you would have the option to file a takedown on the jack ass. Some projects doing it occasionally would trigger the right conservative fears at corporations to reduce the market.
- anyfactor 5y ago
  We have so many organizations but in the last 2 decades nobody has thought of creating colloborative legal fund and insurance system to combat and in many cases enforce licensing violation. Open source projects should have a kind of union of their own. Then again I wonder if it would ever be possible because corporate money has became a key donation source and in many cases many OS projects themselves have become corporatized.
  - sciurus 5y ago
    There are organizations that help with license enforcement, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy
josephcsible 5y ago
We already have precedent for this kind of thing too, for patents. For example, the Mozilla Public License says this: > If You initiate litigation against any entity by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions, counter-claims, and cross-claims) alleging that a Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software under Section 2.1 of this License shall terminate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

g_p 5y ago

This seems plausible. The only real solution here seems to be to find a way to hold HackerRank to account for this (in the most costly way possible), so they face an incentive to do meaningful due diligence and evaluate before partnering with someone that acts as their agent. Ultimately it wasn't them that did this, but unless they bear a significant cost from doing so, which causes them to pursue their DMCA agent for negligence or breach of contract (or whatever other remedy is available to them), I don't see this type of thing changing. Once a DMCA agent becomes a liability, the market will be forced to mature, and buyers will need to do due diligence to minimise their likelihood of being opened up to a large and costly battle as a result of the negligence of their agent.