I got a DMCA notice for having a fork of GPL 3.0 code
1mon 12d ago by swg-empire.de/u/bjoern_tantau in mildlyinfuriating from github.com
Today I got a DMCA notice from Github to take down code for a Chrome extension I forked. Only problem is that the code has always been under the GPL for years. Apparently the original dev now wants money for his extension. Guess he's now regretting his GPL decision.
The URL to the original repository now links to the company's website.
According to Github's TOS you have the right to fork a repository (https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users). So when they went closed source they removed the original repository to make it look like you stole their source code... That's incredibly scummy
That's the power of GitHub. The fork still shows idolize as the author and clearly has gpl3 license (added by idolize). They can change what they want in the original repo, but the fork is covered forever, and ironclad proof of the licensing. If OP's code is based off this fork, unmodified (of which it's a fork, also ironclad proof it's that gpl3 version) then it's also gpl3. Saaaafe. This should be open and shut on github's end, just a dumb DMCA report.
OP needs to counter-notice this shit.
Better yet not use git-hub. Opression tech is nobody's friend.
The power of github is discoverability. Projects on other platforms might as well not exist to a lot of people.
Challenge network effects, use in tandem and prioritise alternatives until github is less powerful
Yes. Consider the weaknesses.
the commiter name in the repo is not ironclad proof, anyone can upload commits to their repo in Linus Torvalds' name. but github probably has the capabilities to find out who was the original uploader of the commit, or what was the upstream repo of a fork
What if it is signed?
if it is signed by a key used in public repos of the commiter, or otherwise known to possess the key, that is proof, yes
was duplicate
OP should then just claim it as his own 😁
It looks like the repo has at least one commit by a user named jellyfith. This might mean that besides being scummy towards forks, the original creator might also be using GPLv3 code written by somebody else, which would be a violation.
Maybe they're the one who should get a DMCA notice.
Solution to the insanity: https://codeberg.org/
sounds very "embrace extend extinguish" to me.
make sure to save all the evidence of GPL in some non-Gated community.
straight to jail
Iirc GPL does not allow you to do this
Oh no! I also just forked it!
Ugh, reminds me of project babble and eyetrackvr. Went from open source to source available non-commercial.
The post already links to their repo.
Will fork it as soon as I’m on the PC again.
Why even use a service that has the functionality to serve you dmca notices