"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.
Which they didn't, and that's why this is a great reason to file a DMCA.
could you elaborate? it's not clear to me what other avenues of resolution were attempted.
> @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.
@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?
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.
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.