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
OP should then just claim it as his own 😁
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.
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?
was duplicate
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
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.
Yes. Consider the weaknesses.