"Inspeqtor which is hosted at GitHub, is far from a “clean-room” implementation. This is basically a rewrite of Monit in Go" I don't understand this. How is a re-write a license violation?
Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#12I may be wrong since IMNAL, but something is strange about this: 1) inspeqtor is written in Go and shares no code with Monit anyway. 2) The takedown claims violation of license. Licenses only apply to code, so patents and similar are out of this game. 1+2 don't stay together. How is a code license violated if the code is totally different between the two projects? I believe this is something that can be easily fixed…
2) You can have patent licenses, trademark licenses etc. Though I don't believe Monit are claiming that here.
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#13Well, I certainly will not be using Monit ever again should this be accurate. There is no illegal activity from what I can tell, so it's entirely baseless. Are they unclear about what copyright means? Did they hire a lawyer? Does not inspire a lot of confidence. edit: I've reached out to Monit for an explanation, and will amend if they reply.
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#14"Inspeqtor which is hosted at GitHub, is far from a “clean-room” implementation. This is basically a rewrite of Monit in Go" I don't understand this. How is a re-write a license violation?
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#15I may be wrong since IMNAL, but something is strange about this: 1) inspeqtor is written in Go and shares no code with Monit anyway. 2) The takedown claims violation of license. Licenses only apply to code, so patents and similar are out of this game. 1+2 don't stay together. How is a code license violated if the code is totally different between the two projects? I believe this is something that can be easily fixed…
We will withdraw this takedown notice if and only if [private] and
Inspeqtor adhere to the GNU Affero General Public License
which Monit is licensed under. This means;
Our copyright notice is retained in the derivate work, and ALL
the derivate work is licensed and provided to users as “open
source” under the AGPL. This include the so called pro features
of Inspeqtor which are closed source and licensed under a
proprietary license.
Translating languages of a GPL codebase and then removing the license is not within the spirit of the license. Otherwise I can translate your code from C to Go, remove the license, then translate from Go to C, and voila, license-free code.Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#16I may be wrong since IMNAL, but something is strange about this: 1) inspeqtor is written in Go and shares no code with Monit anyway. 2) The takedown claims violation of license. Licenses only apply to code, so patents and similar are out of this game. 1+2 don't stay together. How is a code license violated if the code is totally different between the two projects? I believe this is something that can be easily fixed…
I don't have a general right to distribute Emacs; I must distribute it in terms of the license. If I were to distribute Emacs in a way that FSF didn't like, they would come after me for copyright violation.
NB: I'm not saying anything about the accuracy of their copyright claims.
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#17He has also filed a counterclaim with GitHub [2]
[0] https://twitter.com/mperham/status/519164948887257090
[1] https://twitter.com/mperham/status/519165523473358848
[2] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-10-06-tildes...
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#18Well, I certainly will not be using Monit ever again should this be accurate. There is no illegal activity from what I can tell, so it's entirely baseless. Are they unclear about what copyright means? Did they hire a lawyer? Does not inspire a lot of confidence. edit: I've reached out to Monit for an explanation, and will amend if they reply.
What parts of the statements made in the DMCA request are wrong?
see Oracle v. Google.
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#19"Inspeqtor which is hosted at GitHub, is far from a “clean-room” implementation. This is basically a rewrite of Monit in Go" I don't understand this. How is a re-write a license violation?
Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor
#20"Inspeqtor which is hosted at GitHub, is far from a “clean-room” implementation. This is basically a rewrite of Monit in Go" I don't understand this. How is a re-write a license violation?
Regardless of what current licenses dictate, should someone be able to port someone else's code to make a profit? Seems pretty shady to rewrite someone's code just to get around a license. Maybe this is where patents come into play.
What Monit does is a defined interface, anyone should be able to implement from scratch something that does exactly the same thing.