Live data from Hacker News

Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

github.com

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#11

"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.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#12
post #2

I 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…

1) At the extreme example, putting code through a mechanical transformation would result in no overlap, yet obviously would not change the license. Monit is arguing that inspeqtor is insufficiently dis-similar to escape the GPL.

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

#13

Well, 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?

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?

The Monit licence (Affero GPL) requires that the copyright notice be retained in derivative works, so the question is whether a from-scratch implementation of a tool heavily influenced by Monit, is itself a derivative work of Monit.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#15
post #2

I 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…

Their claim is only that Inspeqtor needs to keep the previous license.

    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

#16
post #2

I 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…

The takedown claims copyright violation. They also say that copyright violation can be avoided by adhering to the license.

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

#17
It looks like Mike Perham wants to bring the repo back up, but due to the DMCA request. It'll be at least 10 days [0]. He also says that he never looked at the code for Monit [1].

He 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

#18
post #13

Well, 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?

re-writing an open source application in a different language is not a copyright violation.

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?

It's a copyright violation if it isn't cleanroom, that means you don't get to re-license it under different terms. It will count as a derivative work under copyright law.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#20
post #11

"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.

Depends on the kind of rewrite. Automatic translation - that's effectively the same code. Written from scratch - that should definitely be allowed. Otherwise Linux would have to be licensed the same as previous Unixes (it's similar enough, isn't it?), Microsoft would have rights to ReactOS, we'd have only one owner of copyrights to all shells, and one to all DNS servers, etc.

What Monit does is a defined interface, anyone should be able to implement from scratch something that does exactly the same thing.

Post reply on HN