Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#21

Post by wpietri »

tomp wrote: post #3
antirez wrote: 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…

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

Analogies between novels and code bases are misleading. For the former, the consumer experiences the copyrighted material directly. For the latter, many different expressions (which are protected) result in the same effect (which is not).

That Inspeqtor works with Monit configuration files is definitely not proof of copyright violation. Neither an admission of "heavy influence". As far as I know, the only thing that would prove that this is a derivative work (and therefore possibly a copyright violation) would be a comparison of the source code, one demonstrating a number of features in the Inspeqtor code base that show that Inspeqtor's implementor was doing something more like a port to Go than a compatible implementation.

That's sure not part of the takedown. From the way it's worded, I worry that Monit's authors are not totally clear on the distinction between patents and copyrights, and that they have not taken the advice of a competent IP attorney before taking this step.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#22

Post by mnarayan01 »

pritambaral wrote: post #4
tomp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

Just a note for others: antires is talking about 'License', and tomp is talking about 'Copyright'.

It appears (IANAL) that Monit is alleging a copyright violation which would be eliminated if the License was followed, thus the two words can probably be used interchangeably.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#23

Post by stonemetal »

pritambaral wrote: post #4
tomp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

Just a note for others: antires is talking about 'License', and tomp is talking about 'Copyright'.

I am not sure I get your meaning. A license is how you access a copyrighted work. Therefore they are speaking about the same set of laws.

Antirez is taking a very narrow copying must include a figurative Ctrl-c Ctrl-v. Where as tomp is taking the wider and I think more legally supported(at least as far as art goes) stance that a work can be 100% your own effort but still be a derivative work if it was inspired by an existing work.(i.e. taking a photo of a sculpture is a derivative work )

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#24

Post by jacquesm »

trose wrote: post #11
slantedview wrote: post #5

"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.

> Maybe this is where patents come into play.

No, it's a copyright issue. Patents have nothing to do with it.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#25

Post by hlieberman »

notatoad wrote: post #18
spuz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's correct only if the implementation was made without using the original implementation - for example, made off of a common specification, or using only the inputs and outputs of the application. (AKA, a "clean room" implementation)

If the reimplementation was made by perusing the original, it can be considered a derivative work subject to copyright.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#26

Post by mindcrime »

IamThePherocity wrote: post #6

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.

Are they unclear about what copyright means?

Something I've learned over the years is that, when it comes to legal issues, things are rarely black and white. In this case, whether or not Inspeqtr should be required to adhere to the AGPL probably comes down to whether or not it is legally a "derived work". And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there isn't a large body of case law covering the situation where a product is completely re-implemented in a different language. But it certainly seems within reason to say that a court could find that this is a derived work, and therefore in violation unless the AGPL license is used.

Now, whether or not this sort of thing is covered by the spirit of the GPL/AGPL is another question. But it probably is, if you consider the stance of Stallman and the FSF vis-a-vis Free Software. Remember, they basically consider all proprietary software to be a sort of immoral, unethical affront to humanity.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#27

Post by icebraining »

pdq wrote: post #15
antirez wrote: 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 fe…

The spirit of the license is irrelevant, since the question is whether the license applies at all. Assuming it is in fact a clean-room implementation - and I have no position on that regard -, it doesn't.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#28

Post by paulgb »

viraptor wrote: post #7
antirez wrote: 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…

Anyone can request DMCA-based takedown - it's up to inspeqtor guys to say "not true, restore the project, they can sue us if they want to" now. Hopefully they will. With or without lawsuit to follow, this is an interesting case. I'd also agree that (unless it's an automatically done 1:1 codebase translation) AGPL doesn't apply.

This is an unfortunate double-standard in the DMCA -- to file all you have to state under perjury you are acting on behalf of the party whose work is claimed to be infringed. The claim of infringement itself does not have to be stated under penalty of perjury.

On the other hand, in the counter-takedown notice you have to state under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. It's a scary thing to do unless you can afford a lawyer.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#29

Post by belorn »

antirez wrote: 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…

Imagine a non-technical judge or a random group of people that forms a jury, and imagine asking them if the two written utilities are two different programs. What would the reply be?

inspeqtor would likely argue that the programming language is different and no copying happened, while monit will compare it to a translated book. Which argument will be strongest, and what will be the central question of a lawsuit? Would art, interface, configuration language and API affect the question? Is the Twitter message relevant for the narrative?

I personally think inspeqtor has a decent defense since technically, no copying of bytes has happened. That said, legal theory is not so clean cut and context always matters.

Re: Monit's DMCA takedown notice for Inspeqtor

#30

Post by thu »

This will be sorted out quickly I guess: Monit's DMCA notice claims this is a rewrite of Monit. This tweet[0] claims the opposite. (I take "rewrite" as a manual translation to Go as they also say it's not a clean-room implementation).

It remains to see if the part where they note the similarity with the configuration syntax can actually be covered with the AGPL.

[0] https://twitter.com/mperham/status/519165523473358848

Post reply on HN