31–40 of 74 posts
"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.
However, the one thing I don't like about Monit is the pseudo natural language syntax that inspeqtor surprisingly borrowed, based on which Monit raises the DMCA claim. I wonder what the general feeling about this is in the sysadmin community, and whether people would prefer a different syntax instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure you could say "so and so downloaded Monit using IP address of 127.0.0.1 at this time", but I don't think that really is legally conclusive.
Unless the alleged violator actually posted public comments about "perusing" the original source code there's not a lot you could do. Unless you do discovery on all of his computers and he didn't delete the Monit source code. To go through all that trouble for a copyright violation on free, open source software seems hardly worth it.
Because of this, I have put the code back up, please consult https://github.com/evanphx/inspeqtor vs http://mmonit.com/monit/dist/monit-5.9.tar.gz
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.
It's also a little strange that the tweet Monit references as being demonstrative of intent happened six months ago [0]. If that was really the issue, shouldn't they have issued the DMCA takedown then, instead of waiting so long?
I think we have about 24 hours before the DMCA's version of the Streisand effect kicks in.
Monit is wining this discussion because their DMCA notice has caused the code not be visible, since anyone with both codebases could easily look at them and see that Inspeqtor is not a translation of the Monit code in any shape or form. Because of this, I have put the code back up, please consult https://github.com/evanphx/inspeqtor vs http://mmonit.com/monit/dist/monit-5.9.tar.gz
Monit is wining this discussion because their DMCA notice has caused the code not be visible, since anyone with both codebases could easily look at them and see that Inspeqtor is not a translation of the Monit code in any shape or form. Because of this, I have put the code back up, please consult https://github.com/evanphx/inspeqtor vs http://mmonit.com/monit/dist/monit-5.9.tar.gz
The title on your repro currently says "DCMA comparison".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How would you ever prove "perusing the original" conclusively? Sure you could say "so and so downloaded Monit using IP address of 127.0.0.1 at this time", but I don't think that really is legally conclusive. Unless the alleged violator actually posted public comments about "perusing" the original source code there's not a lot you could do. Unless you do discovery on all of his computers and he didn't delete the Monit…
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 wher…