301–310 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the DMCA is about copyright. Where's trademark mentioned?
Violating trademark triggers AGPLv3 license to be invalid, thus the copyright claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DMCA takedowns are for copyright only, not trademark. Requesting or demanding removal for trademark reasons is legitimate, but using the DMCA takedown process when there is not a copyright violation is fraudulent.
Because the AGPLv3 allows for trademark restrictions, violating the trademark revokes the copyright license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn’t their own program. They have a binary they distribute, this was some other binary calling itself Signal without their approval.
At a naive level, this sounds like the sort of supply chain attack we've all been taught to fear. Asking seriously: has this build been replicated? is the source different from mainline? if so, what changed and who changed it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the issue, it's (at most) a trademark violation instead of a copyright violation, which means the DMCA complaint was filed under false premises.
A trademark violation is a copyright violation, because a trademark is copyrighted at first inception, before anyone adds the '™'. A company is also compelled to take actions like this to maintain the rights to thier own trademarks. That's my understanding; IANAL.
It sounds like people are saying that a company can have their trademarks used by downstream distributors of AGPLv3 software, if the license doesn't explicitly prevent that, which just seems wrong. The codebase license is not a license to other company IP
I also don't understand why an entity couldn't do a DCMA takedown based on a trademark violation.
Signal Snap Maintainer here, this is because of a DMCA takedown request from lawyers representing Signal. Canonical is currently working with them to clear things up. Canonical's communication to me was initially lacking due to issues in their process, the process has been amended and I'm back in the loop again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the issue, it's (at most) a trademark violation instead of a copyright violation, which means the DMCA complaint was filed under false premises.
Copyright license is revoked under AGPL v3 if you violate the AGPL v3 terms. AGPL v3 specifically allows authors to add trademark restrictions that become violating. Don't follow the trademark clauses, lose your copyright license, that becomes a copyright violation, actionable under DMCA.
Well, I have been using Ubuntu for many years. This kind of thing, centralizing packages and removing one without explanation etc makes me think I should move on. I suppose the alternative is to switch to Debian? Or maybe there is something totally different that is becoming popular that I don't know about yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And last time I checked, they refused to let you use your own signing keys. Means you do not get end to end trust for your own bits but need to rely on Canonical that they don’t screw up - with the obvious effect of strong vendor lock-in as I cannot sign and run my own bits.
How does that work? I would have expected Canonical to just be the CA.
Signal Snap Maintainer here, this is because of a DMCA takedown request from lawyers representing Signal. Canonical is currently working with them to clear things up. Canonical's communication to me was initially lacking due to issues in their process, the process has been amended and I'm back in the loop again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I sure as hell can distribute binaries if I like As far as I understood the argument, you're free to distribute binaries, you just can't call them "Signal", since it's a trademarked name (?).
You can't modify it and still call it Signal (i.e., misrepresent the trademark). You should be able to redistribute unmodified binaries.
* I'm sure Signal would object to you redistributing binaries under their name, even if you claim they are unmodified, but they can't verify that fact. And honestly such an objection seem pretty reasonable.