Comment

Comment on I got a DMCA notice for having a fork of GPL 3.0 code

That’s the power of GitHub. The fork still shows idolize as the author and clearly has gpl3 license (added by idolize). They can change what they want in the original repo, but the fork is covered forever, and ironclad proof of the licensing. If OP’s code is based off this fork, unmodified (of which it’s a fork, also ironclad proof it’s that gpl3 version) then it’s also gpl3. Saaaafe. This should be open and shut on github’s end, just a dumb DMCA report.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mkwt@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
OP needs to counter-notice this shit.

source
- Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Better yet not use git-hub. Opression tech is nobody’s friend.
  
  source
  - InFerNo@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    The power of github is discoverability. Projects on other platforms might as well not exist to a lot of people.
    
    source
    Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Yes. Consider the weaknesses.
    
    source
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
the commiter name in the repo is not ironclad proof, anyone can upload commits to their repo in Linus Torvalds’ name. but github probably has the capabilities to find out who was the original uploader of the commit, or what was the upstream repo of a fork

source
- Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  What if it is signed?
  
  source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    if it is signed by a key used in public repos of the commiter, or otherwise known to possess the key, that is proof, yes
    
    source
  - WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    if it is signed by a key used in public repos of the commiter, or otherwise known to possess the key, that is proof, yes
    
    source