Comment by jffry

13 days ago

You did not read it correctly. Author stated that people are modifying and redistributing their code in an unauthorized manner.

4 comments

jffry

Reply
penskymaterial  13 days ago

Did those people sign a legally-binding end-user license agreement?

Because what I see is essentially "they're storing stolen property" but the burden of proof is on the author to prove it was, indeed, stolen.

I imagine the bar for that is pretty high otherwise anyone could weaponize DMCA to target their competitors' repositories.

  • jffry  13 days ago

    You seem to be thinking about "adblocker running in browser", since you brought up EULAs.

    That's not what OP alleges - they are saying people are redistributing modified versions of OP's copyrighted code. DMCA is an appropriate measure in such a situation, but it's unclear why OP's DMCA takedown was rejected by GitHub. Without more detail, it's hard to comment further

    • verdverm  13 days ago

      one would think, if it is still up there, OP might point us at it so we can see for ourselves, right now it's "trust me"