Thread

GitHub has not removed malicious imitation software after 3 weeks

279 points · 119 comments · hermitcrab

someonebaggy · 1790267425 · focus · HN ↗
If it's your software send a DMCA. They have a legally required timeframe to process those. If it's open source, however, then you don't have any valid DMCA claim.
1. 93po · 1790267717 · focus · HN ↗
  Code can be open source while the name and logos are copyrighted and still enforceable via DMCA
  1. [deleted] · 1790269016 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. someonebaggy · 1790270646 · focus · HN ↗
    Which project copyrighted its name and logo?
    kelnos · 1790288603 · focus · HN ↗
    Logo? Every single one. All creative works automatically get copyright by default.
    Now, projects might choose to license their logo permissively, but that's an active choice.
  3. rpdillon · 1790271711 · focus · HN ↗
    You're thinking of trademarks. Different body of law.
    EDIT: e.g. <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/
    93po · 1790298369 · focus · HN ↗
    Logos can be part of both. A sufficiently unique logo (e.g. not just the name in Times New Roman) is absolutely copyrighted and an image of it cannot be distributed/reproduced without authorization unless fair use, which the malware project is not.
    You're correct I was overly broad about the actual name use being DMCA-able though.
  4. nomel · 1790275574 · focus · HN ↗
    You can have copyright open source code, which is what allows open source licenses to enforce their terms. Open source doesn't mean "free to do whatever you want". There are very restrictive open source licenses, and you can deviate from the common open source licenses.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
2. hnlmorg · 1790268096 · focus · HN ↗
  That’s not how open source works.
  Open source code is still copyrighted. What the license defines is rights that people have in distributing that code. If an unofficial repository is using open source code to ship malware, and the license that software had didn’t allow that, then the unofficial repository is still breaking copyright law despite the code being open source.
  1. NewJazz · 1790268922 · focus · HN ↗
    Also open source license doesn't grant use of trademarks, but I'm not sure that means DMCA applies.
  2. someonebaggy · 1790270623 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no open source license that prohibits derivative works that are malware.
    whateveracct · 1790270840 · focus · HN ↗
    i think it's in the spirit of it, which is enough for a DMCA lol
    someonebaggy · 1790273096 · focus · HN ↗
    Um no, you have to send it about an actual copyright violation, not just because you don't like something.
    It's not illegal to send an incorrect one by mistake but GitHub probably won't process it. It's illegal to send an incorrect one intentionally. Now that it's been pointed out to you that making malware isn't a copyright violation, it's intentional if you send a DMCA anyway.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.