lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 6 Mar 2019 05:48:30 +0100
From:   Martin Schroeder <>
Subject: Re: DMCA takedown notice

The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a

Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <> wrote:
> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law
> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a
> person with the intent to sign the record."
> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important
> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that
> you may know that I am me:
> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
> In addition to many other places.
> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally
> inefficacious.
> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
> --MikeeUSA--
> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
> (electronic signature)
> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> > Hi MikeeUSA,
> >
> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> > for reference.
> >
> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> > complaining party."
> >
> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
> >
> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> > process it expeditiously.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > GitHub Staff
> > -------------------------
> >
> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
> > consideration.
> >
> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
> > is allegedly infringed.
> > :
> >
> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
> > interest, is revocable.
> >
> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
> > the license).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
> > use my property.
> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
> > under US law.)
> >
> > I have done so.
> >
> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
> >
> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
> > to him US law.
> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
> > work up, in defiance of me.
> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
> >
> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
> >
> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
> > distribute derivative works)
> >
> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
> > principal)]
> >
> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
> > GitHub.
> >
> > Regrettably;
> > --MikeeUSA--
> > (electronic signature)
> > Jan 29, 2019
> >
> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to
> > and
> >
> > Contact information:
> > email:
> >
> > infringing content:
> >
> >
> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
> > copyright.
> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
> > best of my knowledge and ability.
> >
> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
> >
> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
> > 3) No that does not matter:
> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
> > ("retroactively").
> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
> > no consideration.
> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
> > was indeed "purchased")
> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
> > property at my demand.
> > I have made such a demand.
> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
> > heed my request.
> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
> > all you want.
> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists