diff --git a/2016-02-18-Wahoo-counternotice.md b/2016-02-18-Wahoo-counternotice.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6e2580d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2016-02-18-Wahoo-counternotice.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +*I have read and understand GitHub’s Guide to Filing a DMCA Counter Notice.* + +Because it is required of GitHub’s counter notice process, I state the +following: + +*I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that +the material was removed or disabled **as a result of a mistake or +misidentification** of the material to be removed or disabled.* + +The allegedly infringing code in the `oh-my-fish` core library is MIT +licensed open source code, voluntarily contributed — in part by the accuser +— and used in accordance with that license: + +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/tree/master/lib + +While he now regrets opening the pull request wherein this code was +contributed — and we regret accepting this pull request — it was MIT +licensed, both before and after the pull request. It is properly attributed +in revision history, and in the AUTHORS and LICENSE files, and is used in +accordance with the terms of that license. + +In fact, much of this code was originally copied into Wahoo, *from Oh My +Fish*. The majority of the `git` package, which he claims infringes on +Wahoo’s copyright, was copied from *a personal project of mine*, found in +https://github.com/oh-my-fish/theme-bobthefish. + +The `fish-spec` package listed in the complaint was removed as a result of +misidentification: + +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/tree/master/pkg/fish-spec + +It, in fact, shares *nothing but the folder name* in common with the code +cited in the complaint. Not a single line of code, function signature or +path is the same, because it was written, from scratch, by another +developer at another time. + +A previous DMCA takedown request *against this same repository* + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +was resolved, supposedly to the satisfaction of all parties involved, per +this retraction from the accuser +: + +- I have talked to @bpinto and his other collaborators and decided to +reconcile and conclude our litigation amicably on the following conditions: +- +- * The license read Copyright (c) 2015 Oh My Fish! +- * Add an AUTHORS file with proper copyright attribution. +- * @bpinto and @bobthecow go on as admins. +- * @scorphus, @derekstavis and @bucaran are now collaborators. +- * We swear not to fight over copyright issues again ;) +- +- You may have the DMCA revoked at your earliest convenience. + +The allegedly infringing code *is not* in violation of the DMCA or any +other copyright law. It consists of voluntarily contributed — and MIT +licensed — code. The license, copyright notice, attribution and revision +history are maintained, in accordance with the terms of the license. + +In addition to the above, I have a good-faith belief that the removal of +the following repositories *was not* a mistake or misidentification: + +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/plugin-tiny +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/plugin-getopts +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/plugin-shark +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/plugin-pbcopy +- https://github.com/oh-my-fish/plugin-theme + +I have a good-faith belief that these repositories were removed as an +escalation of a deliberate campaign of harassment and abuse, including +multiple false DMCA claims. These are forks of MIT licensed open source +repositories. The license, copyright notice, attribution and revision +history are maintained, in accordance with the terms of the license. + +*I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial +district in which my address is located (if in the United States, otherwise +the Northern District of California where GitHub is located), and I will +accept service of process from the person who provided the DMCA +notification or an agent of such person.* + +[private]