WURFL Founders Fire Off DMCA Takedown Against Fork

An anonymous reader writes "ScientiaMobile, the company formed behind the open source library WURFL, an API used to do mobile device detection for web applications, has issued a DMCA takedown notice against the OpenDDR project on Github. ScientiaMobile claims that OpenDDR is 'ripping them off' by forking their database, which used to be licensed under a liberal license. Newer versions of the device database are licensed under restrictive licenses which do not allow any modification or redistribution."

Comments

Again

[Squiddie]

Just another example of the blatant abuse that is possible with these laws. SOPA will only make it worse if it passes.

Re:Again

[iluvcapra]

SOPA could also be used to take down closed-source uses of GPL'd software-- both instances are legitimate applications. The problem is the copyright claim, not the enforcement.

A problem here could be in the remedy, according to TFA the court may simply find that the database in question isn't copyrightable, as it's merely facts. That's a win for the fork, but it's a fail if you're release GPL software and commercial software vendors decide they want to copy static resources out of your distribution insofar as they can claim that they're "mere facts."

Re:Again

[icebraining]

No, the problem is that the law permits unsupervised takedowns.

Re:Again

[DarkOx]

It will be the enforcement though:

Lets try a little thought experiment.
What happens under the SOPA when say Me (a nobody) has a little GPL app on their personal domain, that either $BIGMEDIA_GUY (where say Sony or Disney would be compatible types ) thinks infringes on their property or could be used to do so?

My guess is that my domain is yanked so fast my head spins and I can either drop the matter or spend years fighting in court to get it back.

Now lets say I think $BIGMEDIA_GUY is using my code and not complying with the GPL and lets assume I have some evidence like hey the device behaves in this out of spec way exactly my code does or something. Now I present this to ICE or FTC or whoever is supposed to be enforcing this thing. Do you think BIGMEDIA_GUY is going to see their domain yanked?

I don't...

Re:Again

[Hatta]

The problem is the copyright claim, not the enforcement.

The problem is that enforcement occurs before the validity of the copyright claim is established.

Re:Again

[sjames]

The problem is it doesn't make copyright more enforceable. It just strips out due process to make enforcement faster and abuse becomes much easier. It also becomes a lot harder to prevent or reverse abuse.

Re:Again

[Dog-Cow]

Here's the problem. You are living in a world of theory. My GP is living in this world. Most GPL software has no money behind it. Trying to use SOPA against Sony or Disney will fail completely if they "borrow" some code off of github. They wouldn't go against IBM or Google, but they will feel no compunction against violating copyright of some dinky little project on github or sourceforge. Remember, laws are not enforced those who bought the laws.

Re:Again

[denis-The-menace]

"RE: [SOPA] will have the effect of making the GPL stronger and more defendable."

Under SOPA, Github and SourceForge will be gone within a month. You cannot defend GPL if you can't get to your source code!

Re:Again

[DarkOx]

I would be inclined to agree with you I thought were getting a regime where all would be equal before the law.

Maybe I am a bit jaded but I just don't see it happening. What I do see happening is the media cartel are being given a draconian tool, an Internet death penalty if you will, to deal with anyone they don't like. Where those anyone's don't get much in the way of due process before the action initial action is taken against them. If domains were being seize after some sort of civial court process found an owner liable or criminal court process found them to be guilty it be different. That is not how it works though.

I also don't see these actions being used against the cartel members ever. What mid level bureaucrat is going to risk his job pulling the DNS glue records for Sony.com, Disney.com, or even a comparatively little guy like a Tivo.com?

Current law is not exactly applied equally? Remember Sony's root kit? There were no criminal proceedings against them, at all IIRC, and class action civil case where victims basically had to settle for discount CD.

Now had I distributed a root kit with some software I wrote, or media I published or whatever, it would have been correctly called a trojan and I am certain I would have been prosecuted as we have seen them do in plenty of Slashdot stories, about highschool kids where were just playing prank.

What Sony did was illegally convert the property of others for their use, executing code on people's computers without permission, and expose them to potentially serious security vulnerabilities that could have resulted in personal information leaking, which might have allowed them to be further victimized by others and the government did NOTHING.

So personally I'd rather see IP law, wire/electronic fraud laws weakened as much as possible; because they are not there for you and me.

Re:Again

[sjames]

Actually, I am entitled to those rights. They're just not appropriately respected.

Re:Again

[DarkOx]

Well I am not fan of the DMCA either but this is much worse. If I get a DMCA take down requests, I have options.

I can simply comply, the offending material gets removed, I still have my domain, and control over my other stuff.

If I don't think the request is valid, I can choose not to comply, then go lawyer up. Again I still have control over my stuff initial and unless a judge issues some kinda of order or injunction, I have control until the process gets resolved.

With the SOPA, Most likely the first I hear about anything is when I get an alert from my monitoring service that my site is down. That is BIG difference. It may not seem like it but that could mean all kinds of follow on effects in terms of lost customers, reputation, and lost time. I am pretty sure even if things are eventually found in your favor you're getting compensated for none of it! Heck something like this can easily be abused just to disrupt upstarts they don't like.

Its wrong. Its un-American, its anti-freedom, its anti-free enterprise, it amounts just rent seeking on the part of the cartel's interests.

Success

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's like this,

When the software is born look look at us, help our community were are open source blah blah blah.

Suddenly the cow fattens , Oh no this is proprietary code blah blah yes open source , but our work business model etc.

Seen this movie a lot of times, sadly

Re:Success

[Raenex]

Is sourceforge going to remove open source games as well?

I don't know, but they should if they aren't really open source.

They quite often have data (e.g. artwork, textures, sounds etc.) that is licensed differently than the source code. For convenience, the data is provided in the same bundle yet there may be restrictions on how you can use and distribute that data, if you read the license.

I'm really sick of this dilution of open source. If, "for convenience", you make a "bundle" to distribute a complete game, then unless the whole game is open source, it isn't open source. You can claim the engine is open source, but to say the whole game is, that's lying for marketing purposes.

Everybody wants to fly under the open source banner to get the warm fuzzies and marketing buzz, but then they want to add in the proprietary parts to get exclusive benefits. You wouldn't accept this behavior from Microsoft.

Time to get the EFF involved

[jenningsthecat]

There are far too many disputes in tech these days around formerly-open-source stuff that some bastard decides to co-opt and pretend he owns. This case strikes me as simple, clear-cut, winnable, and potentially precedent-setting. It would be good if the EFF brought its weight to bear on this issue - it could be crucial to the future of FOSS.

Benefit of the doubt

[Baloroth]

To give ScientiaMobile the benefit of the doubt, it is possible they simply don't know how the licensing system works and don't realize that changing the license later on doesn't restrict uses of earlier versions that had been distributed under GPL. This would make them idiots, however. Presuming, of course, that OpenDDR doesn't use the newer version of the database (which I am assuming they don't and seems to be the idea from skimming TFA.)

The alternative is that they are simply assholes deliberately trying to abuse the system. So they are either idiots or assholes.

Re:Benefit of the doubt

[gman003]

So they are either idiots or assholes.

Or both.

Re:person responsible

[leromarinvit]

pressurise the moron who doesn't understand what the DMCA is for.

I think he understands that very well - harrassing inconvenient competition.