Much as I find it repugnant to side with luke on anything... the damages are clear enough in this one... even at the laughable value of ShortBusCoin a multimillion coin pre-mine is value. Therefore the offending act has already occurred, the code that was mis-used has been implemented to his benefit and has established a network of accessory nodes that are complicit in the violation.
And CH/RS/Douchebag has clearly established too many times to count who he and his many sock-puppets are. Hiding beyond the "it's an imaginary character, Iron Man raped those kids" line of bullshit won't protect him.
But then looking at what an utter fucking goofball he is, he won't fix it or do it right even if ordered to by a court of law... CH/RS/Douchebag's ego would never permit him to actually do the ethical thing when it is contrary to his noblese oblige approach to world domination.
Topic: Solidcoin DMCA takedown (Read 10236 times)
You are a small small man.
With a big big Napoleon Complex.
Not under the law. The infringement still occurred. Just becoming complaint doesn't undo the actions of the past. Becoming compliant is a good thing it prevents further infringement from occurring but the bad action this exists and always will exist.
And even if in your delusion there was an offense you need to be able to say there was clear damage caused by it. And in this case what is that? Do you ever go on to the next stage of your thinking or do you just stop at "he committed an offense". "Yes judge, the free SolidCoin caused damages to me by.... by... um.... yeah.... it's the vibe of it really".
Secondly even if an infringement "occurred" in the delusion there is nothing stopping me from giving my permission for my source to a different group, and them claiming my code along with their new license of whatever MIT project they want. In this case "the solidcoin developers". "RealSolid" the fictionary character may have committed some $0 damage offense in your mind but nothing is stopping him from easily allowing his code to be used by someone else, bundling that with Bitcoin and therefore boom, new licenses all around for everyone to have fun with. Keep checking your mail lukey, btw.
I am not Luke and I never said taking a bankrupt control freak programmer living in his mother's basement to court was viable or economical.
Your little rant aside nothing I said was incorrect. Infrignement occured, future "good acts" don't have any bearing under the law on the "bad act" which has already occured.
BTW I have stated since the beginning that the MIT license allows proprietary closed source derivative works. Even when others said you "couldn't do that". You are just obligated to keep copyright and MIT license. Something you willfully didn't do even when others pointed it out because you ego couldn't handle the idea of you giving due credit where it was deserved.
You are a small small man. Don't bother responding. I won't see it.
Not under the law. The infringement still occurred. Just becoming complaint doesn't undo the actions of the past. Becoming compliant is a good thing it prevents further infringement from occurring but the bad action this exists and always will exist.
And even if in your delusion there was an offense you need to be able to say there was clear damage caused by it. And in this case what is that? Do you ever go on to the next stage of your thinking or do you just stop at "he committed an offense". "Yes judge, the free SolidCoin caused damages to me by.... by... um.... yeah.... it's the vibe of it really".
Secondly even if an infringement "occurred" in the delusion there is nothing stopping me from giving my permission for my source to a different group, and them claiming my code along with their new license of whatever MIT project they want. In this case "the solidcoin developers". "RealSolid" the fictionary character may have committed some $0 damage offense in your mind but nothing is stopping him from easily allowing his code to be used by someone else, bundling that with Bitcoin and therefore boom, new licenses all around for everyone to have fun with. Keep checking your mail lukey, btw.
RealSolid did not comply with the conditions, so his permission is not granted. Complying with them now does not undo the fact that he did not comply.
But being in compliance now pretty much makes the previous releases moot. That's really all you can hope for with an MIT license.Not under the law. The infringement still occurred. Just becoming complaint doesn't undo the actions of the past. Becoming compliant is a good thing it prevents further infringement from occurring but the bad action this exists and always will exist.
Perhaps next is to encourage people to take "veto" power away from Deepbit which should have been done a long time ago as well, the pools need more balance to avoid such things. And while you can't enforce this, your encouragement should go a long way with BTC supporters.
BTC already did that with P2Pool. I wonder how long before Coinhunter strips the license text from the p2pool and passes it off as his own work.
RealSolid did not comply with the conditions, so his permission is not granted. Complying with them now does not undo the fact that he did not comply.
But being in compliance now pretty much makes the previous releases moot. That's really all you can hope for with an MIT license.RealSolid did not comply with the conditions, so his permission is not granted. Complying with them now does not undo the fact that he did not comply.
But being in compliance now pretty much makes the previous releases moot. That's really all you can hope for with an MIT license. In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass
You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it.Quote
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
RealSolid did not comply with the conditions, so his permission is not granted. Complying with them now does not undo the fact that he did not comply. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass
You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it.In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass
You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it.LET ME NOT GIVE YOU ANY IDEAS...
In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass
You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it. 
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
Errr.... courts on TV != courts IRL
In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
Errr.... courts on TV != courts IRL
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
Errr.... courts on TV != courts IRL
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
I would have preferred a much better tool than DMCA. However, DMCA is what we have to work with. We don't have that "better tool". Innocent-until-proven-guilty doesn't stop the police from arresting a suspect before trial. I see DMCA (and potential better tools) as the same thing. The only difference here is that RealSolid is avoiding the trial by running.
I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US, but I think you & RealSolid don't want to go to a court to resolve this.
So you're saying it's bad when it effects you but it's not bad when it effects someone else? That seems to be a sign of very poor character.... I'm not going to weigh in because this whole mess is retarded but some of you lot need to reevaluate your morale high ground (on both sides of the fence)
No, I didn't say that. You're implying that. It's also bad, when it doesn't affect me depending on it's usage (e.g. music I don't like, but other people do). In this situation it wasn't bad, because it wasn't a big company trying to make more money using DMCA as usual. It was the average guy. The open source license was easy to read and understand and was clearly violated. And if open-source did not work, there wouldn't be a project like Bitcoin or other stuff based on it.
I would have preferred a much better tool than DMCA. However, DMCA is what we have to work with. We don't have that "better tool". Innocent-until-proven-guilty doesn't stop the police from arresting a suspect before trial. I see DMCA (and potential better tools) as the same thing. The only difference here is that RealSolid is avoiding the trial by running.
I'm not sure about the legal situation in the US, but I think you & RealSolid don't want to go to a court to resolve this.
I would have preferred a much better tool than DMCA. However, DMCA is what we have to work with. We don't have that "better tool". Innocent-until-proven-guilty doesn't stop the police from arresting a suspect before trial. I see DMCA (and potential better tools) as the same thing. The only difference here is that RealSolid is avoiding the trial by running.
Legit source for this? IMHO: DMCA is a bad thing in most situations, but luke-jr didn't use it in a bad/abusive way.
So you're saying it's bad when it effects you but it's not bad when it effects someone else? That seems to be a sign of very poor character.... I'm not going to weigh in because this whole mess is retarded but some of you lot need to reevaluate your morale high ground (on both sides of the fence)
DMCA is poorly implemented. It has guilty until proven innocent issues.
The need behind the law is sound (having a way to notify websites they are hosting infringing content).
In this case, having Coinhunter plagiarize code and then try to lock that code up with a restrictive license was simply beyond the pale.
Jump to: