17

Case: I developed a software and uploaded it to Github with MIT license.

To apply the license, I created a LICENSE file with MIT license preamble (as mentioned in choosealicense.com)

Somebody cloned(not by forking) my repository, modified the LICENSE file to remove my name and added his instead. He then re-uploaded the project to Github under his name.

So, my questions are:

  • Is this legal to do such modification ?
  • What should I do as a owner of the repository ?
Mrigank
  • 173
  • 1
  • 5

3 Answers3

12

Is this legal to do such modification?

Answer no.

New question: Can you do anything against this?

On court: Yes, if you have registered it or at least send a postal copy to yourself. Actually it could be that the person intends to register copyright on his/her own and even sue you for copyright infringement... could.

On GitHub directly: Yes: File a DMCA takedown notice (see below).

What should I do as a owner of the repository?

Beforehand: make sure to have a good position to claim your copyright later (as written before).

After this issue happened: Contact the changing person politely and ask for his/her intentions. If I'm not wrong GitHub repos have automatically an Issue tracker which you should use, providing links to your repo. It could be that the person doesn't know you have an online repo (e.g. was given the source somewhere) and it could be that the person want to do changes that you want to include. Therefore it would be good to think about how you want to accept contributions and make this clear within your README.md or similar.

In any case I'd suggest to kindly ask to recreate the repository with a fork (showing the ancestry and making it more easy to share changes).

After you did this or if there is no response within some days (I won't wait longer than 2 weeks) you can file a File a DMCA takedown notice at GitHub.

Simon Sobisch
  • 244
  • 2
  • 6
  • can you suggest another license that allows modification but not re-publishing without permission ? – Mrigank Feb 13 '17 at 18:20
  • 3
    @Richard: You should bear in mind you cannot retract the existing MIT license, although you could stop contributing under it. There will not be an open-source license that puts additional constraints on re-publishing (because then the license would not be free). However, as per this answer, the re-publishing that has been done is already in violation of your copyright license, i.e. it is something your MIT license does not permit - it could be fixed by the fork adding your name back in. – Neil Slater Feb 13 '17 at 20:20
  • Pretty sure the postal thing isn't real anymore. And you've left out the option of following the Github process: https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/ – curiousdannii Feb 13 '17 at 21:17
  • 4
    The copyright registration is not really needed in the US, unless you want to go nuclear with a lawsuit. – Philippe Ombredanne Feb 13 '17 at 22:37
  • 1
    And in other countries, it may not be needed even for a lawsuit. As for the other suing you if they register the copyright first, this is not how it works! – Zimm i48 Feb 14 '17 at 08:14
  • @Zimmi48 If someone registers copyright of "your" code and there is no way to prove you are the actual author - how do you want to go against a lawsuit? – Simon Sobisch Feb 14 '17 at 08:29
  • 1
    Having published the code publicly before the copyright registration seems like plenty of proof to me. – Zimm i48 Feb 14 '17 at 08:32
  • @Zimmi48 If the repository publicly since years this is at least a hint and if the "cloned" repo is a git clone it will still contain all old commits (and therefore the author). But if it only publicly available since short time (which isn't clear from the question) or the "cloned" repo has changed commit information then this may not be very easy to prove... – Simon Sobisch Feb 14 '17 at 11:10
  • In my case contacting the victim worked, he told that he accidently replaced my name. He instantly updated the LICENSE file with original one, although he didn't agreed to fork due to some other problems, should I allow this? – Mrigank Feb 14 '17 at 11:59
  • 3
    @Richard This is a completely different question, please create a new one for this if you want an intense discussion / multiple answers (doesn't need the full background, only the "people don't agree to fork"). Short answer: You cannot do anything about it, he is free to do changes with the MIT-Licensed version like he wants to. For allowing him (and you) to do easy merges of changes done in the future it is likely easier if he "forks" via GitHub which would also be a way of honoring your work, but this is a different point. – Simon Sobisch Feb 14 '17 at 12:14
  • @SimonSobisch The discovery process within the U.S. court system will probably find the real original author. If you're going to court, the court could likely subpoena the third-party server (e.g. Github) for relevant logs. Also evidence of your repo might exist on the Internet Archive, or be mentioned earlier on online forums. If you both claim to be the original author, we can only trust that court will perform reasonable diligence in finding the truth and hope that some reasonable amount of evidence exists to support the truth. Who registered first is one piece of a much larger picture. – apsillers Feb 14 '17 at 17:37
  • It is true that you must register your copyright before perusing legal action, but it is not necessary to have registered your copyright before the violation occurred (i.e., it is perfectly legal to see a copyright violation happen, then run down to the copyright office with a registration, and then sue). However, in that case, you can only claim actual damages (i.e., lost potential income/sales) and not statutory damages (which do require registration chronologically prior to violation). Also: How does “poor man's copyright” work? – apsillers Feb 14 '17 at 17:43
  • (Actually, upon researching the subject, you may or may not be able to formally subpoena a service provider like Github, though they might still cooperate for a simple request like "on what dates were these two repositories created" or you might be able to collect it via a few other discovery-time mechanisms.) – apsillers Feb 14 '17 at 17:57
3

Is this legal to do such modification ?

Absolutely not.

What should I do as a owner of the repository ?

You should follow GitHub's DMCA process. This involves sending a complaint to Github. The infringing user will be given the opportunity to fix the problem or to contest your claim. But if they do not, then GitHub should remove their repository.

curiousdannii
  • 7,768
  • 1
  • 27
  • 51
  • 3
    Before going nukelar with a DMCA takedown, what about contacting the author first? – Philippe Ombredanne Feb 13 '17 at 22:35
  • @PhilippeOmbredanne If they've deliberately and blatantly removed and replaced the author they don't seem like the kind of person who would simply just fix what they've done if you ask nicely. – curiousdannii Feb 13 '17 at 22:38
  • 6
    99.9999999999999% of the time this is caused by ignorance or incompetence rather than malice. So do not assume anything and instead do the right thing first: ask politely to restore the copyright. – Philippe Ombredanne Feb 13 '17 at 22:41
  • @PhilippeOmbredanne I'd grant you that it happens out of ignorance or incompetence some proportion of the time, but not 99%. They're manually editing and removing someone's name from the copyright line of the license file! Be realistic. In any case, following Github's process will not result in anything bad for the person if they did do it out of incompetence. – curiousdannii Feb 13 '17 at 22:56
  • 3
    In my case contacting the victim fixed the issue, he told that he accidently replaced my name. He instantly updated the LICENSE file with original one, although he didn't agreed to fork due to some other problems, should I allow this? – Mrigank Feb 14 '17 at 11:58
  • @Richard I'm not sure what you mean by him not agreeing to fork - what exact did you ask him? – curiousdannii Feb 14 '17 at 12:01
  • 3
    @curiousdannii The other person want to use GitHub but not clone the repo in an "official" and "viewable" way via GitHub's "fork" feature. If we knew the reasons (given in a different question as this is a topic drift from the original one) we may advise something but obviously there's nothing the op can force (the license doesn't say "you can do what you want as long as you use GitHub's fork feature"). – Simon Sobisch Feb 14 '17 at 12:18
  • @SimonSobisch That's what I figured. But even if they had been willing to, you can't just reattach a repo as a fork of another, I think you'd have to ask the GitHub staff for it to be changed manually. – curiousdannii Feb 14 '17 at 12:42
  • @curiousdannii yes: there is no reattach-option, actually this would need a delete of the "cloned but not forked" github repo + using the "fork feature" + cloning the new one locally + create patch files from the old (local) repo and apply them to the new one + push + optional: create a "merge request" – Simon Sobisch Feb 14 '17 at 13:26
  • 1
    None has to use Github's forking to create a fork. A clone pushed to anew repo is prefectly fine in my game. This is Git, a DVCS, and repos do not have to be related to be derived from each other :) ... a fork could live at Bitbucket, sourceforge or anywhere else.. – Philippe Ombredanne Feb 15 '17 at 19:30
  • @curiousdannii, I was just about to change the original author (OA) in a copyright notice but decided to check online first if that's a bad idea. I am making substantial changes to the code I copied (to the point where it would be difficult for even the OA to guess that I ever used their code layout as a template), but I would immediately change back to citing the OA if asked to. The only reason I am even considering changing it is because I don't want to appear like I'm attributing my code (~95% original) to the OA. I'm curious why you'd assume malicious intent without clear evidence of it. – SO_fix_the_vote_sorting_bug May 12 '21 at 19:54
  • @jdk unless you've removed all traces of the original code, they must still be attributed. Add your own name too so it's not only attributed to the original author. But if you remove their name you're lying about their contribution, claiming it as your own, breaking the license, and also breaking copyright law. It's a huge deal, and very few people are so ignorant of copyright law that they could say they had no idea what they were doing was wrong. – curiousdannii May 12 '21 at 21:25
3

This is pretty much the only thing you cannot do with something licensed under the MIT license: basically the only condition is

The above copyright notice [(c) year by author] and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Removing the copyright notice is a breach of the licensing conditions. It may also constitute fraud if there have been no substantial changes to the software and the author tries to claim to be the copyright owner to substantial parts of the software for which he made no recognizable contribution: basically a form of plagiarism.

Now the MIT license is classified as "permissive" and that guy might have just thought it to be the same as "public domain". So he may consider himself entitled to his actions. Pointing out his mistake in a manner likely to make him wish to correct it is the art of license enforcement.

Going before court is the last step. In general you want to avoid that since your options are getting him prosecuted for criminal copyright violation (for which it is not easy to get the prosecution interested), or sue for civil damages. With a permissive license, proving actual damage may be very hard. So you basically are down to "cease&desist" and all lawyering costs on your side will likely not get reimbursed.

unor
  • 5,620
  • 24
  • 55
user7424
  • 31
  • 1