The first thing that came to my mind is that a DMCA takedown on GitHub doesn’t stop them from using it, but only from sharing their own additions with the world.
Everyone is free to edit, compile and use LGPL licensed code however you want on your PC. A DMCA can’t stop that, so it won’t make sense for someone to think that. At the time you share software (as a binary which used that LPGL licensed code, or the code itself) is when you are legally compelled to follow the license (hosting code on github).
Ah right. So I guess my point was: the DMCA takedown doesn’t necessarily force them to publish the code on GitHub, although luckily in this case they did end up doing that.
Yeah exactly, suing them for non-compliance would be more effective, though of course, also more effort. That said, it sounds like in this case, just asking them would’ve worked as well, which is a lot less effort 😅
The first thing that came to my mind is that a DMCA takedown on GitHub doesn’t stop them from using it, but only from sharing their own additions with the world.
But sharing code is when a license like LGPL really has an effect in what you must do to comply…
I’m not sure I follow that sentence?
Everyone is free to edit, compile and use LGPL licensed code however you want on your PC. A DMCA can’t stop that, so it won’t make sense for someone to think that. At the time you share software (as a binary which used that LPGL licensed code, or the code itself) is when you are legally compelled to follow the license (hosting code on github).
Ah right. So I guess my point was: the DMCA takedown doesn’t necessarily force them to publish the code on GitHub, although luckily in this case they did end up doing that.
Usually they only comply by suing them, after nagging them for years…
Yeah exactly, suing them for non-compliance would be more effective, though of course, also more effort. That said, it sounds like in this case, just asking them would’ve worked as well, which is a lot less effort 😅