@codeberg "However, if we for example host a legitimate open source tool and we would receive a similar notice, then we most likely would have to disable the repository until the matter is resolved by court ruling...." It is codeberg who would receive such notice not the authors of the tool itself. Can you comment.

@af @codeberg stated that they would most likely have to disable the repository.
Then it's up to the owner of that repo to fight the notice.
What's unclear there?

@tokudan @codeberg sorry for being so stupid. In case of youtube-dl RIAA issued notice, my question is what "notice" is referred in the codeberg text, notice from RIAA or notice from a court?

Follow

@af @codeberg

my guess ( I'm not related to codeberg): When it's reasonable. The source will probably not really matter.

If it's a court, codeberg will have less freedom with the "reasonable" part.

@af @codeberg youtube-dl fucked up by providing examples showing how to download copyright protected stuff.

@tokudan @af Yes. We had to close repos containing obviously illegal content in the past and will do so if appropriate. Rules are set out in the Terms of Use (linked in the footer).

The novel aspect of the youtube-dl case is that interpretation of legality is countering prior assumptions--many Codeberg users would not assume such a project illegal in EU, and even professional experts are divided. We provide some sources in the blog post.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
chaos.social

chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community