The only text on that page that states the origin of the dev’s code is Mazda’s claim that the relevant code is Mazda’s. If their claim is true, then it would seem to me the DMCA takedown is valid.
The reason the DMCA takedown notice is malicious is that code from Mazda’s official app is not required to develop a tool that works in a similar way. The API of the server is freely accessible and figuring out how to interact with it can be done completely without infringing on anyone’s copyright.
Okay, it doesn’t matter how it could have been done, it matters how it was done, and again, the only claim made on the page is that it was stolen code.
I’m all for actually owning what you buy and being able to integrate it with your other stuff however you please, but distributing someone else’s work is a valid claim for infringement. And as with any other cloud-based stuff, don’t expect it to work forever. Support and push for local device access without the need for cloud services.
Claiming that some open source code is really proprietary is pretty bold. I suppose they could prove that by releasing their code, but to me it smells like they’ve been using open source code without attributing it for a while. And now they’re trying to solve this problem by taking down the original.
Honestly, an assertion that open source code is really stolen seems pretty easy to prove wrong.
MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.
Here’s a fork that’s still up and explains how the DMCA request was made based off of functionality and not proprietary code.
The only text on that page that states the origin of the dev’s code is Mazda’s claim that the relevant code is Mazda’s. If their claim is true, then it would seem to me the DMCA takedown is valid.
Okay, it doesn’t matter how it could have been done, it matters how it was done, and again, the only claim made on the page is that it was stolen code.
I’m all for actually owning what you buy and being able to integrate it with your other stuff however you please, but distributing someone else’s work is a valid claim for infringement. And as with any other cloud-based stuff, don’t expect it to work forever. Support and push for local device access without the need for cloud services.
Claiming that some open source code is really proprietary is pretty bold. I suppose they could prove that by releasing their code, but to me it smells like they’ve been using open source code without attributing it for a while. And now they’re trying to solve this problem by taking down the original.
Honestly, an assertion that open source code is really stolen seems pretty easy to prove wrong.
As per the DMCA listed in the reference:
MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.
Here’s a fork that’s still up and explains how the DMCA request was made based off of functionality and not proprietary code.
https://github.com/runDMCA/home-assistant-mazda