[Rantenki]

Strangely, I agree with the original author who sent the DMCA.

Imagine that you're working on some project and you find one of those forks with no GPLv3 attached (or worse, some other license that is more permissive). You integrate it, publish, and then find out that your project is in copyright violation.

I'd rather see a takedown induce an easily remediated repo change, than a big legal PITA down the road. It's not like he took his repo down, nor any of the forks that kept the license. He just DMCA'd the ones that stripped the license files.

[orclev]

Yeah, you could maybe argue that DMCA is kind of heavy handed but for a change it doesn't seem to be an abuse, it's actually being used for what it was intended. In particular the fact that he went through the trouble of spelling out exactly what was being violated, gave a number of rather reasonable ways to address the violation, and provided links to replacement repos for the code in question I think shows that some time and consideration was spent on this. This wasn't just your run of the mill blanket "OMGZ MY IP!" type of DMCA request we're used to seeing from media companies and certain large corporations.