[e12e]

Maybe we need apache with DMCA clause (like patent clause)-if you ever invoke DMCA your license is forfeit?

I'm not sure how viable it is - the GPL is hack on top of copyright - but the DMCA is an extension on top of copyright too (however ill advised).

[dvdkhlng]

I think the GPLv3 implements a similar idea WRT patent rights, sometimes referred to as "patent retaliation clause" [1].

Just saying that there is precedent for licenses being used to protect against overreaching "IP" laws.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3PatentRetaliatio...

[mattrick]

DMCA does have legitimate uses, though. If someone was stealing my IP, I'd certainly consider invoking it. It just becomes a problem when big companies with lawyers™ use it to stop someone from doing something legal that they don't like.

[e12e]

Maybe. Some will argue for software parents too. Copyright infringement was illegal before the DMCA and I'm not convinced it improves things. In fact, I'm pretty sure we'd be better off if it was repealed.

[bdcravens]

Isn't one of the largest benefits of DMCA the safe harbor protections? Like you said, copyright law exists without DMCA, in which case the Githubs and Youtubes of the world could be sued.

[e12e]

But I don't think safe harbour was entirely new with DMCA - it's a formalisation of what was there? Wasn't there some cases in the 90s where free web hosts and isps were found to not be responsible for users hosting copyright material? Maybe I misremeber.

[account42]

You have the option to pursue legal action without the DMCA. The problem with the DMCA is that it lets would-be rights holders take down content without any due process - without any other party even reviewing their claim.

[dogma1138]

Invoke DMCA against whom? The specific project or in general?

[e12e]

Hm, I misremebered the patent clause in apache2 - I thought it revoked both copyright license and patent license - but it is limited to the patent. At any rate my suggestion/idea was to take inspiration from:

> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

I'm not sure if it could work with, or be a good idea for, the DMCA. But I'd guess one would say something along the lines of "any invocation of provisions in the DMCA revoke any license grants herein".

[dogma1138]

Again invocation of the DMCA against whom, the original license issuer for that specific project or for any party and cause?

The patent clause in Apache is rather common in various FRAND and open standard agreements to prevent the project from being taken hostage in disputes between corporations.

If you apply something similar to a wide spread license like GPL for example it means that if I’m hosting a website running on FOSS with this license software that hosts say copies of Netflix shows Netflix can’t use DMCA against me because they also use FOSS software under the same license.

[e12e]

Yes, the idea would be to kill takedown requests. Perhaps limit it to requests for takedown requests against software, not other media?

Again, I'm not saying this is a good idea - but it's an idea.

[pyuser583]

And by whom? The RCIAA loses all licenses to open source software. No water off their backs.

Individual music companies might be hit a lot harder.