[kevin_b_er]

What this is is also another reason not to use Snap.

This is a multi-level failure.

1. Signal-Desktop is AGPLv3: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop

2. The snap package metadata is AGPLv3: https://github.com/snapcrafters/signal-desktop

So, this looks like a fraudulent DMCA claim by Signal, as the snap package maintainers and Canonicial have an open source license! This shows malice by Signal.

3. No-one from Canonical contacted the package maintainer(s) about the DMCA, so they have no opportunity to counterclaim or defend.

This is an open sign Snap should not be used. Because utterly unjustified DMCA claims will result in the removal of a package without any way to contest. This is compounded by Canoncial's controlling methodology with Snap where it is ostensibly open-source but Canonical controls what is permitted with snap through a closed-source server.

[cyberphobe]

AGPLv3 does not somehow permit trademark violations. Signal has taken issue with third parties building binaries and calling them Signal, and I can’t really blame them. This is the same reason Signal isn’t in F-Droid

[Zak]

DMCA takedowns are for copyright only, not trademark. Requesting or demanding removal for trademark reasons is legitimate, but using the DMCA takedown process when there is not a copyright violation is fraudulent.

[tadfisher]

Because the AGPLv3 allows for trademark restrictions, violating the trademark revokes the copyright license.

[monocasa]

AGPLv3 allows for adding trademark terms, which signal has not done.

[kevin_b_er]

And the DMCA is about copyright. Where's trademark mentioned?

[tingletech]

Violating trademark triggers AGPLv3 license to be invalid, thus the copyright claim.

[Murrawhip]

No, AGPLv3 allows for adding an additional term regarding trademark. Signal-desktop is using the default APGLv3 without such a term.

[nicce]

And snap store backend is walled garden, you can’t really even make official snaps as external packages. Everything depends on Canonical.