@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.

@codeberg what I meant is that what you described doesn't make codeberg different than github

@af The difference is that there is a decided court ruling, not just a random request letter.

@codeberg "then we most likely would have to disable the repository until the matter is resolved by court ruling if such is fought". So you will disable when you receive the notice or after the court ruling?

@af The Hamburg court issued a cease and desist order: the notice is the order

@codeberg @af
You should really consider clarifying the blog post because it says:

"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"

Which for me means "if we get an angry email, we will take down the repo until the owner gets a judge to say it's ok" which is exactly what Microsoft is doing.

@raucao @codeberg @af
I think it's just a language barrier, hopefully they can clarify because "we won't take anything down without a court order" FOSS hosting is a really cool idea

@cjd @codeberg @af I don't see how this language could be any clearer: "we most likely would have to disable the repository until the matter is resolved by court ruling"

@raucao @cjd @codeberg the key wrong word is "until". The repo should go offline after the court ruling

@af @raucao @codeberg
If I might suggest a way to phrase it:
"The only thing that will make us take down a repository is an order from a German judge"

Sign in to participate in the conversation
kosmos.social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!