Hi guys,
Just had my open source project been suspended on GitHub...
About half a year ago I decided to get my hands dirty with node.js and as best way to learn new tool is to do something with that I decided to write some open source applications.
It appeared that there were not many open source alternatives for web applications that helps businesses to manage employees absences. So I started http://timeoff.management
At the beginning of the project I went through all available commercial solutions just to get an idea of what features they have. All pretty much had the same set of functionality. So I selected 3-4 of them to use as an inspiration.
With time I deployed an app online where people can register to have a try. Majority of them were just small businesses.
Then about week ago I was approached by a person from one of the commercial solutions, claiming that I completely cloned their application (including database structure).
Prior contacting me that person filed GitHub DMCA takedown notice.
In email conversation that followed, I asked about list of concerns so I can tweak my project and eliminate issues. After receiving couple of points I quickly remove or changed content of open source project or argued, in case of calendars, that it it not vendor specific concept.
To be fair there were couple of content wording that I took from their site, but that content was not part of the suspended repository but belonged to promotion page. And I had updated that text the same day an issue arose.
My intention was to cooperate with that organisation and eliminate all concerns.
...Unfortunately today my GitHub repository was suspended...
This is sad situation as it was an attempt to give wider community something back as a result of pet project.
I am wondering where the line when somebody can just come and claim your project to be a clone and request it to be suspended?...
This isn't the right way to think about things. Suppose I violated someone else's copyright then when accused I ask for a detailed list of concerns. That would be the cheap way for me to get out of the problem. That is, I would do the easy work of copying someone else's work, then place the effort on their side to identify the minimum needed to be compliant, and I would only need to make those changes to be compliant.
Your goal therefore should be to not sound or act like a lazy copyright infringer.
> To be fair there were couple of content wording
What does suggest the project did not have a policy of avoiding copyright infringement, or at least not understanding the risks of being loose with copyright law.
> today my GitHub repository was suspended
Which GitHub is obligated to do under the DMCA. You then file a counter-claim if you have "a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." Following the DMCA absolves GitHub of liability, and makes services like GitHub possible.
The DMCA is also good for you. Without it, the company claiming infringement might have sued you directly, rather than talk to GitHub and go through the takedown process first.
> I am wondering where the line when somebody can just come and claim your project to be a clone and request it to be suspended?...
That line is called the DMCA. It's been around since 1998. Github has a guide to what it means, and why they follow the law. It's linked to from the github message on your repo.
Nor is it a "just". The take down is filed under penalty of perjury. Misuse can be subject to criminal and civil prosecution.