So, someone mentioned to me that Steven Penny is trying to claim the ownership of code which he did not write and code that's released under the MIT license.<p>So what did he do?<p>1. Renamed apt-cyg to sage (See commits on the 24th of January https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/commits/master)
2. Filed a DMCA takedown on the original repository https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/28ceb5f8dd70b1a7f92d3f9fae053f039b2883c4<p>There's a counter-DMCA takedown: https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/e74005839a278219774a8c53fd57c6574b607eb0
The original source on Google Code: https://apt-cyg.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/apt-cyg<p>So, let's get this to the top so the whole world can see what a major arsehole Steven Penny is.
Steven Penny had the opportunity to explain his doings:<p><a href="https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/2" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/2</a>
<a href="https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/3" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/3</a>
<a href="https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/4" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/4</a><p>but choose not to say more than claiming to be the sole developer of apt-cyg.<p>This apt-cyg project has a history back to 2005, released under GPL by Stephen Jungels (according to the original code) and Stephen is also the owner of the now DCMA:ed GitHub repo.<p><a href="https://github.com/transcode-open?tab=repositories" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/transcode-open?tab=repositories</a><p>When apt-cyg moved from Google Code to GitHub it seems that the license changed from GPL to MIT, most likely a move by Stephen Jungels.<p>So how can Steven Penny claim rights over apt-cyg? Maybe he did a complete rewrite of the code? One can only guess at this stage.<p>If he did, feel free to do so, the code was MIT, improve, rewrite, re-label and try to market your version. Thats all in the interest of open source movement. No harm done.<p>But, it does not seem right, to claim something that has been open source code for more than 10 years. Not even a complete rewrite gives you the power to file a DCMA on open source project.<p>That does not feel right and such an action can never be a positiv movement for the open source community.<p>Something is fishy, maybe there is more than meets the eye?<p>Still, no matter the claim, filing a DCMA on open source code where the project has thousands of active users, well, thats not good for open source.
Now he's removing and renaming the issues I created regarding this: <a href="https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/5" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/5</a>