You did not read it correctly. Author stated that people are modifying and redistributing their code in an unauthorized manner.

▲

penskymaterial 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Did those people sign a legally-binding end-user license agreement?

Because what I see is essentially "they're storing stolen property" but the burden of proof is on the author to prove it was, indeed, stolen.

I imagine the bar for that is pretty high otherwise anyone could weaponize DMCA to target their competitors' repositories.

▲

jffry 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You seem to be thinking about "adblocker running in browser", since you brought up EULAs.

That's not what OP alleges - they are saying people are redistributing modified versions of OP's copyrighted code. DMCA is an appropriate measure in such a situation, but it's unclear why OP's DMCA takedown was rejected by GitHub. Without more detail, it's hard to comment further

	▲	verdverm 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		one would think, if it is still up there, OP might point us at it so we can see for ourselves, right now it's "trust me"

▲

majorchord 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People are absolutely abusing the DMCA process.

https://reclaimthenet.org/kiwi-farms-dmca-subpoena-anonymous...