109 reads
Plaintiffs in the Case of DOE vs. Github
by Legal PDFAugust 31st, 2023
Too Long; Didn't Read
This excerpt introduces five plaintiffs, each hailing from different states, who are united by their pursuit of justice against alleged copyright infringement. They have published materials under various Suggested Licenses on GitHub repositories, only to claim injuries caused by the defendants' purported unlawful actions during the Class Period. The plaintiffs' stories reflect a collective effort to address copyright issues head-on.
DOE vs. Github (amended complaint) Court Filing (Redacted), June 8, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 4 of 38.
IV. PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
19. Plaintiff J. Doe 1, , is a resident of the State of New Hampshire. Plaintiff Doe 1 published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. Specifically, Doe 1 has published Licensed Materials they claim a copyright interest in under the following Suggested Licenses:
MIT License and GNU General Public License version 3.0. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, injured during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
20. Plaintiff J. Doe 2, , is a resident of the State of Illinois. Plaintiff Doe 2 published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. Specifically, Doe 2 has published Licensed Materials they claim a copyright interest in under the following Suggested Licenses: MIT License; GNU General Public License version 3.0; GNU Affero General Public License version 3.0; The 3- Clause BSD License; and Apache License 2.0. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, injured during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
21. Plaintiff J. Doe 3, , is a resident of the State of Idaho. Plaintiff Doe 3 published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. Specifically, Doe 3 has published Licensed Materials they claim a copyright interest in under the following Suggested Licenses: MIT License; GNU General Public License version 3.0; and GNU Affero General Public License version 3.0. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, injured during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
22. Plaintiff J. Doe 4, , is a resident of the State of South Carolina. Plaintiff Doe 4 published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. Specifically, Doe 4 has published Licensed Materials they claim a copyright interest in under the following Suggested Licenses: GNU General Public License v2.0 and GNU General Public License v3.0. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, injured during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
23. Plaintiff J. Doe 5, , is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Doe 5 published Licensed Materials they owned a copyright interest in to at least one GitHub repository under one of the Suggested Licenses. Specifically, Doe 5 has published Licensed Materials they claim a copyright interest in under the following Suggested Licenses: MIT License; Apache License 2.0; and GNU General Public License v3.0.
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on August 26, 2023, from Storage Courtlistener is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.
L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!
. . . comments & more!
