**Are you the owner of the content that has been disabled, or authorized to act on the owner’s behalf?**

Yes, I am authorized to act on the content owner's behalf.

**Please describe the nature of your content ownership or authorization to act on the owner's behalf.**

The content in question is licensed under the GPLv2 which is an open source license. Our distribution of the source is a requirement for compliance with the license.

**What files were taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL.**

https://github.com/MMOBugs/MMOBugs-Macros/blob/219d815e6427dd167215424ce105d9011e42a2a7/Explorer.mac  
https://github.com/MMOBugs/MMOBugs-Macros/tree/219d815e6427dd167215424ce105d9011e42a2a7/Explorer

**Do you want to make changes to your repository or do you want to dispute the notice?**

Dispute the notice.

**Is there anything else you think we should know about why you believe the material was removed as a result of a mistake?**

As we've previously explained to their attorney, the LICENSOR claiming this is a violation is acting in bad faith by claiming that the provisions for the GPLv2 with which their code is derivative do not apply to them. The code in question has multiple bindings to GPLv2 code and cannot be run without those bindings in any capacity. It was specifically written to bind to and be used with MacroQuest, the code and licensing for which at the time that the macro was written can be found here: [private] with the specific reference to the GPLv2 here [private]t. Further it uses bindings from MQ2Nav the repository for which can be found here: [private] with consultation with the original author of MQ2Nav confirming that the GPLv2 license is applicable. Neither of those licenses have changed to remove GPLv2 licensing and the LICENSOR, having distributed the code under the terms of the GPLv2 license cannot legally revoke the license that has been granted to the previously distributed code.

The LICENSOR's claim as represented by LICENSOR's attorney at this point in time is that it is possible to copyright the "underlying text" of GPLv2 code so that GPLv2 code cannot be reused or distributed per the terms of the license for which it was originally written. As their attorney has acknowledged, at best the work in question could be considered derivative of the original macro and this "underlying text" argument would not apply to the work as a whole. However, the claim that a copyright holder can copyright the text of open source code so that it cannot be reused defeats the purpose of open source licenses in their entirety. As we've previously expressed through counsel, while it would be possible to write a macro that is not bound by the terms of the GPLv2, the macro in question here is not written as such.

It is our belief that the DMCA notice is an attempt to force compliance with this thought process rather than litigate a scenario that LICENSOR knows they would lose. A plain language explanation of the reasoning for this is found here: [private] with the text being as such: "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide 'bindings' to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these bindings." Further, there is no severance clause in the GPLv2 nor is there a future licence clause in the MacroQuest licensing allowing LICENSOR to circumvent the GPLv2 license.

Therefore, under the terms of the GPLv2 section 2b, the code in question requires: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." The terms of the GPLv2 also state: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Any distribution from LICENSOR would be covered by this provision. Further, whether the work published in our repository is truly derivative of LICENSOR's work is an issue that would need to be resolved between the LICENSOR and the author of the work in our repository. Our publication of the work is in compliance with the terms of the GPLv2 regarding distribution: "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"

The DMCA notice here is a clear attempt to circumvent Copyright Law and Open Source Licensing.

**I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.**

**I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which my address is located (if in the United States, otherwise the Northern District of California where GitHub is located), and I will accept service of process from the person who provided the DMCA notification or an agent of such person.**

**Please confirm that you have you have read our <a href="https://docs.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-counter-notice">Guide to Submitting a DMCA Counter Notice</a>.**

**So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.**

[private]  
[private]  
[private]  
[private]  

**Please type your full legal name below to sign this request.**

[private]  
