Wolfe contributed code under the GPL license. He has every right to send takedown notices against distributions of his code that do not follow his license.

>They *stole* Mojang's MC code, in essence, by decompiling it and distributing it. Mojang was nice enough not to take them to court over it - but that doesn't mean the code is suddenly GPL.

You missed one of the twists: according to Mojang, Bukkit is Mojang's project. The "They" in your sentence is Mojang too. Mojang has been releasing versions of Bukkit under the GPL containing the decompiled Minecraft server code.

Wolfe, one of the Bukkit contributors who does not work for Mojang and contributed code to Bukkit under the GPL license, has issued a takedown notice against Bukkit because it distributes his code without following the GPL license he contributed it under, and the Bukkit project has been taken down as a result.

Mojang has stated that they wish to continue the Bukkit project, which requires one of two things to happen: They rewrite all of the GPL code in Bukkit, or they release the Minecraft server under the GPL to make Bukkit valid.

>If that is the case, boo hoo hoo perhaps you should check the licensing before contributing code next time.

He did. The license was GPL. He is the one issuing the takedown because the project does not follow the GPL. The project was taken down in accordance to his takedown.

If Mojang wants to resume the Bukkit project (which they have stated they want to), it either needs to rewrite all of the GPL portions, or release the Minecraft server under the GPL.

>If the "Bukkit" project contains decompiler/disassembled portions of the Minecraft server software (which is not ODD licensed)...wouldn't that mean the guy who include said disassembled code in his project is the one doing the infringing?

Yes. The DMCA takedown was against the Bukkit project, and the Bukkit project was taken down. The summary is misleading.

The interesting part is that Mojang (the Minecraft developers) has hired many of the Bukkit developers, and said that Bukkit is "their" project. If Mojang wants to continue Bukkit, then they need to rewrite all of the GPL code in it, or release the Minecraft server under the GPL too.

Wolfe was one of the contributors to the Bukkit project. He contributed his code under the GPL license. It turns out that the Bukkit project does not meet the GPL license because it contains decompiled Minecraft server code, therefore Wolfe has claimed that his code being distributed with Bukkit is a violation of his copyright and had the project taken down. I can't see how his claim would be false.

Wolfe's contributions are licensed under the GPL. The CraftBukkit distribution contains Wolfe's contributions, but violates the GPL, therefore it's a violation of his copyright. It's likely that CraftBukkit is also a violation of Mojang's copyright simultaneously, but two copyright violations certainly do not negate each other and make the project legal again.

The DMCA claim is against Bukkit, not the Minecraft server itself.

>The fact that an unproven (and almost certainly unfounded) DMCA claim

Wolf contributed code to the Bukkit project under the GPL license. Turns out the Bukkit project does not follow the GPL license, therefore it's being distributed against Wolf's license. Unless you believe that Wolf is only pretending to have been a Bukkit contributor, or if you believe that the Minecraft server's code (which parts of Bukkit are based on) is GPL'd, then Wolf's claim is apparently valid.

>No one else is violating his license

Bukkit, which contains his code but doesn't follow his license, is violating his license. He has every right to issue a claim against Bukkit.

Wolf's DMCA takedown is against Bukkit, not the Minecraft server.

They could also just make the mining pool protocol use TLS.

You're thinking of client certificates. You're able to remove them just like you can remove cookies, though getting a client certificate requires agreeing and clicking through a dialog, so they're strictly worse than cookies for tracking people who don't want to be tracked.

They've already been using their ranking system to encourage HTTP and HTML. Think of all the poor BBSs and gopher servers they've been discriminating against!

What exactly do you think most hacks are?

That's why you depend on a specific version.

Windows 8.1 is no longer supported, so users must update to Windows 8.1?