No. A DCMA takedown is your lawyers contacting their lawyers and saying that you're invoking a law which forces them to immediately take something down or risk severe legal ramifications. Isn't it better to reach out without invoking a DCMA and see if the other party is willing to cooperate first?
>Isn't it better to reach out without invoking a DCMA and see if the other party is willing to cooperate first?
That would still be your lawyers talking to their lawyers. The channels for handling DMCA takedowns are much more efficient than channels for handling something custom.
Those channels are illegal to use outside of the copyright issues they're intended for. It's not just a free "hey take this down for me, will ya?" button.
If there was an icon, that could have be what was copyrighted. Perhaps it's from the usage of the deb package. The creator of a project that uses the GPL can actually have a download link to that software which is under a different license that is not freely distributable.
The icon is in the repo covered by the AGPLv3. Signal-Desktop does not have a CLA that would enable them to license the built binary anything but AGPLv3, as they do not have sole copyright over the code. They themselves are also bound by the AGPLv3.
If their explicit goal is having it taken down, and the law gives them explicit ability to do so, why would they waste the time? A DMCA isn't rude, it's just a strictly outlined process.
The law doesn't give them the ability, as the DMCA is for copyright and with an unrestricted free software license, there is no copyright issue. The takedown itself was illegal.
