The most astounding thing in this article is that the developer is denying copyright infringement.
There are many arguments to be made for preserving flash and providing a clean, easy way to install a modified version of Flash with the necessary security updates. But claiming that there was no copyright infringement? The Gitlab screenshot [0] uses Adobe's copyrighted logo, looks suspiciously like it's affiliated with Flash by mimicking its installer and installs an illegally distributed Flash binary.
The real problem here is that the binary does contain propietary Flash code, but the code itself doesn't. I can't verify if the releases page hosted the full-fat executables or not; if they did, the DMCA seems quite standard. If they didn't, the DMCA was definitely filed under false pretenses because it claimed a violation of _Adobe's code_ rather than their resources.
The use of the Flash logo may be a trademark violation, but it's not a copyright violation. The logo is so simple that Wikimedia Commons has it labeled "does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain":
There are many arguments to be made for preserving flash and providing a clean, easy way to install a modified version of Flash with the necessary security updates. But claiming that there was no copyright infringement? The Gitlab screenshot [0] uses Adobe's copyrighted logo, looks suspiciously like it's affiliated with Flash by mimicking its installer and installs an illegally distributed Flash binary.
The real problem here is that the binary does contain propietary Flash code, but the code itself doesn't. I can't verify if the releases page hosted the full-fat executables or not; if they did, the DMCA seems quite standard. If they didn't, the DMCA was definitely filed under false pretenses because it claimed a violation of _Adobe's code_ rather than their resources.
[0]: https://user-content.gitlab-static.net/7cd707fa280480fd2947d...