I get pulled in both directions by this. The DMCA is, IMO, a crap piece of legislation. It shouldn't be a law. So it's a Good Thing to fight it, and civil disobedience is one way to do that. The questions arising from that are:

• is posting an offsite (I take it) link to the code in question an effective way to contribute to the civil disobedience against that law?
• is posting an offsite link to the code liable to involve vroom in any more trouble than a threatening letter from a lawyer?

How many holes are there in the dam already? I don't care if they have an army, they can't plug all of the ones that now exist. And anyhow, a link from site A to site B is not another hole in the dam. (If site B is 'neutralized', so is site A). So PM.org is no doubt far down on the list of organizations that will get contacted about any linkage. (this is all predicated on the assumption/vague recollection that it was an offsite link).

First, though, and foremost, is the question WWVD? It's his site. Despite the fact that he (or EveryDevel) is responsible, legally, for making sure that non-DMCA compliant code is not linked, it should ultimately be his call whether to take the risk. So it boils down to the question of whether editors are reasonable proxies for vroom / EveryDevel. And no doubt the legal status of that is yet to be worked out (if it even matters); but from yer basic moral standpoint, you did the right thing in acting from uncertainty.

Now, should vroom etc. decide they wanted to help fight the DMCA in this manner (or at all), and they requested you replace the censored information, you should do so.

The way I see it (long story short) you were watching vroom's back. 'nuff said. Them's my thoughts on the matter.

Philosophy can be made out of anything. Or less -- Jerry A. Fodor