3 ms·

> Subsequently, I discovered that certain individuals had stolen the application and were selling it on various platforms, including the Windows Store, under a

> Subsequently, I discovered that certain individuals had stolen the application and were selling it on various platforms, including the Windows Store, under a different name without crediting me as the original developer... Efforts to reach out to Microsoft Store proved to be largely unfruitful for nearly a year... Lack of proper curation and human communication are among the major reasons to hate app stores. Free app stores like in Ubuntu often ship versions not polished enough because nobody has enough spare time to really care without being paid, commercial app stores like of Microsoft and Google just don't care and feel Ok welcoming all sorts of scammers as long as they pay the rent, all they apparently do is nuking accounts of good people for no clear reason.

palata 2y ago
Note that Captura being MIT-licensed means that the authors would only have had to hide a copy of the license in some "About..." page hidden in some submenu. It's not like they have to credit the author on their front page. And it's completely legal to resell MIT-licensed code (of course with the attribution).
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  Sure, yet people like this would often create multiple ad-sponsored, data-stealing and paid clones of some version of the same free app under different brands, give zero fucks about bugs and mentioning the author, buy some 5-star reviews from bot farms and enjoy a steady stream of "passive income" from non-techies clicking without thinking. They hardly ever care to even look what the original license is, it could as well be GPL for the same result. As we can see here, some would even bully the author to force him remove the source code.
  - graemep 2y ago
    It would make a big difference if it was GPL. If they did not make the source available you can sue them. You can issue the store that distributes it with a DMCA notice or a cease and desist. In this case it appears that the same could have been done, but the author says he "reached out" but did he actually use the right legal threats?
    - palata 2y ago
      > If they did not make the source available you can sue them. If you have the money to sue them, but honestly it's probably never worth it. I know many robotics companies who ship systems that contain tons of docker containers, typically running Ubuntu. They effectively do ship a ton of GPLv2/GPLv3 packages but just don't give a damn. Good luck suing them.
  - palata 2y ago
    And possibly they are the ones putting pressure and asking for features...
- graemep 2y ago
  > Note that Captura being MIT-licensed means that the authors would only have had to hide a copy of the license in some "About..." page hidden in some submenu. It's not like they have to credit the author on their front page. I do not think they even have to do that, do they? All that is required is "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." which sounds like the file with the license text has to be somewhere in the distributed software.
  - qwerty456127 2y ago
    I think they don't really have to include anything in case they claim the app is a distinct product loosely based on the MIT-licensed original. This would be a reasonable claim if they dedicated some time to introduce notable differences besides just replacing the logos. Nevertheless it would be polite to credit the original author somewhere in the about box and donate some money to him if you use his work to earn money.
  - palata 2y ago
    > which sounds like the file with the license text has to be somewhere in the distributed software. Sure, but somewhere accessible. I don't know about the Windows Store, but say for Android, the user only receives the app as an apk, so the only way I see to distribute the copyright notice to the user is by adding it to some "About..." submenu.
- orev 2y ago
  From the article: > Despite Captura being licensed under the MIT license, which allows for the application to be sold as long as proper attribution is given, these individuals had removed all license information from the application.

palata 2y ago

Note that Captura being MIT-licensed means that the authors would only have had to hide a copy of the license in some "About..." page hidden in some submenu. It's not like they have to credit the author on their front page. And it's completely legal to resell MIT-licensed code (of course with the attribution).

qwerty456127 2y ago
Sure, yet people like this would often create multiple ad-sponsored, data-stealing and paid clones of some version of the same free app under different brands, give zero fucks about bugs and mentioning the author, buy some 5-star reviews from bot farms and enjoy a steady stream of "passive income" from non-techies clicking without thinking. They hardly ever care to even look what the original license is, it could as well be GPL for the same result. As we can see here, some would even bully the author to force him remove the source code.
- graemep 2y ago
  It would make a big difference if it was GPL. If they did not make the source available you can sue them. You can issue the store that distributes it with a DMCA notice or a cease and desist. In this case it appears that the same could have been done, but the author says he "reached out" but did he actually use the right legal threats?
  - palata 2y ago
    > If they did not make the source available you can sue them. If you have the money to sue them, but honestly it's probably never worth it. I know many robotics companies who ship systems that contain tons of docker containers, typically running Ubuntu. They effectively do ship a ton of GPLv2/GPLv3 packages but just don't give a damn. Good luck suing them.
- palata 2y ago
  And possibly they are the ones putting pressure and asking for features...
graemep 2y ago
> Note that Captura being MIT-licensed means that the authors would only have had to hide a copy of the license in some "About..." page hidden in some submenu. It's not like they have to credit the author on their front page. I do not think they even have to do that, do they? All that is required is "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." which sounds like the file with the license text has to be somewhere in the distributed software.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  I think they don't really have to include anything in case they claim the app is a distinct product loosely based on the MIT-licensed original. This would be a reasonable claim if they dedicated some time to introduce notable differences besides just replacing the logos. Nevertheless it would be polite to credit the original author somewhere in the about box and donate some money to him if you use his work to earn money.
- palata 2y ago
  > which sounds like the file with the license text has to be somewhere in the distributed software. Sure, but somewhere accessible. I don't know about the Windows Store, but say for Android, the user only receives the app as an apk, so the only way I see to distribute the copyright notice to the user is by adding it to some "About..." submenu.
orev 2y ago
From the article: > Despite Captura being licensed under the MIT license, which allows for the application to be sold as long as proper attribution is given, these individuals had removed all license information from the application.