3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoIt 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 agoAnd possibly they are the ones putting pressure and asking for features...