5 ms·

Plagiarism of my open source app ChatSecure

40 points by chrisballinger 14y ago

chrisballinger 14y ago
Hey, author of ChatSecure here. Has anyone else experienced plagiarism of their open source software? This guy was almost insultingly lazy and didn't even bother to use a different logo or obfuscate the code.
- dododo 14y ago
  i'm a bit confused: the bsd license allows you to re-sell someone else's source, binaries, images, etc for a profit. you just have to include the copyright notice. is that what you're sending the dmca notice about? because you couldn't find the necessary copyright notice? (if you didn't download it, how do you know it's not in the about box?)
  - misnome 14y ago
    Interesting - I hadn't considered that the BSD licence doesn't seem to require the copyright notice to be displayed before downloading - so it could display the copyright notice in the purchased program, and be compliant? This case doesn't seem on the surface of it, to be completely clear cut. Is there a case to argue that it is morally wrong for them to charge for something that is free, (apparently) without adding value? Perhaps. Legally, though, the case might be different.
    - dododo 14y ago
      the bsd license says: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, .... in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." much of open source is redistributed at a cost, "(apparently) without adding value". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
    - chrisballinger 14y ago
      I'm only interested in the representation of this software as his own, and including it in his "portfolio". If it turns out the BSD doesn't offer me strong enough legal protection against this kind of behavior, I will consider a move to the GPL with an App Store exception.
      - misnome 14y ago
        Incidentally, you mentioned you sent DMCA takedowns, but Chupamobile seems to offer submissions to it's own copyright notice address too on the T&C, > "If you think your products has been copied or there was some breach of copyright please inform us by sending an email at report@chupamobile com, including:"... So it might be worth hitting that also. I'd also like to make clear that I completely sympathise with your situation, if my other responses had implied otherwise.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        The GPL doesn't prevent people from selling your code as-is either, though it does prevent them from doing so using a different license.
  - chrisballinger 14y ago
    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of ChatSecure nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code. Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own. Representing someone else's work as your own is plagiarism, regardless of the software license.
    - misnome 14y ago
      IANAL, but reading this: - Redistributions of Source Code must retain.... Doesn't seem to me to exclude selling the source code without displaying the information up front, as long as the copyright notice is still included with the source code (which we don't know, because we don't know anyone who bought it). And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used. Edit: fceccon pointed out that the name and logo are being used in the header, so yes that seems to make it much more clear cut, albeit turning on the legal definition of "Derived"
      - fceccon 14y ago
        And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used. They're using the ChatSecure logo and name on the page[1] header, so I think the third clause is triggered. [1] http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat/ http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat...
    - beagle3 14y ago
      Note: I think these guys are obnoxious freeloaders, and I'm on your side, however: > I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code. Perhaps they do - and if they do, they are within their rights (as granted to them by yourself through the BSD license). > Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own. That would be a trademark violation, and potentially false representation. As for trademark, if you want to take legal action, you probably need to register it with the USPTO (assuming you are in the US). I am not a lawyer either, but when I inquired about it a few years ago, it was apparently required to register trademarks and copyrights before taking legal action. False pretenses have much higher standard than you would assume: Unless they write anywhere "we are the sole author of this work", they are probably legally ok. If this affair upsets you (as it seems it does), you would probably be better off with a GPL license - it's a signal to (ab)users that you care, as opposed to BSD which is a signal that you don't. I think you are the good guy here, but I'm not sure you have much legal standing after using the BSD -- unless they removed your copyright notices.
  - nhebb 14y ago
    If you go to the plagiarized product page (http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat/ http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat...) and click more info under Regular License, the license terms are more restrictive than the BSD, which is a violation. However, the author is in Indonesia, so there's probably not much recourse. Edit: the plagiarist is in Indonesia
    - davidw 14y ago
      You can package up BSD code and resell it under a more restrictive license.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      > the license terms are more restrictive than the BSD, which is a violation. I think you are confused with the GPL. BSD only requires you to acknowledge original authorship, and declines any suitability or liability. It requires you to preserve the first. (You're welcome to take liability, though ...)
    - yarrel 14y ago
      More restrictive terms than BSD aren't a violation. Plenty of proprietary systems have been based on BSD code. That's pretty much the point of BSD. If you want to prevent people placing more restrictive conditions on your code, that's what the GPL is for.
- PeterisP 14y ago
  The whole point of a BSD licence is that I am allowed to redistribute it (with my changes optional) under more restrictive or closed source terms. This is what you explicitly allowed him to do by offering that licence. If you want copies and derivatives to remain open source always, then use GPL - which adds a list of restrictions for redistribution.
  - jancborchardt 14y ago
    Still, it needs to retain the copyright notice and credit the original author. What the plagiarist in this case did is use it as if it was Public Domain.
    - zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
      You do not know that. He never downloaded it. So he does not know if the license and credit were changed.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      What makes you say he didn't? Have you downloaded the app? Because OP says he hasn't, so he can't possibly know. BSD doesn't force you to put the copyright notice and credit in the app description page.
      - jancborchardt 14y ago
        They did the same for Matt Gemmell: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448
    - fdr 14y ago
      Given the audience that'd buy this software, I doubt that just dropping in a LICENSE file -- which is all that is needed -- will materially impact this borderline scam. Unlike the 4-clause BSD, which was not tractable, the modern 3-clause I'm quite sure the author used does not say in any way "must display this copyright in the most obvious place." If the repackager simply includes the file, I believe he will meet BSD provisions, per the letter of the contract. I see two ways to look at this: * If one really doesn't like things like this to be within the grounds of the copyright, don't use BSD. Use GPL. * On the other hand, what odds are there that the GPL will be reliably enforced against such small fry actors? Maybe you are best choosing a license based on what makes the most sense for the project's advancement anyway.
- legulere 14y ago
  Maybe you can get him for using the same logo, which you hopefully didn't set under bsd license
  - icebraining 14y ago
    "Get him" just means taking it down, since he can hardly prove any damages. Then the guy can just take some other logo and put it up again.
calciphus 14y ago
Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me. More importantly, I wonder how frequently this happens - pulling down an open-source project and trying to sell it elsewhere?
- davidw 14y ago
  > More importantly, I wonder how frequently this happens - pulling down an open-source project and trying to sell it elsewhere? Isn't that sort of what Sun Microsystems was built on? I'm being a bit glib, but there's some truth to it.
- icebraining 14y ago
  There's nothing illegal about doing that. Only the relicensing is iffy.
  - calciphus 14y ago
    If you violate the license, it's illegal.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
losethos 14y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m83JcNoNQ-4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m83JcNoNQ-4 Fucken India-nigger retard!
p4bl0 14y ago
If you didn't download it, how do you know (s)he removed mentions of your name, and the BSD license mention? Because if those things are still there, what (s)he is doing is perfectly legal and fine. I see two things that you could do (in addition to the DMCA if the BSD license was actually not respected): - Selling it yourself cheaper than (s)he is (since anyway you weren't counting on making any money with it) with premium/improved features that are not in the version which is distributed open source ; - Or you could just try to advertise your free product, saying that it is the same thing that this other person is selling, in order to get credited better for your own work.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  I shouldn't have to pay money to find out if my license is being violated. Honestly, I don't even care that they are selling the code, I just care that they are representing my work as their own.
  - ZoFreX 14y ago
    As p4bl0 pointed out though, if your license isn't being violated then you have no claim here, they're obeying the law and your takedowns are not valid.
    - chrisballinger 14y ago
      They are relicensing my software: Regular License - $13.99 The regular license allows the use of the purchased item in a project for either personal or commercial uses, without the payment of any further fees or charges after the initial download cost. The regular license gives you the right to use the purchased items within 1 project of your own or on behalf of a client (commercial, personal, or non-profit). You or your client cannot offer the item up for resale either on its own or as part of a project. Items purchased under a regular license must not be redistributed or resold “as- is” or as part of any other collection of files. What you can do: You can integrate the component in 1 APP. You can be distribute it only as a binary only (You cannot distribute Source Code). Commercial use is allowed. You can customize the Source Code.
rey12rey 14y ago
Well, that's why I hate laws. Some 'douche' somewhere ready to take advantage of some random statements. If you want to benefit fully, I would recommend GPL( although I don't know what it is, one thing's for sure; it protects)
jasonkester 14y ago
I think you're missing an important lesson here: Your product is more valuable than you think. This guy wouldn't have started selling your thing is it wasn't clear that it's something that people will pay for. Your first reaction when you hear that he's making money off of it shouldn't be how to stop him. It should be "Wow. I could be making money off of this. My advice: - Don't worry about this guy. - Put a price on your product - Stop giving away the source - Improve it until your "competitor" fades away There's no rule saying that you have to give your work away as open source. And as you've demonstrated, there's also no rule that if you give your work away for free, somebody else won't notice its value and sell it in your place.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  Would you trust proprietary software to encrypt your communications?
  - charlesdm 14y ago
    Absolutely. Time to start charging for it - you've got something here. Might as well pick the fruits of your labor.
    - jasonkester 14y ago
      Amazingly, this (and the root comment up top) are actually getting downvoted. I hadn't realized the sentiment among open source developers against making money from their craft was so strong. But it shouldn't be. We, as developers, shouldn't harbor any ill will toward the OP should he decide to pull the open source version and sell it for profit. We certainly shouldn't advise him against it or recommend an alternative open source license that better guarantees that nobody can make money off this excellent piece of software. Geeks like us tend to have a natural aversion to making money by selling our work directly, as though it's somehow dirty or wrong in some way that we can't quite articulate. But we need to get over that. We have a guy here (patio11) whose job this normally is, but he seems to have taken the morning off so I'll do this in his place: On behalf of the Internet, I hereby grant you, the developer, permission to charge money for your software. There, you're good.
shared4you 14y ago
What your "plagiarist" is doing is perfectly legal I think. As long as your name appears in the source code and/or binary, you can't send a DMCA takedown. Also, he is not using your name to endorse his own product, which is what point 3 of the BSD license is all about. Also, note that the plagiarist's derivative software can be under any license of his choice, be it commercial, non-commercial or personal. He is free to include / modify your source code and sell it under a different license of his choice -- the only restriction being that your name must appear in those parts of his source code you have written. Unless you buy his product and confirm that he has removed your name, you can't do anything. Remember that BSD license roughly means public domain with copyright notice preservation. That's all. It doesn't restrict anything else.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chrisdone 14y ago
“I realize the BSD allows people to sell my binaries and source but I do not believe it authorizes them to sell the source under a different license.” Er, that's the exact point of the BSD license. The GPL even allows selling binaries and source code, but not re-licensing. So the gist of this blog post is that you offered your source code under a license that allows re-licensing provided that your copyright and some notices are included, someone did it, and now you realise you want the GPL. I applaud this person for taking advantage of the very point of BSD and making some business out of it, that chap is smart. If he's using your logo and you didn't license the logo then that's a copyright claim. But you have no right to whine about the source code. He can say whatever he wants about it, that the "product" is his, etc. (You think Google Chrome doesn't use a hundred libraries written by someone else? But it's Google that made Chrome, right?) And in YOUR LICENSE you wrote “you cannot use my name to advertise”, so the only question is whether your copyright notice and license terms are included in the redistribution. “… illegally selling licenses to my source code for $13.99-$59.99.” I would be VERY careful about libeling people by publicly outing them as doing illegal activities. Alexander Moskalev may even have a case against you for defamation or libel. I'd take this blog down if I were you. And then go and read some pages from http://fsf.org/ http://fsf.org/.
- wattson12 14y ago
  According to Matt Gemmell's twitter (http://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 http://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448) this morning the same seller had taken his open source split view library, stripped the author name from the header and removed the licence file. It may not be the case for this library (given that he didn't need to under this licence) but it does suggest its possible.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  I don't have the cash to buy a "license" to my own code, but I would imagine he removed the copyright notices like he did for Matt Gemmell: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 I didn't have a problem with him selling my stuff, I just have a problem with him claiming something I wrote as his own. By the way, Chupamobile responded and removed his software: https://chatsecure.org/blog#7 https://chatsecure.org/blog#7
invaliddata 14y ago
I just looked at the license he referenced in the blog post: https://raw.github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/master/LICENSE https://raw.github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/mas... and it is the GPL, not BSD. So all the discussion about BSD is moot (unless it was really licensed under a BSD style license previously, and was just changed).
- shared4you 14y ago
  He changed from BSD to GPL just now: https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/commit/20e7110e5ce29b3f6b91b93e45987e5fc65bef37 https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/commit/...
chrisballinger 14y ago
Here is an update from the co-founder of Chupamobile: https://chatsecure.org/blog#7 https://chatsecure.org/blog#7
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
Well, someone could use your code if it is BSD and charge as much as he wants. He could use your code with the only requirement to add you to the credits. He also could modify the license, provided that he respects the due credit. You can't say: "Now my code is GPL!!", the code that this person is using continues being BSD. You gave it away, your DMCA complaint is invalid. Stop whining and learn about the basics of licensing first. Then focus on your product and not on what other people do. You could also charge for it while giving your code.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  Yeah, apparently he removed the copyright notices, violating the BSD: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 To help prevent any future problems I have changed the license to GPL.

Hey, author of ChatSecure here. Has anyone else experienced plagiarism of their open source software? This guy was almost insultingly lazy and didn't even bother to use a different logo or obfuscate the code.

dododo 14y ago
i'm a bit confused: the bsd license allows you to re-sell someone else's source, binaries, images, etc for a profit. you just have to include the copyright notice. is that what you're sending the dmca notice about? because you couldn't find the necessary copyright notice? (if you didn't download it, how do you know it's not in the about box?)
- misnome 14y ago
  Interesting - I hadn't considered that the BSD licence doesn't seem to require the copyright notice to be displayed before downloading - so it could display the copyright notice in the purchased program, and be compliant? This case doesn't seem on the surface of it, to be completely clear cut. Is there a case to argue that it is morally wrong for them to charge for something that is free, (apparently) without adding value? Perhaps. Legally, though, the case might be different.
  - dododo 14y ago
    the bsd license says: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, .... in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." much of open source is redistributed at a cost, "(apparently) without adding value". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - chrisballinger 14y ago
    I'm only interested in the representation of this software as his own, and including it in his "portfolio". If it turns out the BSD doesn't offer me strong enough legal protection against this kind of behavior, I will consider a move to the GPL with an App Store exception.
    - misnome 14y ago
      Incidentally, you mentioned you sent DMCA takedowns, but Chupamobile seems to offer submissions to it's own copyright notice address too on the T&C, > "If you think your products has been copied or there was some breach of copyright please inform us by sending an email at report@chupamobile com, including:"... So it might be worth hitting that also. I'd also like to make clear that I completely sympathise with your situation, if my other responses had implied otherwise.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      The GPL doesn't prevent people from selling your code as-is either, though it does prevent them from doing so using a different license.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of ChatSecure nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code. Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own. Representing someone else's work as your own is plagiarism, regardless of the software license.
  - misnome 14y ago
    IANAL, but reading this: - Redistributions of Source Code must retain.... Doesn't seem to me to exclude selling the source code without displaying the information up front, as long as the copyright notice is still included with the source code (which we don't know, because we don't know anyone who bought it). And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used. Edit: fceccon pointed out that the name and logo are being used in the header, so yes that seems to make it much more clear cut, albeit turning on the legal definition of "Derived"
    - fceccon 14y ago
      And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used. They're using the ChatSecure logo and name on the page[1] header, so I think the third clause is triggered. [1] http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat/ http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat...
  - beagle3 14y ago
    Note: I think these guys are obnoxious freeloaders, and I'm on your side, however: > I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code. Perhaps they do - and if they do, they are within their rights (as granted to them by yourself through the BSD license). > Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own. That would be a trademark violation, and potentially false representation. As for trademark, if you want to take legal action, you probably need to register it with the USPTO (assuming you are in the US). I am not a lawyer either, but when I inquired about it a few years ago, it was apparently required to register trademarks and copyrights before taking legal action. False pretenses have much higher standard than you would assume: Unless they write anywhere "we are the sole author of this work", they are probably legally ok. If this affair upsets you (as it seems it does), you would probably be better off with a GPL license - it's a signal to (ab)users that you care, as opposed to BSD which is a signal that you don't. I think you are the good guy here, but I'm not sure you have much legal standing after using the BSD -- unless they removed your copyright notices.
- nhebb 14y ago
  If you go to the plagiarized product page (http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat/ http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat...) and click more info under Regular License, the license terms are more restrictive than the BSD, which is a violation. However, the author is in Indonesia, so there's probably not much recourse. Edit: the plagiarist is in Indonesia
  - davidw 14y ago
    You can package up BSD code and resell it under a more restrictive license.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > the license terms are more restrictive than the BSD, which is a violation. I think you are confused with the GPL. BSD only requires you to acknowledge original authorship, and declines any suitability or liability. It requires you to preserve the first. (You're welcome to take liability, though ...)
  - yarrel 14y ago
    More restrictive terms than BSD aren't a violation. Plenty of proprietary systems have been based on BSD code. That's pretty much the point of BSD. If you want to prevent people placing more restrictive conditions on your code, that's what the GPL is for.
PeterisP 14y ago
The whole point of a BSD licence is that I am allowed to redistribute it (with my changes optional) under more restrictive or closed source terms. This is what you explicitly allowed him to do by offering that licence. If you want copies and derivatives to remain open source always, then use GPL - which adds a list of restrictions for redistribution.
- jancborchardt 14y ago
  Still, it needs to retain the copyright notice and credit the original author. What the plagiarist in this case did is use it as if it was Public Domain.
  - zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
    You do not know that. He never downloaded it. So he does not know if the license and credit were changed.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    What makes you say he didn't? Have you downloaded the app? Because OP says he hasn't, so he can't possibly know. BSD doesn't force you to put the copyright notice and credit in the app description page.
    - jancborchardt 14y ago
      They did the same for Matt Gemmell: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448
  - fdr 14y ago
    Given the audience that'd buy this software, I doubt that just dropping in a LICENSE file -- which is all that is needed -- will materially impact this borderline scam. Unlike the 4-clause BSD, which was not tractable, the modern 3-clause I'm quite sure the author used does not say in any way "must display this copyright in the most obvious place." If the repackager simply includes the file, I believe he will meet BSD provisions, per the letter of the contract. I see two ways to look at this: * If one really doesn't like things like this to be within the grounds of the copyright, don't use BSD. Use GPL. * On the other hand, what odds are there that the GPL will be reliably enforced against such small fry actors? Maybe you are best choosing a license based on what makes the most sense for the project's advancement anyway.
legulere 14y ago
Maybe you can get him for using the same logo, which you hopefully didn't set under bsd license
- icebraining 14y ago
  "Get him" just means taking it down, since he can hardly prove any damages. Then the guy can just take some other logo and put it up again.

calciphus 14y ago

Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me. More importantly, I wonder how frequently this happens - pulling down an open-source project and trying to sell it elsewhere?

davidw 14y ago
> More importantly, I wonder how frequently this happens - pulling down an open-source project and trying to sell it elsewhere? Isn't that sort of what Sun Microsystems was built on? I'm being a bit glib, but there's some truth to it.
icebraining 14y ago
There's nothing illegal about doing that. Only the relicensing is iffy.
- calciphus 14y ago
  If you violate the license, it's illegal.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

losethos 14y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m83JcNoNQ-4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m83JcNoNQ-4 Fucken India-nigger retard!

p4bl0 14y ago

If you didn't download it, how do you know (s)he removed mentions of your name, and the BSD license mention? Because if those things are still there, what (s)he is doing is perfectly legal and fine. I see two things that you could do (in addition to the DMCA if the BSD license was actually not respected): - Selling it yourself cheaper than (s)he is (since anyway you weren't counting on making any money with it) with premium/improved features that are not in the version which is distributed open source ; - Or you could just try to advertise your free product, saying that it is the same thing that this other person is selling, in order to get credited better for your own work.

chrisballinger 14y ago
I shouldn't have to pay money to find out if my license is being violated. Honestly, I don't even care that they are selling the code, I just care that they are representing my work as their own.
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  As p4bl0 pointed out though, if your license isn't being violated then you have no claim here, they're obeying the law and your takedowns are not valid.
  - chrisballinger 14y ago
    They are relicensing my software: Regular License - $13.99 The regular license allows the use of the purchased item in a project for either personal or commercial uses, without the payment of any further fees or charges after the initial download cost. The regular license gives you the right to use the purchased items within 1 project of your own or on behalf of a client (commercial, personal, or non-profit). You or your client cannot offer the item up for resale either on its own or as part of a project. Items purchased under a regular license must not be redistributed or resold “as- is” or as part of any other collection of files. What you can do: You can integrate the component in 1 APP. You can be distribute it only as a binary only (You cannot distribute Source Code). Commercial use is allowed. You can customize the Source Code.

rey12rey 14y ago

Well, that's why I hate laws. Some 'douche' somewhere ready to take advantage of some random statements. If you want to benefit fully, I would recommend GPL( although I don't know what it is, one thing's for sure; it protects)

jasonkester 14y ago

I think you're missing an important lesson here: Your product is more valuable than you think. This guy wouldn't have started selling your thing is it wasn't clear that it's something that people will pay for. Your first reaction when you hear that he's making money off of it shouldn't be how to stop him. It should be "Wow. I could be making money off of this. My advice: - Don't worry about this guy. - Put a price on your product - Stop giving away the source - Improve it until your "competitor" fades away There's no rule saying that you have to give your work away as open source. And as you've demonstrated, there's also no rule that if you give your work away for free, somebody else won't notice its value and sell it in your place.

chrisballinger 14y ago
Would you trust proprietary software to encrypt your communications?
- charlesdm 14y ago
  Absolutely. Time to start charging for it - you've got something here. Might as well pick the fruits of your labor.
  - jasonkester 14y ago
    Amazingly, this (and the root comment up top) are actually getting downvoted. I hadn't realized the sentiment among open source developers against making money from their craft was so strong. But it shouldn't be. We, as developers, shouldn't harbor any ill will toward the OP should he decide to pull the open source version and sell it for profit. We certainly shouldn't advise him against it or recommend an alternative open source license that better guarantees that nobody can make money off this excellent piece of software. Geeks like us tend to have a natural aversion to making money by selling our work directly, as though it's somehow dirty or wrong in some way that we can't quite articulate. But we need to get over that. We have a guy here (patio11) whose job this normally is, but he seems to have taken the morning off so I'll do this in his place: On behalf of the Internet, I hereby grant you, the developer, permission to charge money for your software. There, you're good.

shared4you 14y ago

What your "plagiarist" is doing is perfectly legal I think. As long as your name appears in the source code and/or binary, you can't send a DMCA takedown. Also, he is not using your name to endorse his own product, which is what point 3 of the BSD license is all about. Also, note that the plagiarist's derivative software can be under any license of his choice, be it commercial, non-commercial or personal. He is free to include / modify your source code and sell it under a different license of his choice -- the only restriction being that your name must appear in those parts of his source code you have written. Unless you buy his product and confirm that he has removed your name, you can't do anything. Remember that BSD license roughly means public domain with copyright notice preservation. That's all. It doesn't restrict anything else.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

chrisdone 14y ago

“I realize the BSD allows people to sell my binaries and source but I do not believe it authorizes them to sell the source under a different license.” Er, that's the exact point of the BSD license. The GPL even allows selling binaries and source code, but not re-licensing. So the gist of this blog post is that you offered your source code under a license that allows re-licensing provided that your copyright and some notices are included, someone did it, and now you realise you want the GPL. I applaud this person for taking advantage of the very point of BSD and making some business out of it, that chap is smart. If he's using your logo and you didn't license the logo then that's a copyright claim. But you have no right to whine about the source code. He can say whatever he wants about it, that the "product" is his, etc. (You think Google Chrome doesn't use a hundred libraries written by someone else? But it's Google that made Chrome, right?) And in YOUR LICENSE you wrote “you cannot use my name to advertise”, so the only question is whether your copyright notice and license terms are included in the redistribution. “… illegally selling licenses to my source code for $13.99-$59.99.” I would be VERY careful about libeling people by publicly outing them as doing illegal activities. Alexander Moskalev may even have a case against you for defamation or libel. I'd take this blog down if I were you. And then go and read some pages from http://fsf.org/ http://fsf.org/.

wattson12 14y ago
According to Matt Gemmell's twitter (http://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 http://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448) this morning the same seller had taken his open source split view library, stripped the author name from the header and removed the licence file. It may not be the case for this library (given that he didn't need to under this licence) but it does suggest its possible.
chrisballinger 14y ago
I don't have the cash to buy a "license" to my own code, but I would imagine he removed the copyright notices like he did for Matt Gemmell: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 I didn't have a problem with him selling my stuff, I just have a problem with him claiming something I wrote as his own. By the way, Chupamobile responded and removed his software: https://chatsecure.org/blog#7 https://chatsecure.org/blog#7

invaliddata 14y ago

I just looked at the license he referenced in the blog post: https://raw.github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/master/LICENSE https://raw.github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/mas... and it is the GPL, not BSD. So all the discussion about BSD is moot (unless it was really licensed under a BSD style license previously, and was just changed).

shared4you 14y ago
He changed from BSD to GPL just now: https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/commit/20e7110e5ce29b3f6b91b93e45987e5fc65bef37 https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/commit/...

chrisballinger 14y ago

Here is an update from the co-founder of Chupamobile: https://chatsecure.org/blog#7 https://chatsecure.org/blog#7

forgottenpaswrd 14y ago

Well, someone could use your code if it is BSD and charge as much as he wants. He could use your code with the only requirement to add you to the credits. He also could modify the license, provided that he respects the due credit. You can't say: "Now my code is GPL!!", the code that this person is using continues being BSD. You gave it away, your DMCA complaint is invalid. Stop whining and learn about the basics of licensing first. Then focus on your product and not on what other people do. You could also charge for it while giving your code.

chrisballinger 14y ago
Yeah, apparently he removed the copyright notices, violating the BSD: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 To help prevent any future problems I have changed the license to GPL.