3 ms·

What's funny is that one of Stallman's arguments for GPL over BSD style licenses, i.e. Free vs. Open licenses, is specifically about the code being used for nef

What's funny is that one of Stallman's arguments for GPL over BSD style licenses, i.e. Free vs. Open licenses, is specifically about the code being used for nefarious purposes, like DRM. In this case it's used to create something even more sinister, but by all accounts they are following the licensing by keeping the source open. So it says more to me about picking a license that you are comfortable with, and understanding that based on that choice it's going to possibly be used in the worst way that you could imagine. They were correct to leave his name as copyright holder, as doing anything different would mean that they stole his copyright, which they did not.

bcg1 11y ago
There is not evidence that they complied the license. They were hacked and this source code was exposed. I suspect that they were not properly distributing links to the source for the LGPL library they used (especially since it seems like this is Android spyware). BTW even if they cited the author as the copyright holder... that does not necessarily mean that they were complying with the license, which could definitely be copyright infringement
plonh 11y ago
As linked elsewhere in this thread,RMS explicitly endorses using GPL software for nefarious purposes outside of restricting software freedom. GPL solves one specific problem. It isn't Superman.