Plagiarism of my open source app ChatSecure

by chrisballinger • 14 years ago

40 74 14 years 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.

dododo2• 14 years 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?)

misnome3• 14 years 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.

chrisballinger11• 14 years 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.

nhebb• 14 years ago

If you go to the plagiarized product page (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

PeterisP• 14 years 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.

jancborchardt4• 14 years 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.

legulere• 14 years ago

Maybe you can get him for using the same logo, which you hopefully didn't set under bsd license

icebraining4• 14 years 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.

calciphus2• 14 years 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?

davidw2• 14 years 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.

icebraining4• 14 years ago

There's nothing illegal about doing that. Only the relicensing is iffy.

calciphus2• 14 years ago

If you violate the license, it's illegal.

p4bl03• 14 years 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.

chrisballinger11• 14 years 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.

ZoFreX2• 14 years 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.

Semaphor• 14 years ago

I never used (and never will use) iTunes, but I can't believe they don't have some type of refund system?

batgaijin• 14 years ago

That's what happens with BSD code man. Do you know how much BSD code is in OS X and Windows and commercial software in general?

Releasing BSD code quickly turns into repackaging of the code by people who are more interested in money than coding. Next time do research on the licenses that are available before you pick one. I recommend the GPL, despite the FUD about how you can make a 'livelihood' off of it, which I somehow find easier to imagine than you being happy with this person piggybacking.

jasonkester5• 14 years 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.

chrisballinger11• 14 years ago

Would you trust proprietary software to encrypt your communications?

charlesdm• 14 years ago

Absolutely. Time to start charging for it - you've got something here. Might as well pick the fruits of your labor.

anthonyb3• 14 years ago

It depends on how many copies have been sold, and what the support costs are likely to be. If he's only sold two copies, then it's not going to be worth packaging it up.

jasonkester5• 14 years ago

Don't forget, it's already packaged up. It's in the app store already.

The author can spend the next ten minutes logging into his apple account and adding a price to it. That's all the effort needed to turn this into a product (besides rewriting the App Store description so that people other than himself can parse what the application actually does).

statictype5• 14 years ago

You're assuming he cares at all about making money from this app and the only reason he didn't try is because he didn't know it was possible.

His app is free and source code is published on github. Maybe he wants it that way.

chrisballinger11• 14 years ago

From my site:

"This project is 100% free because it is important that all people around the world have unrestricted access to privacy tools. However, developing and supporting this project is hard work and costs real money. Please help support the development of this project!"

osener• 14 years ago

> Stop giving away the source

> There's no rule saying that you have to give your work away as open source.

This is insulting to the author and the whole open source community. You seem to think that people release sources of their software because they think it is worthless or don't know they could make the conscious choice not to release the sources.

Releasing your source code involves a lot more reasoning and motivation than not doing it. Building open source software doesn't mean giving your work away for free, nothing keeps the author from selling his open source application on App Store as a convenience (an example of this practice is Growl). Since we are talking about a mobile application, it is especially easier to sell since most of his users won't even consider building it from source.

shared4you3• 14 years 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.

chrisdone2• 14 years 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/.

wattson12• 14 years ago

According to Matt Gemmell's twitter (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.

chrisballinger11• 14 years 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

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

chrisdone2• 14 years ago

Guilty before proven guilty. I'm glad you're vindicated.

daemon13• 14 years ago

I was under impression that, since code is copyrighted, release under BSD license does not release the copyright claim and therefore the smart fellow shall indicate whose code he is using/selling.

Is this not the case?

invaliddata• 14 years ago

I just looked at the license he referenced in the blog post: 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).

shared4you3• 14 years ago

He changed from BSD to GPL just now: https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS/commit/...

chrisballinger11• 14 years ago

Here is an update from the co-founder of Chupamobile:

https://chatsecure.org/blog#7

forgottenpaswrd• 14 years 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.

chrisballinger11• 14 years ago

Yeah, apparently he removed the copyright notices, violating the BSD: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448

To help prevent any future problems I have changed the license to GPL.

Plagiarism of my open source app ChatSecure

Related Stories