https://github.com/thesimj/jBaseZ85/issues/1 Skip to content Sign up Sign up * Why GitHub? Features - + Mobile - + Actions - + Codespaces - + Packages - + Security - + Code review - + Project management - + Integrations - + GitHub Sponsors - + Customer stories- * Team * Enterprise * Explore + Explore GitHub - Learn and contribute + Topics - + Collections - + Trending - + Learning Lab - + Open source guides - Connect with others + The ReadME Project - + Events - + Community forum - + GitHub Education - + GitHub Stars program - * Marketplace * Pricing Plans - + Compare plans - + Contact Sales - + Education - [ ] [search-key] * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | * No suggested jump to results * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | * # In this user All GitHub | Jump to | * # In this repository All GitHub | Jump to | Sign in Sign up Sign up {{ message }} thesimj / jBaseZ85 * Notifications * Star 20 * Fork 4 * Code * Issues 1 * Pull requests 0 * Actions * Projects 0 * Security * Insights More * Code * Issues * Pull requests * Actions * Projects * Security * Insights New issue Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Pick a username [ ] Email Address [ ] Password [ ] [ ] Sign up for GitHub By clicking "Sign up for GitHub", you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We'll occasionally send you account related emails. Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account Jump to bottom Copyright infringement by "Culture4Life GmbH" / LucaApp #1 Open benbender opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 * 34 comments Open Copyright infringement by "Culture4Life GmbH" / LucaApp #1 benbender opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 * 34 comments Comments @benbender Copy link @benbender benbender commented Mar 30, 2021 Hey, just wanted to let you know that portions of your code seem to be used in the so called "LucaApp" by Culture4Life GmbH without respecting your License. See: https://gitlab.com/lucaapp/android/-/blob/master/Luca/app/src/main/ java/de/culture4life/luca/util/Z85.java The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: 181 37 48 10 76 @benbender Copy link Author @benbender benbender commented Mar 30, 2021 Diff: https://twitter.com/zerforschung/status/1377043580498378753 They only removed the License and changed some formatting. 6 2 @ChrLau Copy link @ChrLau ChrLau commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited Just to be clear: The Luca app is commercial software. And they already sold it to several german federal states earning approx. 10 million euros. So not just another OpenSource project which "accidentially forgot to copy the license". 14 112 8 @techniker Copy link @techniker techniker commented Mar 31, 2021 Making money with OpenSource Piracy. 45 @nonchip Copy link @nonchip nonchip commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited To be even clearer: after massive pressure because it was pretty much impossible to vet their app they now "published" the client part of their source code under a "license" that essentially states "you may look at it until we say you may not for no reason whatsoever, all other rights reserved by us"1: The Source Code is made available solely for the purpose of being viewed for personal, non-commercial purposes on a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable and non-transferrable basis. Beyond that, no further rights are granted hereunder. culture4life GmbH shall be entitled to revoke this limited license at any time without prior notice. and, the most cognitive dissonant clause ever given their theft: The removal or modification of any proprietary notices from or in connection with the Source Code shall be prohibited. source 1: technically even me quoting their license here is against their license. fun, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- see also the issue on their gitlab about their weird relation to licenses to which their response effectively was to ignore the issue being raised and babble something about how great they are for showing us the irrelevant part of their sourcecode. --------------------------------------------------------------------- btw this might be helpful. 51 @davidwagn Copy link @davidwagn davidwagn commented Mar 31, 2021 They just changed their license and added the copyright notice for this repository. https://gitlab.com/lucaapp/android/-/commit/ 4433884f00462baecf6ac51641433e089516f533 https://gitlab.com/lucaapp/android/-/commit/ 7c378ac21fefe0ad196d49f1f7fb3915f9db5619 15 @Cammeritz Copy link @Cammeritz Cammeritz commented Mar 31, 2021 I just came here to say that the developers of the LucaApp are skidkids and that they don't deserve the money. @thesimj should get some money as an apology. F*ck those people who want to enricht themselves by stealing open source projects without crediting the authors. This guy should step forward and write an apology because in the end its his project. https://twitter.com/lesmoureal :) 34 2 @Art4 Copy link @Art4 Art4 commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited From Philipp Berger who changed the licence now to GPL v3: Dear Community, Directly we were informed about a possible license violation by BSD. We contacted the author directly, apologized for this mistake and offered him personal contact. Also here the apology to the entire community. #LucaApp Denoting software, to the entire community is one of the most effective mechanisms in today's software engineering as a whole. I also personally apologize. https://twitter.com/BergerPhilipp/status/1377159036546609152 https://twitter.com/BergerPhilipp/status/1377160537310519297 6 @dertuxmalwieder Copy link @dertuxmalwieder dertuxmalwieder commented Mar 31, 2021 Does the GPL allow adding BSD-licensed code? 2 @pluma Copy link @pluma pluma commented Mar 31, 2021 @dertuxmalwieder you can include BSD-licensed code in GPL-licensed software. You can not include GPL-licensed code in BSD-licensed software. There are loopholes though. As a rule of thumb, your software's license needs to be no more permissive than the license of any of its dependencies (where BSD is considered more permissive than GPL, i.e. this is from the POV of the publisher, not the user). [?] 2 @dertuxmalwieder Copy link @dertuxmalwieder dertuxmalwieder commented Mar 31, 2021 As far as I have seen, the app developers have sublicensed other people's BSD code under the GPL without noting that. But I could be mistaken. @xueyuanl xueyuanl mentioned this issue Mar 31, 2021 Daily Hacker News 31-03-2021 xueyuanl/daily-hackernews#210 Open @nonchip Copy link @nonchip nonchip commented Mar 31, 2021 i mean they're also still in breach of license despite readding the source comments, since their app doesn't (and never did) show any copyright notice in its binary form 15 @nerai Copy link @nerai nerai commented Mar 31, 2021 Fixing a mistake does not, legally speaking, remove the past violation. 22 @Qix- Copy link @Qix- Qix- commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited This seems like something the EFF or FSF (if GPL is involved) might need to be notified about. Just a thought. This is what OSS licenses are for, and if there is no recourse for blatant illegal theft like this then our entire culture and hard work is collectively devalued. Building for-profit applications on the backs of our free time is something we're okay with, but at least follow the minimal set of rules we set forth for doing so. Violations need to be made an example of. 24 [?] 4 @iDrawl Copy link @iDrawl iDrawl commented Mar 31, 2021 Embrace the incoming shitstorm 1 9 @f0o Copy link @f0o f0o commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited I believe they did a poor attempt at stripping out any and all comments from their codebase which ofc also removes copyright headers of libraries and toolstacks which in turn is against their respective licenses. It would be interesting to see if the App itself lacks the License acknowledgements as well, because if they do not list Open Source Software and licenses used in the final .apk then there's malicious intent. I think the best way forward is to use strict OSS licenses like AGPL & co that simply forces the user (luca in this case) to themselves opensource and publish any and all modifications made to it while still allowing a commercial use. //EDIT: With License Acknowledgements I mean like every other large app (eventho sometimes hidden) has an entry in their Help/Settings/About page with a very large list of which OSS component is used and which license it has, as example I'll just pick Instagram: Profile -> Settings -> About -> Open Source Libraries -> Enjoy the Wall of Text of all Licenses and Libraries used 1 @klemmchr Copy link @klemmchr klemmchr commented Mar 31, 2021 @f0o I think the best way forward is to use strict OSS licenses like AGPL & co that simply forces the user (luca in this case) to themselves opensource and publish any and all modifications made to it while still allowing a commercial use. Yes. This is what every professional developer would do. So what are the developers of Luca then? 4 2 @dertuxmalwieder Copy link @dertuxmalwieder dertuxmalwieder commented Mar 31, 2021 Startup hipsters, presumably. @ArneBab Copy link @ArneBab ArneBab commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited Fixing a mistake does not, legally speaking, remove the past violation. When it comes to the GPL (at least v3), fixing a mistake within 30 days of being notified about it grants you back permission to use the code (if it's your first violation). 1 @ArneBab Copy link @ArneBab ArneBab commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited i mean they're also still in breach of license despite readding the source comments, since their app doesn't (and never did) show any copyright notice in its binary form To quote from the GPLv3 section 5: "If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so." So strictly reading you can publish a GPLv3 program with an interactive user interface which does not display Appropriate Legal Notices, because you are not required to add them, but once there exist Legal Notices, you must not remove them. I don't know how a court would decide this. @optikfluffel Copy link @optikfluffel optikfluffel commented Mar 31, 2021 @f0o I believe they did a poor attempt at stripping out any and all comments from their codebase which ofc also removes copyright headers of libraries and toolstacks which in turn is against their respective licenses. I don't buy it, because there are/were other comments in those .java files, so removing just the copyright headers at the top looks at least somewhat intentional to me. 5 @rugk Copy link @rugk rugk commented Mar 31, 2021 but once there exist Legal Notices, you must not remove them. I bet they have some "Copyright Culture4Life GmbH" somewhere in their UI, so... @ArneBab Copy link @ArneBab ArneBab commented Mar 31, 2021 I bet they have some "Copyright Culture4Life GmbH" somewhere in their UI, so... sweat_smile Well ... :-) @f0o Copy link @f0o f0o commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited @optikfluffel @f0o I believe they did a poor attempt at stripping out any and all comments from their codebase which ofc also removes copyright headers of libraries and toolstacks which in turn is against their respective licenses. I don't buy it, because there are/were other comments in those .java files, so removing just the copyright headers at the top looks at least somewhat intentional to me. I've not vetted many of their files, I just briefly skimmed through the first commit and saw that a very large portion of .java files had no comments whatsoever which is rather odd. So I just assumed human-error over malicious intent by default. But ofc this seems to be less and less the case now. I could also not find any in-app acknowledgements from the code but again, I've not fully vetted it. @panki27 Copy link @panki27 panki27 commented Mar 31, 2021 Wouldn't this make a report on the Google Play Store page possible? Copyright infringement? 5 @bardware Copy link @bardware bardware commented Mar 31, 2021 to say that the developers of the LucaApp are skidkids What are skidkids? @bardware Copy link @bardware bardware commented Mar 31, 2021 report on the Google Play Store Regarding Apple store: https://twitter.com/ralf/status/ 1377127675463004162 (German thread) @schmittlauch Copy link @schmittlauch schmittlauch commented Mar 31, 2021 While I understand and share the fury of all of you, please remember this is an issue tracker, not a discussion board or IRC. IMHO everything important has been said so far, let's now give the author some time to react. Because Wouldn't this make a report on the Google Play Store page possible? Copyright infringement? are only possible by the copyright holder - the author himself. Also remember that this issue is about this specific license violation. Whether the luca app is a disaster or not, how public services shall buy their software, or how broken startup culture is, are all separate political issues worth discussing, but probably not here. Also nuking the app from stores alone is unlikely to bring about change. 16 1 [?] 9 @StewAlexander-com Copy link @StewAlexander-com StewAlexander-com commented Mar 31, 2021 I know this is not the place to add it, but for those who care ... Through my years in IT, have found several vendors were essentially rewriting open source code in their dev work in such a way as to not to blatantly violate licenses .... I suppose you can call it laziness, being cheap; or flattering the great work people in the open source community do every day... Probably saying things you all know .... @ChrLau Copy link @ChrLau ChrLau commented Mar 31, 2021 @StewAlexander-com That's just "business as usual" sadly. However, if you find something feel free to report it to https:// gpl-violations.org/ 1 [?] 1 @CMehlstaeubler Copy link @CMehlstaeubler CMehlstaeubler commented Mar 31, 2021 Startup hipsters, presumably. What do start-ups and hipsters have to do with this? Way to pass judgement on a totally non-related issue. @kechel Copy link @kechel kechel commented Mar 31, 2021 As they used your code without permission, it's not in conflict with your license, it's just in conflict of copyright in general. You should really write them a bill for the usage, it's that simple. You give permission only to those that obey, for every cent they earned before they published their code and/or complied with your license, they had no right to use it besides paying you for it. So go, please get a lawyer that knows this stuff (e.g. ask fsf.org) and wire that bill over there! good luck! 15 @Folling Copy link @Folling Folling commented Mar 31, 2021 * edited I might be downvoted for this but I don't agree with some of the outrage that happens here. Though of course there is some constructive content here too, that I do agree with. I want to preceed the following by saying that I am not affiliated with Luca whatsoever, I heard about it for the first time today. The authors might be intentionally abusive or they might not, but I do not believe that it can be judged from this incident alone. My thoughts are these: This is some 150 lines of actual code that was implemented 6 years ago, the Luca authors hence had 4 logical options: 1. copy the code 2. copy the code and make it look like they didn't (can I copy your homework?) 3. look at this code and write it themselves (essentially just a slower copy that has #2 as a sideproduct) 4. look at the specification and write it themselves Given the smallness and specificity of this algorithm I do not really blame them for taking option 1. I would have found it worse if they went for option 2 since that displays intend for infringement. Options 3 and 4 would have resulted in more overhead for something so miniscule. We've all copied code from projects before, I know I'm not alone on this, it's a normal thing to do, and partially even legal. I agree this crosses a certain arbitrary boundary, but I just want to argue that this is somewhat subjective. What isn't subjective is the fact that they dropped the license whilst copying the code 1:1, which isn't legal in any case and falls under copyright infringement. That being said I personally like assuming foolishness over maliciousness. So not just another OpenSource project which "accidentially forgot to copy the license". It might just be a big project which "accidentally forgot to copy the license", I don't see why there should be a differentiation here. I haven't used the app but from the few screenshots on their website it doesn't look like it's a huge company with hundreds of employees, for all I know it might be a couple of friends who worked on that app and it ended up really successful. Could even have been just one guy who then copied this code when they started out. Furthermore I would like to post the question: What do they gain from not including the BSD license? BSD is permissive of commercial usage, so all it would save them is including the BSD license in some throwaway part of their client or website (see e.g. discord's licensing page). This is partially a genuine question, perhaps I'm just missing something here. Once more, I am not saying the authors did nothing wrong - they did, this is objectively copyright infringement. But insulting them, calling for a shitstorm, or acting like this proves they definitely did something bad (as opposed to something wrong) is just immature and senseless behaviour, as far as I'm concerned. 3 2 @dertuxmalwieder Copy link @dertuxmalwieder dertuxmalwieder commented Mar 31, 2021 That being said I personally like assuming foolishness over maliciousness. A company that takes millions of public money in Euros is probably not in a good position to say "oops, we're foolish, hee-hee". As I'm one of the people who paid with their taxes for this pile of whatever, I am, to say the least, not happy to hear that my taxes are spent for paying fools who don't know the basics of licensing law and still are allowed to run a software company. all it would save them is including the BSD license in some throwaway part of their client or website And they don't, so they violate a license for my money and this is disturbing. 2 3 @viisauksena Copy link @viisauksena viisauksena commented Mar 31, 2021 Diff: https://twitter.com/zerforschung/status/1377043580498378753 They only removed the License and changed some formatting. i may add that the actual binary on google play store is still the violating Software - since it was build with the removed licences - stolen code. Actually its Version 1.4.12 - the presented Code is for 1.6.1 your code is not the only one affected, but the most prominent one - the smoking gun. i would love to see you doing a copyright infringement claim against them via play store. 1 Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment Assignees No one assigned Labels None yet Projects None yet Milestone No milestone Linked pull requests Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. None yet 25 participants @ArneBab @dertuxmalwieder @optikfluffel @techniker @benbender @kechel @ChrLau @nonchip @bardware @Qix- @nerai @pluma @schmittlauch @f0o @Art4 @Cammeritz @CMehlstaeubler @klemmchr @viisauksena @rugk and others * (c) 2021 GitHub, Inc. * Terms * Privacy * Security * Status * Docs * Contact GitHub * Pricing * API * Training * Blog * About You can't perform that action at this time. You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.