Closed Thrilleratplay closed 1 year ago
Thank you for the heads up. I'll look into this.
You are correct, it is a blatant ripoff with ads injected.
package com.apkfreak.kodilauncher;
import android.app.Activity;
import android.content.ActivityNotFoundException;
import android.content.ComponentName;
import android.content.Intent;
import android.os.Bundle;
import android.util.Log;
public class MainActivity extends Activity {
private static final String TAG = "KODILauncher";
private void launch() {
String xbmcActivity = getSharedPreferences("com.apkfreak.kodilauncher_preferences", 0).getString("xbmc_variant", getString(R.string.xbmc_activity_default));
Intent activityIntent = new Intent("android.intent.action.MAIN");
activityIntent.setComponent(ComponentName.unflattenFromString(xbmcActivity));
activityIntent.addCategory("android.intent.category.HOME");
try {
startActivity(activityIntent);
} catch (ActivityNotFoundException e) {
Log.d(TAG, "Activity " + xbmcActivity + " not found. Launching settings activity...");
launchSettings();
} catch (Exception e2) {
Log.d(TAG, "Unable to launch " + xbmcActivity + " due to an exception. Launching settings activity...");
launchSettings();
}
}
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
launch();
finish();
}
private void launchSettings() {
startActivity(new Intent(this, LauncherSettingsActivity.class));
}
}
While the Apache license I used allow for reditribution, I think it requires him/her to include my copyright message in the app.
sigh I was hoping I was wrong. It is one thing to take an open source project, put in considerable effort to expand on it and commercial distribute the new and improved application, to which the Apache 2.0 license was intended (I am mainly thinking of mobile providers distributing a stock ROM on devices that is based on AOSP). Simply injecting ads and renaming an application is tantamount to theft. Not to mention this is your awesome app, not theirs.
I am not a lawyer but a reading section 4 of the Apache 2.0 license
(a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
(b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
Which ApkFreak does not seem to provide on the Google Play Store nor their website.
There is no mention of copyright in the software but the license does seem to give the copyright to you by default
"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
the copyright owner that is granting the License.
If I could be bold enough to make a few suggestions on proceeding. Add the word copyright, your name and the year to the ReadMe as well as the top of every Java similar to this. Please research this as I am not a lawyer, but as you have written almost all of the code in this repo you could license it to a more restrictive copyleft license like GPL2. After doing any of this, version the software. I would then send a friendly request to ApkFreak saying they are not complying with the Apache 2.0 license and to voluntarily take it down. This repo should have a number of suggestions on how to word that email. If they do not, Google suspended XBMCLauncher for a policy violations before. I am sure a blatant copy of the app did the same thing.
<string name="about">
App based on the work of blunden.
Many thanks to him for orginal concept.
App is under the Apache License 2.0.
The license can be found here:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
</string>
"based on".....sure. Still missing the part about stating significant changes made to software.
Just checked, and the app appears to have been taken down sometime in the last few years so I'm closing this issue.
@blunden
Just an FYI, I noticed com.apkfreak.kodilauncher on the PlayStore and looks like an exact copy of your application without giving credit or a link to the source.