Copyright violation

[Poussinou]

Hi @martykan

I found this app on the Google Play Store. This guy just took your source code, added some ads in it and put it on the Store, without warning this is free software...

As you are the owner of the source code, feel free to open a request to google here to remove the false app from the Store, if it's your wish ;)

Don't forget to tell Google that:

• The app is licensed under GNU GPL v3 license and this guy is violating it;
• He is falsely claiming he made the app;
• Also tell them that this guy has done the same thing already with other apps. Probably this is worth mentioning.

[bettina86]

I read the licence and you don't know what you say. I don't think that the gy is violating the copyright. Gnu licence v3 give you the possibility of modify, distribuite and sell the app and obviusly give other the possibility making the same thing. That guy should be write GNU licence v3 and give the link of source code.

[Poussinou]

@bettina86 YOU don't know "what you say". When publishing under GNU GPL v3, the guy who modify the app has to publish the changes he made, he has to credit the original author, and has to add the license or give a link to it... That's what I said "without warning this is free software" and "this guy is violating it"

Please read the license carefully one more time...

[FridoDeluxe]

@Poussinou's points are valid, thanks for discovering it and creating this issue! In my opinion this app should be reported. Maybe @martykan as the repository owner should do it? If he has no time I can do it, what does @robinpaulson think?

[robinpaulson]

At a quick glance it looks problematic. I will dig more, look for source code and attribution, then contact. Any help with a repo location would be appreciated.

[robinpaulson]

Also, please be careful when writing and reading messages folks; text is a dreadful medium for communication, meaning is often lost, confused or misunderstood.

[FridoDeluxe]

I couldn't find any source code or more information except in the app description at Google Play. The only website seems to be the Privacy Policy.

@robinpaulson You are right, it's probably the best to contact the developer first and ask for license/source code, give him maybe 7 days to respond and then report his app, if the issues aren't resolved.

[Poussinou]

@robinpaulson There is also this one

Maybe you should take some time (one hour or something so) to check the other apps about weather information on Google Play Store, and report them to Google when this are just copies of Forecastie. I think some of them are just "Forecastie" with ads in it, and without GNU GPL, code source and your permission... If you do it, please copy-paste the links of the apps you reported in this thread, so that I can track the "Google developers" who are stealing your work. Thanks

[FridoDeluxe]

I found also Weather forecast + widget and Forecastnow. Both look exactly as Forecastie, but do not mention a license or provide the source code.

Did anyone report the app from the first post? It's not available at Google Play Store anymore.

[Poussinou]

@FridoDeluxe Thanks for doing this :) how many apps did you check? :) I do not report the first one, the fake developer is probably watching this thread... If you read this, fake developer, I'll take you down :heart:

[robinpaulson]

Interesting, good research @FridoDeluxe I haven't reported anything yet, it's on my todo list though.

[bettina86]

The developer of this app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rocasoftware.weatherapp answered me that he has the permission of Castica of use partially or full the code of Forecastie and he has a Commercial Licence. I don't know if it's true.

[martykan]

No, there is no commercial license. I told him he is authorized to reproduce the app under the GPLv3 license - just like everyone else.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 13:49 bettina86 notifications@github.com wrote:

The developer of this app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rocasoftware.weatherapp answered me that he has the permission of Castica of use partially or full the code of Forecastie and he has a Commercial Licence. I don't know if it's true.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/martykan/forecastie/issues/235#issuecomment-321792620, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIbLFayaT9jgW0f1sVHx5wQrs_8GeOa9ks5sXD_AgaJpZM4OrRy1 .

[FridoDeluxe]

The app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rocasoftware.weatherapp is available again at Google Play, but still neither license nor source code I could find.

[robinpaulson]

When the software is installed, what does the "About" screen show? If it is a direct copy of Forecastie, there will be the author's name, a note about GPLv3 and a link to this github repo. I wonder if that is enough, or does GPLv3 explicitly require showing the licence and author before installing? I would argue anyone should show that info, but it may not be required.

That assumes they haven't made any modifications of course.

[FridoDeluxe]

My Forecastie 1.5 About screen contains the licenses for weather data and artwork, and an email link to Tomas Martykan, but no repository URL or GPLv3 of the app itself.

I installed all three known potentially fake versions of Forecastie. All of them are not a exact copies but somewhat different:

com.rocasoftware.weatherapp:

• 500 - 1000 installations
• contains ads
• a few things seem to be changed or missing compared to Forecastie
• no About screen

com.vozisov.weather:

• 100 - 500 installations
• contains adds
• almost no changes
• About screen screenshot:

com.ingic.forecastnow:

• 10 - 50 installations
• almost no changes
• no About screen

[robinpaulson]

@fridodeluxe perhaps we should add a repo link and see what happens next release?

[icasdri]

com.vozisov.weather is unquestionably in violation. Based solely on the screenshot given by @FridoDeluxe above, it is a derivative work without any chance of full source code due to the inclusion of ads from ad networks which do not have open source licenses.

Furthermore, I would infer mal-intent from changing the author in the About, and therefore would be in favor of just filing DMCA takedown without any diplomacy. I will do this (I have code in Forecastie) if no one else wants to (although of course, @martykan doing it would be better).

[robinpaulson]

@icasdri I think you're right and there's little doubt this is unintentional. I have code in Forecastie too, go for it with the takedown. I think an attempt at diplomacy/discussion will likely go nowhere/waste time.

[FridoDeluxe]

Feel free to file a takedown request. But generally I'm personally in favor of the diplomatic way, in doubt the accused person might have just forgot to link the source code. Unfortunately a takedown request at a big company like Google starts a rather automatic and intransparent process that leaves almost no possibilities for the involed parties to react accordingly (similar things happend to the Gadgetbridge project)

Interestingly it's advantageous to have an F-Droid app published at Google Play, it makes things easier when handling fake copies: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/publish-your-gpl-apps-on-google-play-sooner-rather-than-later/827.

[icasdri]

@FridoDeluxe only problem with the case of com.vozisov.weather is that they can't possibly link to the source code because they are distributing a derivative work that contains closed-source ad software (and forecastie is GPL not LGPL). I will file DMCA for at least com.vozisov.weather (unless @martykan, who is better suited, would like to) when I find the time.

[robinpaulson]

@icasdri Is it necessarily derivative, or is there any possibility it is mere aggregation? I believe (but may be wrong) that if there are no calls between the two/reworking of forecastie code, it is not a derivative. For instance, could the ads be an overlay which ignores forecastie data/layout?

[icasdri]

@robinpaulson that would be the case if it were distributed separately. However, the code for ads and the app itself is bound together in one APK, and more specifically linked together (in the Java sense). Forecastie does not have the linking exception; therefore, under the GPL, I believe it does qualify as derivative (although IANAL).

[icasdri]

I think a basic understanding of the situation can be gleaned from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs.

tl;dr, if we had wanted the combination of Forecastie and non-free libs (in this case libraries providing ads) to be legally distributable, we would have had to explicitly grant an exception, which we have not done, and so they are not.

The only case where they may be is if the ads somehow qualify for the system library exception, which is quite a stretch.

[robinpaulson]

more specifically linked together (in the Java sense)

That's my point, is it necessarily so that they are linked? Is it possible they are not?

I agree if they are linked it is an obvious violation of GPL, my question is whether they are linked or not.

Yes, they are in one apk, but could that be seen as "mere combination" - after all, an APK is a zip archive and does not have to mean there are any calls between the included pieces of software? To be clear: I do not wish to defend gpl violations, merely to make sure we are on stable ground before we make accusations/do the DMCA thing.

[ildar]

Single classes.dex file → linked ?

[robinpaulson]

Single classes.dex file → linked ?

OK, that's a good response. I don't understand the internals of a .dex file. I will research and find out.

[icasdri]

As I understand it, it can only be called an "aggregate" (defined in Section 5 of the GPL) only if one can claim that the ads and vanilla forecastie are two separate programs, as opposed to one larger program. (per Section 5: A compilation ... with separate and independent works ... and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program ... is called an "aggregate").

Supporting the spirit of this interpretation, a few paragraphs above, Section 5 also states This License will therefore apply ... regardless of how they are packaged.

[kabilzamandar]

I've built a weather forecast app, and came across Forecastie and i may use some part of the Forecastie code, i have my layouts, icons and other assets, i need just few java classes. If/when i use some of the classes of the original code, does this mean i should open-source all of my app? I will distribute my app as closed-source commercial app. I read GNU GPL v3 license but frankly i didn't get all of it.

I also another question about licensed software, if i use all of the code under GNU GPL v3 license and add it to my app or combine it my app, for example add a GNU GPL v3 licensed Exif reader app to my Camera app, does it mean that i should open-source and distribute all of my code too? Where should i distribute the code, in GitHub? How can i commercially license my code?

[ildar]

1. You should read GPL FAQ at gnu.org
2. I'm almost sure libexif isn't GPL but LGPL

[FridoDeluxe]

@kabilzamandar On top of https://github.com/martykan/forecastie/blob/master/LICENSE is a small info box provided by GitHub that explains briefly what GPL means. Apart from that this issue is about the existing copyright violations and probably not the right place to discuss licencing plans.

[Poussinou]

Guys, there is another one here...

[jawz101]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.alideveloper.weatherapps https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.codebots.weather

[robinpaulson]

@martykan Are you willing to follow these up?

[FridoDeluxe]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.thienluan.forecastie

[FridoDeluxe]

I don't know how the clones handle the API key problem, probably they are using Forecastie's (unlimited) key?

[FridoDeluxe]

There are even amateurish copies without license on GitHub: https://github.com/NickHardwick2021/Forecastie.

[robinpaulson]

@FridoDeluxe Is there a way to report them to Github, for copyright infringement?

[ildar]

What's wrong with that besides false description?

[icasdri]

@ildar Uh... they literally deleted LICENSE (https://github.com/NickHardwick2021/Forecastie/commit/f6e1d3845ae6d123fc631af95ffd1a2e8907fedd) and are falsely claiming that it is their work. This not only violates the license and copyright notice requirement of the GPL but also is blatant plagiarism.

[ildar]

He didn't compile nor publish (distribute) it. What's the problem? The crime isn't crime until it's done. I suggest to concentrate on (now) distributing apps, not half-prepared.

[icasdri]

Publishing it on GitHub is conveying a verbatim (source) copy (see GPL section 4 "Conveying Verbatim Copies"), however in this case that conveying is being done without the required license and copyright notice. I do however agree that the infringing apps being distributed on the Play Store (especially the ones with ads) are more of a concern than this case.

[robinpaulson]

@icasdri takes the right position here @ildar . Github provides a way to access the code, i.e. it is published.

@martykan Could you take a look at this?

[robinpaulson]

Given that martykan is mostly busy, is anyone interested in pushing this? As a forecastie "collaborator", I have pretty much full control over the repository and releases, and am willing to grant permission to one or two of you who want to file DMCA takedown notices with github: https://support.github.com/contact/dmca-takedown

[robinpaulson]

Ditto Google Play, I assume they have a similar process.

[FridoDeluxe]

I prepared a mail text written from my perspective, a part of the text is based on a similar case at another Github repository. When I understand GPL section 8 correctly a GPL violator automatically regains the license if he fixes the problem in less than 30 days. That's why I inlcuded the 30 day deadline.

Subject: GPL violation of $APP_NAME

Dear $ADDRESSEE,

You provide an Android app, "$APP_NAME", available via Google Play by the URL $GOOGLE_PLAY_URL. Your Android app has highly visible similarities in appearance as well as in code structure with "Forecastie" (available by the URL https://github.com/martykan/forecastie) which leads us to the assumption that Your Android app is a modified work based on "Forecastie". "Forecastie" is licensed under the terms of GNU General Public License, version 3, as stated by the URL https://github.com/martykan/forecastie/blob/master/LICENSE.

As one of the contributors of "Forecastie" I would like You to either comply with the GNU General Public License, version 3, and provide a license notice and the complete source code for Your Android app or stop its distribution. Please take action within the next 30 days, otherwise we need to report a license violation to Google Play.

Sincerely, FridoDeluxe (on the behalf of "Forecastie" contributors)

Feel free to discuss and improve the text. If we send these mails still in November everything should be fixed by New Year or we can start filing takedown requests.

[FridoDeluxe]

@robinpaulson Any thoughts on the mail text?

[robinpaulson]

Yes, the text looks very good. Short, clear, to the point.

My only suggestion would be to make the language more forceful. So, replace "I would like you to" with "you must" and replace "please take action" with "I expect you to take action" or "you must take action". The law and generally-accepted moral values are on our side, I am in favour of showing off those principles unambiguously.

[FridoDeluxe]

Thanks for the feedback. The revised text (changes are highlighted):

Subject: GPL violation of $APP_NAME

Dear $ADDRESSEE,

You provide an Android app, "$APP_NAME", available via Google Play by the URL $GOOGLE_PLAY_URL. Your Android app has highly visible similarities in appearance as well as in code structure with "Forecastie" (available by the URL https://github.com/martykan/forecastie) which leads us to the assumption that Your Android app is a modified work based on "Forecastie". "Forecastie" is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 3, as stated by the URL https://github.com/martykan/forecastie/blob/master/LICENSE.

As one of the contributors of "Forecastie" I strongly insist on You either complying with the GNU General Public License, version 3, and providing a license notice and the complete source code for Your Android app or stopping its distribution. I expect You to take action within the next 30 days, otherwise we need to report a license violation to Google Play.

Sincerely, FridoDeluxe (on the behalf of "Forecastie" contributors)

I kept the phrase with "As one of the contributors of Forecastie" to make sure that I'm not just somebody unrelated to Foreastie.

[FridoDeluxe]

These are five GPL violating apps that are still available at Google Play. I checked their source code: Some are almost identical and even copied our OWM API key, others changed quite a lot and obfuscated the code, still it's obviously based on Forecastie. Looks like all of them include ads.

Name	Application ID	Developer
Local Weather Live - Local Weather Forecast	com.rocasoftware.weatherapp	Roca Software / Taba Apps
The Weather	com.alideveloper.weatherapps	Ali Programmer
Offline Weather Forecast - Maps & Radar	com.codebots.weather	HazzelApps
ForeCastie	app.thienluan.forecastie	Chim Viet
Forecastie Weather	vn.ntbltechh.wheatherappp	Android Apps Team

@robinpaulson @martykan Is it okay if I send the above mail to the respective app developers? I will report back if they answer. If nothing is settled after 30 days I would file takedown requests at Google Play.

[robinpaulson]

Yes, this is great. Better, more forceful language. Please do contact the app publishers, then Google Play. Excellent work, I'm glad to see someone doing this.