Source.

Simple Mobile apps have been very popular among FOSS enthusiasts. I’ve personally been using the Gallery, Contacts and the Phone app since a few years now. It’s a shame that it has come to this, will be on the lookout for their forks.

  • Nia [She/Her]@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    1 year ago

    Do they have have one of those agreements that retains their rights to sell the code that they didn’t write themselves?

    I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t this open them up to lawsuits from all of the contributors if they didn’t get consent from all of them to sell their contributions of the code first?

    Edit: Response from someone on the Github thread for the same question

    He is allowed to sell the management and his code. which benefit of doubt lets assume he has done, Zipo has two options, either keep everything open source and just develop in house with code releases, Or remove all code that 3rd parties have contributed.

    IF all of the code was sold as if he had the right to it, then yes, that opens up copyright violations and whatnot. IF zipo modified and distributes the code as is, that opens them up to the same can of worms. Any contributor who has code in the distributed apps can file a DMCA if the code is not opensource

    • linuxdweeb@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a lawyer either, but the GPL doesn’t say anything about commercial use. Zipo can sell the code in the apps without having to ask permission from contributors. The only restriction is that they have to keep their modifications open source (which that Github response says).

      But the main point is that the Zipo people bought out the Google Play listing, giving them access to the millions of users who have those apps installed on their phones. They likely don’t give a shit about features/keeping the apps closed source. It’s just a purchase of the userbase, likely for shady reasons.

      This also means that forking the Simple Mobile repos isn’t even likely to accomplish much. Sure, it’ll put control of the repo in the hands of a more trusted party (which is significant), but since it’s open source anyways, it’d be easy to catch any attempts to sneak malware into the apps. And if all development effort moves to the fork, Zipo can still take that fork and redistribute it under the “Simple Mobile Tools” name.

      Ultimately, the fucked up thing here is that the original developer, Tibor Kaputa, sold out millions of users. Forking isn’t going fix that. Fuck him. The only thing that will fix this situation is if Google takes down their store listing, but that’s not going to happen. Hopefully F-droid does.

      • BrioxorMorbide@lemm.eeEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        The only restriction is that they have to keep their modifications open source

        And since it’s GPL that any additions are compatible with the GPL, which the ad / tracking stuff they’re likely to add likely isn’t.

        And if all development effort moves to the fork, Zipo can still take that fork and redistribute it under the “Simple Mobile Tools” name.

        Only if they don’t add their own proprietary shit, and if they don’t, how would their “bully users to pay for features” business model work?

        According to https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools/General-Discussion/issues/241#issuecomment-1837837729 “like 99% of the current code has been written by me and other paid devs, so no need to overreact the licensing thing” it seems like the remaining 1% is going to be ignored or possibly even removed if they think that leaving that in might open them up to DMCA claims by disgruntled contributors - which taking code from an open source fork would definitely do.

        • linuxdweeb@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          And since it’s GPL that any additions are compatible with the GPL, which the ad / tracking stuff they’re likely to add likely isn’t.

          That’s a good point, although I wonder if there are any ad SDKs that are GPL compatible? There’s no reason that couldn’t exist AFAIK.

          However, there’s also the much simpler scenario where they straight up replace the apps with something completely different. This company buys apps all the time, so I’m sure they have at least a few calendar, gallery, file browser, etc apps lying around that they can reuse.