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.
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.
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.
Given the audience that'd buy this software, I doubt that just dropping in a LICENSE file -- which is all that is needed -- will materially impact this borderline scam. Unlike the 4-clause BSD, which was not tractable, the modern 3-clause I'm quite sure the author used does not say in any way "must display this copyright in the most obvious place." If the repackager simply includes the file, I believe he will meet BSD provisions, per the letter of the contract. I see two ways to look at this:
* If one really doesn't like things like this to be within the grounds of the copyright, don't use BSD. Use GPL.
* On the other hand, what odds are there that the GPL will be reliably enforced against such small fry actors? Maybe you are best choosing a license based on what makes the most sense for the project's advancement anyway.
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?)
* 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.
Note: I think these guys are obnoxious freeloaders, and I'm on your side, however:
> 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.
Perhaps they do - and if they do, they are within their rights (as granted to them by yourself through the BSD license).
> Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own.
That would be a trademark violation, and potentially false representation.
As for trademark, if you want to take legal action, you probably need to register it with the USPTO (assuming you are in the US). I am not a lawyer either, but when I inquired about it a few years ago, it was apparently required to register trademarks and copyrights before taking legal action.
False pretenses have much higher standard than you would assume: Unless they write anywhere "we are the sole author of this work", they are probably legally ok.
If this affair upsets you (as it seems it does), you would probably be better off with a GPL license - it's a signal to (ab)users that you care, as opposed to BSD which is a signal that you don't.
I think you are the good guy here, but I'm not sure you have much legal standing after using the BSD -- unless they removed your copyright notices.
IANAL, but reading this:
- Redistributions of Source Code must retain....
Doesn't seem to me to exclude selling the source code without displaying the information up front, as long as the copyright notice is still included with the source code (which we don't know, because we don't know anyone who bought it). And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used.
Edit: fceccon pointed out that the name and logo are being used in the header, so yes that seems to make it much more clear cut, albeit turning on the legal definition of "Derived"
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.
the bsd license says: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, .... in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
I'm only interested in the representation of this software as his own, and including it in his "portfolio". If it turns out the BSD doesn't offer me strong enough legal protection against this kind of behavior, I will consider a move to the GPL with an App Store exception.
Incidentally, you mentioned you sent DMCA takedowns, but Chupamobile seems to offer submissions to it's own copyright notice address too on the T&C,
> "If you think your products has been copied or there was some breach of copyright please inform us by sending an email at report@chupamobile com, including:"...
So it might be worth hitting that also. I'd also like to make clear that I completely sympathise with your situation, if my other responses had implied otherwise.
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.
> the license terms are more restrictive than the BSD, which is a violation.
I think you are confused with the GPL.
BSD only requires you to acknowledge original authorship, and declines any suitability or liability. It requires you to preserve the first. (You're welcome to take liability, though ...)
