Kiss: some one copied this project selling it on playstore

[sm7297]

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.plh.gofastlauncherpro

[licaon-kter]

Better contact them to release the source code and Google to take it down, I guess.

[ntninja]

Does KISS contain any GPL-style code? If all of KISS is released under https://github.com/Neamar/KISS/blob/master/LICENSE , than doing that is (unfortunately for my contributions) totally legal! :crying_cat_face:

[licaon-kter]

Oh yeah, the great MIT one, yes, it's paranoia until others see it too, right?
https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/copyleft-for-the-next-decade-a-comprehensive-plan/

/close this as "choose a better license next time" :-|

[ntninja]

Well, we could still talk about relicensing the project. As in: "Let's choose a better license before next time".

@Neamar @nmitsou @ilmich @ismail-s @naofum @volnes @bitigchi @Pluggi @saveman71 @enolp
How do you fell about this situation? Would you prefer a different license, or are you happy about this?
(This is currently just an opinion poll, no immediate steps planned right now.)

[saveman71]

Heya all,

We noticed (w/ @Neamar and others) some while ago, at the end of March. As you have already discussed, the project is released under the MIT license, so the people behind that project are well in their right to improve (or not) the codebase and release it as a new product (for the better or worse).

They credited the project in the description of the application on the Play Store listing.

We, of course, are not happy _per se_ about this, but well, murphy's law!

How would a relicensing improve the issue? (I mean, with concrete examples and all).

(This is solely my opinion about the issue, not @Neamar's or any other people)

[licaon-kter]

I don't see any mentions now about KISS.

I guess you'll decide on some better license that would not just rip off your (and dare I say our) work and read about some stuff here: https://play.google.com/about/spam.html about enforcing it.

[saveman71]

Yeah sorry, the mention is on the free version, I admit I didn't check the paid version.

The fact is that if we consider that we don't make any profit from KISS (no ads, free), a paid "copy" (possibly with improvements) does not hurt us financially speaking.

I know (and I feel too) that the fact that code that we have written is used to make a profit may be infuriating, but can we do something about it? We could effectively ask the developer to add a clear mention in the description (both free and paid) and inside the application itself, to try to convey some users to KISS, but, what for ? (free app, etc)

[Pluggi]

I am totally ok with this.

But yeah it would be a nice thing if he could add a link in his "premium" version, however we cannot really force him to do so.

[Neamar]

Jumping in!

As @saveman71 mentioned, someone brought this to our attention a few weeks ago.

It was obviously frustrating _per se_, but when I thought longer about this...

• As @saveman71 says, we're not making any money from KISS. I've turned down any offer for gifts or money, because the only reason I work on KISS is that I use the project for me. Taking money from someone would put me (us) in an awkward situation where some people's suggestion would implicitly carry more weight because they gave money. I tried my best to stay away from this, so Go fast is not "stealing" any money from me / us (full disclosure: we _are_ making a very small amount of money by displaying an ad on kisslauncher.com, we use this to pay the domain name. Last time I checked, we got $20 out of it).
• The reason I picked MIT is... well, weird. Let's just say I did not put much thoughts in the licence when I picked one (Github may be to blame on this with their licence autopicker :p). On the other hand, I'm proud to say that KISS is open-source. This gave me the opportunity to meet amazing people and to get PRs from you guys (and others) that are way better than my Java skills. For that, thank you. But it would be unfair to get the pros of open source without the cons, and the fact is that if someone wants to make his own version, this is legal and fair game.

For GoFast, the developer behind this (who is probably on Github and following this project since his project has some PRs not yet merged in KISS -- btw, M. developer, if you read this feel free to join in the discussion!) added some value to KISS (including some PRs that got closed in KISS), making different tradeoffs (namely, sacrificing size to add more features, which is something I can completely respect -- just not something I want to do, since like I said I use the app myself and any option I'm not using can feel like "clutter").

Once again, I respect the free version: it is something different but that follow a clear line of thoughts, or at least a different philosophy.

Obviously, everything is more complex when you add money into the mix. Displaying ads on the free version is a very sad fact for me -- I've struggled for a long time to maintain KISS free of the INTERNET permission, and I really hate mobile ads.
The paid app at least remove the ad.

I had a hard time with this paid app, and you're right when you say that we should at least ask the dev to display the licence information on the paid version.
But let's also consider that only 50-100 versions got sold, at $2 that's merely a couple hundreds bucks, less than a day of freelancer pay in most countries.

Let's also consider that KISS has more than 50k users on the play store (fdroid does not release any statistics, but I'd say at least > 10k).

Obviously, I'd like for GoFast developer to "honor" the open source community and at least submit bug fixes whenever he sees one (both apps are still similar enough that a merge / cherry-pick should be enough) and to comply with the MIT licence. But everything considered, in the grand scheme of things, I don't really think this is important enough for me to bother. I'll keep adding features and discussing with you guys for KISS, even if I know every single line of code will then move to GoFast, because I enjoy KISS and I want to make it better for everyone.

[ilmich]

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So I think that the developer is obliged to mention that the software is based on KISS Launcher and that the code is owned by @Neamar
But, I'm not an expert ;)

[saveman71]

I believe it concerns the source code only? Not sure about that.

[ilmich]

From what I know, the MIT license allows to copy, modify, sell and include more or less large portions of code. But prohibits 'forget' who wrote them first :)

[licaon-kter]

I'd rather see you move this to a "share back"-type of license, not money related but regarding code/fixes/etc.

[ilmich]

For me, the best move is to report this thing on playstore, at least as a comment.
Changing license does not make sense at this time.
Considering that you do not want to make money, kiss launcher has a greater user bases and better support.
This clone, could survive a few months, if you report that is based on a free and opensource app.
And that this software is a KISS Launcher clone is rather obvious at this time.

[ilmich]

On the free version (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.plh.gofastlauncher)

This app is based on open source code at github: https://github.com/Neamar/KISS

[saveman71]

IMO, I don't see what reporting the app to the play store could bring to us. The developer is, IMO again, completely in his right to do what he is doing due to the MIT licence.

[ismail-s]

I would prefer that this project switches to a license that gets people to share their improvements with this repo. But ofc my contribution has been solely in adding some tests, so I feel less annoyed in that respect.

Whilst the code upto now is MIT, any improvements we make in the future don't have to be. I would hope this would incentivise people not to copy this project to make money off of it without benefitting the oroginal project in some way.

Just my personal view though.

[ilmich]

IMO, I don't see what reporting the app to the play store could bring to us

Nothing, but at least is mentioned the work done by all of you until now.

[nmitsou]

To be honest, it hurts (only a bit) to see this. I can imagine how others with more contributions might feel.

How would re-licencing work?
Do all contributors have to agree on changing the license (including the translators)?

I guess you could force him to include a link on KISS on the paid version too but that wouldn't change much. But I would add a review on his play store app page regarding KISS

[Pluggi]

Do all contributors have to agree on changing the license (including the translators)?

Yes, I do think so. Or at least else rewrite the code of the people who do not reply.

[ismail-s]

A while back, urwid, a python project, wanted to re-license. They created an issue asking everyone who contributed code to approve. https://github.com/urwid/urwid/issues/135 is that issue, it shows how hard changing a license can be, depending on the license. In our case, any license change is from more to less permissive, and since Kiss is an app, not a library, I doubt there would be as much of an issue with closed-source usage of the app.

[volnes]

we can't do anything here...there are many projects that have been stolen and used to enrich.
Maybe make a post on reddit? publicly talk about the problem, maybe someone on reddit can give really good advice?
in subbreddits like:

/r/linux/
/r/freesoftware
r/opensource

[saveman71]

Yeah but the fact here is that the project has not been stolen _per se_ and that's a huge difference. We can only blame ourselves for not choosing (or noticing) a better licence earlier.

[volnes]

well...they did't make any donation/contribution/help to kiss project as good sign...
This disappointed me...

[nmitsou]

I am involved in this project for learning purposes among others.
So I wouldn't mind the attempt of relicensing even if it the end fails :-D
In any case, I am also fine with the current license!

[Neamar]

I like the idea of asking for guidance on Reddit, someone may have more information on this :)

Do you guys know any "share-back" licence?

I'm unconvinced with relicensing everything, seems like a long process without much to gain in the end don't you think?

[licaon-kter]

Resources:
https://opensource.org/faq#copyleft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[ntninja]

I could ask on Reddit (or anywhere else). But, in our case, it will boil down to a very simple procedure either way:

• Update the contents of the main LICENSE file with the text of some copyleft license
• Commit to master

Why?

• Any code released up until now, has been publically released under the MIT License already, so relicensing it post-mortem doesn't actually change anything. One can still use the old version of that code under the MIT License.
• Copyleft is "sticky": Any code commited under the new license will require _all of the code it directly touches_ to also be distributed under that license. The only way for anybody to avoid having to use that code under the copyleft license is to strip all parts of the code that are exclusively released under that license.

In terms of "share-back" licenses, the *_GPL_ (version whatever) tends to be _the_ license of choice in next to all scenarios. It should definitely be noted that licensing KISS as copyleft is pretty much a one-way street: The UrWid example above shows what happens when one trys to move into the other direction.

[Coehill]

I also support licensing KISS under the GPL. If so, maybe you would consider adding the same thing at the bottom as there is here: https://github.com/CellularPrivacy/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector

[Neamar]

Hey guys, I really feel like this isn't an easy solution.

Looks like we don't have a lot of option anyway, so let's go with the move to GPL.

Like @alexander255 mentioned, this means that any new code committed from the moment the licence is updated will be under GPL.

I'll make a new comment right here after posting this one, mentioning all previous contributors and asking for their opinion too. If no one has anything to say against that, I'll update the licence file in a week.

[Neamar]

Greetings everyone!

You're getting a mention here because at some point in time, you contributed some code to KISS (previously known as Summon).

This code used to be licensed under MIT, but we're planning to migrate to the share-back GPL license.
You'll be able to get more details if you read the details of this issue.

As previous committer, this should not affect you---what you published was licensed under MIT, and this is not going to change.

However, new changes in the project will be licensed under GPL, and any code directly touched by the new code (including potentially your own changes) will _de facto_ be moved under the GPL licence.

If anyone of you have any issue with this, please let me know before July 2nd. Otherwise, after this date, I'll update the licence file on the project.

I'll also use this opportunity to thanks everyone once again for all your contribution, you really made KISS awesome!

Previous committers (i.e. people who have merged PRs in the project):

• [x] @alexander255
• [x] @AltNico
• [ ] @amonaslaju
• [ ] @AymanDF
• [ ] @bitcores
• [x] @brunorro
• [x] @Crocmagnon
• [x] @droserasprout
• [x] @hamburger1984
• [x] @hydroid7
• [ ] @ilmich
• [x] @ismail-s
• [x] @licaon-kter
• [ ] @losingkeys
• [ ] @moshpirit
• [x] @nmitsou
• [ ] @nunomdc
• [ ] @padenot
• [ ] @pejakm
• [ ] @pinusc
• [ ] @Pluggi
• [ ] @ponderstibbons
• [ ] @robberer
• [x] @saveman71
• [ ] @SHi-ON
• [ ] @TheLastProject
• [ ] @wilderjds

(hopefully I did not forget anyone)

[brunorro]

Hi!

I just made commited a spanish and catalan translation, so I think that my contribution didn't have enough relevancy to make a decission about this. As I'm neither the one publishing this stuff on google nor probably will be able to help you coding in the future*, consider my opinion the same as Neamar's :)

Thanks !!!

• I'm afraid that I prefer simple Makefiles, vim with plugins like syntastic, CLI ... Working without a mouse :P Eclipse and ADK with all its bells and whistles is somehow complicated for me :(

[ntninja]

@brunorro: In terms of development environment, I myself often use a text editor (or even nano) and the command-line ./gradlew assembleDebug/runDebug for development. The only time I _always_ use Android Studio is when updating stuff related to the Android XML layout files (since Android Studio has a preview and interactive drag-and-drop functions for taking the pain out of this).

All your development needs should be satisfied now! :wink:

[AltNico]

I'm fine with releasing my contributed code under the GPL license.

[moshpirit]

To me, everything has a better look with a GPL licence, but I only translated the app and reported issues. So I don't think I don't feel like I contributed that much to be part of the decision. Anyway I'm happy with the launcher :-)

[brunorro]

@alexander255 , THANKS !!! I'll have a look at Gradle. Maybe I'm so stucked in the past, I am one of that people thinking that Glade and WxWidgets were not that bad, and adding heavy editors, plugins, bells, whistles and so on over a GUI designer only adds a "hardware enslavery layer" :)

[droserasprout]

GPL is a great decision for the project, @Neamar. Many of users couldn't deal with Android bells and whistles without your work, thanks!

[nmitsou]

GPL is fine with me too.
Thank you for the great project

[hydroid7]

Hi, my contribution to this project was nothing but some translation and brainstorming :D,

And GPL is fine to me too.

[licaon-kter]

Yes, GPL 👍

[nyov]

I have come across this from a crosslink to the URWID license change here. So I don't know this project, but feel like adding some comments on license changing.

Yeah but the fact here is that the project has not been stolen per se and that's a huge difference. We can only blame ourselves for not choosing (or noticing) a better licence earlier.

I would like to remind everyone that a GPL license DOES NOT prohibit selling the code either.
Sorry, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that a copyleft license means "free as in free beer", which is incorrect. It is "only" free as in "free speech".
The above mentioned project would still be in their right to sell a GPL project fork on playstore (so long as they then make the source code available as well).

If you want to force _future_ forks to release their modifications, (L)GPL is the way to go. But it will not be enforceable retro-actively. Any code released at this point in time will remain available under the earlier license.
You may in fact fragment your contributor landscape, as anyone not in agreement with the change will simply keep working on their MIT licensed fork (such as this playstore project) and not upstream their contributions any longer.
That may be the slow death of a smaller project.

I know (and I feel too) that the fact that code that we have written is used to make a profit may be infuriating, but can we do something about it?

If you feel that way, you may wish to choose a Creative Commons license instead, which actually prohibits making money from your work. But why not distribute a paid version yourself and accept donations?
Informed people will back a free software project on principle because they know when (not if) this fork's maintainer disappears, all their changes disappear with them.

---

As to this forked project, perhaps it might be enough to contact them and ask them nicely to contribute any significant enhancements back to this upstream project on their own volition? Most of their changes may be synthetic or behavioral and of no interest for incorporation into your project anyway.
In that case having their source code available would not give you any benefits, and diversity isn't always a bad thing. Some may simply prefer your UI over theirs or vice versa.

As your project moves forward, the fork will have more and more differences that need to be resolved if they want to keep up, so upstreaming any major changes would be in their own best interest to keep their differences small.
And if they don't, your project will simply outpace theirs in stability and features in the future, so you'll always have the long-term advantage.
Thats the same reason why everyone tries to get their code into the mainline Linux kernel instead of maintaining out-of-tree modules -- it's continuous and hard work.

[saveman71]

I have come across this from a crosslink to the URWID license change here. So I don't know this project, but feel like adding some comments on license changing.>

Welcome! Thanks for posting, your opinion is more than welcomed :)

The above mentioned project would still be in their right to sell a GPL project fork on playstore (so long as they then make the source code available as well).>

I believe that the general understanding here (at least @Neamar and I) was that we don't really mind that someone can make money from a fork. As you mention later, we will eventually stay the _base_ project, and we keep the advantage.
We want to prevent _closed-source_ project from making money off the open-source version.

If you want to force future forks to release their modifications, (L)GPL is the way to go. But it will not be enforceable retro-actively. Any code released at this point in time will remain available under the earlier license.

Does it means that we don't have to ask the permission to anyone that has ever contributed to this project, because their modifications will stay licensed under MIT? That makes sense in a way, but you did the exact opposite on URWID.

That may be the slow death of a smaller project.
Can you elaborate? What project is the "smaller project" here? KISS?

In that case having their source code available would not give you any benefits, and diversity isn't always a bad thing. Some may simply prefer your UI over theirs or vice versa.

That's precisely why I personally would like the alternative to be open-source as well. This means that even if the alternative has a paid version, ads, etc, an experienced user can always have their ad-free build.

---

Anyway, thank you for your consideration about KISS!

[nyov]

@saveman71, thanks.

We want to prevent closed-source project from making money off the open-source version.

I can understand that.
I am not opposed, merely hoping people don't have wrong expectations for this, since this won't prevent this fork from keeping their version as closed source now, indefinitely; and even in the future someone may decide to just take your code at this point in time (MIT licensed) and work off of that, instead of obeying your new GPL license. (Unless you add so many bugfixes and improvements after the switch, that anyone will consider it unfeasible.)

Does it means that we don't have to ask the permission to anyone that has ever contributed to this project, because their modifications will stay licensed under MIT?

From my understanding you may not need to, because the terms of the GPL license cover all the terms of the liberal MIT license (but I am not a lawyer - IANAL).
There have been much discussed instances of this in the past for BSD. But also see https://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/75436 for a different opinion (BSD).

[...] you did the exact opposite on URWID.

URWID is a library, not a standalone project. My feelings are that for a library, widespread adoption helps advancing the cause of free software, and a liberal license helps against fragmentation (the less restrictions, the more people willing to use it - e.g. companies with the money and power to either back you or instead establish a competing product).

Can you elaborate? What project is the "smaller project" here? KISS?

Yes (sorry!). By smaller project, I mean in terms of developers/contributors (in relation to Linux, WebKit, or a similar massive project, which will always stay ahead by sheer dev power, no matter how many forks).

That's precisely why I personally would like the alternative to be open-source as well.

Perhaps it may be as simple as asking them. Probably not, but people may be reasonable when approached in a reasonable manner.
And if that someone is lurking around here: You may actually love to get feedback and contributions to your fork. It is very rewarding. The few people who compile and install apps from source wouldn't pay for your app anyway, because they love hacking code too much for that. So just consider that.

[Crocmagnon]

Hi there !
I don't have any problem for this project to be licensed under GPL.

[ismail-s]

GPL is fine by me.

[Neamar]

Licence has been updated! Thanks everyone for your contribution :)

[nmitsou]

Just a short note: The license at fdroid is still MIT

[AltNico]

Just a short note: The license at fdroid is still MIT.

You can change it
here.

[TheLastProject]

Thanks for the note @nmitsou, I just created a pull request for the F-Droid people here so it'll probably be fixed soon.

[nmitsou]

Cool great

[TheLastProject]

It's been merged, thanks again :)