Google cares - if they can get a cut of the profits. They allow even scammy malware while blocking FOSS applications. Even recently, they blocked a FOSS chat app.

[-] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

They don't care about the app being or not being open source

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

My statement was rhetorical.

[-] aion@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago

This first one has a QR code linking to its source: https://github.com/niilopoutanen/rss-feed

Unless I missed it, the second doesn't claim to be open source. In any case this appears to be its source: https://github.com/maco2ou/finefeed

[-] King@lemy.lol 11 points 8 months ago

The first link is for read me file with no source code avaliable.

The second link is a code last updated is 2 years back, the app is still updated in the app store with no source code.

Also inside the app it says that it's GPL , with different link.

[-] aion@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

The code for the first is there, its just on other branches, they seem to have a very unusual way of using git.

[-] King@lemy.lol 7 points 8 months ago

That is pretty unusual, I removed it from the post to reflect this.

[-] recursive_recursion@programming.dev 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html

the page details what one can do if they find license violations

although based on other comments in this thread it seems that the source code is available in a somewhat odd manner

[-] EdyBolos@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

For the first one, you need to change the branch, the source code is there, on either main or develop.

[-] tarius@lemmy.ml 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Someone has started a new repo for tracking these: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases

Not really reporting but, can spread awareness

Edit: "someone" is the developer of BookStack

[-] GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 15 points 8 months ago

I really wish there was a government institution that would care about that

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 14 points 8 months ago

The FTC takes action against false advertising.

"Open Source" doesn't have a singular legally relevant definition no matter what organizations claim otherwise, though.

[-] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

But lots of false claims for products would be considered false advertising even if those attributes don't have a legal definition.

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 8 months ago

If the source isn't available at all, yeah. Which is why I brought up the FTC to begin with (since Google is in the US).

But I doubt they'd act if the license isn't permissive enough.

[-] jackpot@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

so the fsf should make a new term and legally trademark it and enforce breaches? someone more knowledgable email them info@fsf.org

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

FSF has the term 'free software', which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term 'open source'. OSI created the 'open source' definition based on FSF's model.

But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don't apply. Their intention is to take advantage of 'free software' and 'open source' tags without making the necessary compromises.

Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.

[-] jackpot@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

okay so who will sue them??

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

I don't think anyone can sue them, unless the terms 'open source' and 'free software' are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren't licenses by themselves either.

[-] jackpot@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 months ago

openai naming themselves open rip

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Conventional wisdom is that only a copyright holder of included GPL code could go after a publisher that breaches the GPL (by claiming copyright infringement). However, recently there's been a lawsuit brought on grounds of breach of contract, which allows any user to be the plantiff.

That case is set to go to trial next month, so I guess wait and see if SFC succeeds and then, if it does, you could sue those app makers yourself and cite SFC v. Vizio as precedent.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Depends what nation you are in and how you obtained it.

Anyone can release software under any licence. As long as they are not breaking the licence they release under. Or the licence they use any 3rd party code is under

I do not think GPL has any rules about claims. Just actual actions. But if they released in under another licence. Then it is possible. (But unlikely). The licence has such rules.

So in most cases. Actual actions or lack of rather then claims. Based on the licence is your only option. And that would mean contact he authors of any included code. Or FSF etc.

Some nations have advertising rules. Depending on how and where it was obtained you may be able to contact their advertising standards association equiv.

But providng for free can often weaken this. Although it is likely far from an absolute excuse to false advertising.

[-] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/1085703?hl=en

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 5 points 8 months ago

Note that there is not a requirement that they make their source code public, only that they provide source code to users who have received binaries. This means if this app is GPL licensed you can buy it and make a written request for the source code, and they are required by the GPL to provide it.

There is also not a requirement that the binary made available gratis. "Free" in free software or FOSS is about freedom, not price. This is a common misunderstanding of both terms.

[-] littletranspunk@lemmus.org 4 points 8 months ago

I just used the Aurora store privacy analysis tool

Why the fuck does an RSS reader need microphone access?

[-] jackpot@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

wait what tool?

[-] littletranspunk@lemmus.org 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Looks like they use https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/413593/

(Edited to be the app in the OP)

[-] linuxPIPEpower@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 8 months ago

where does it say its open source? I do not see this anywhere. what is the stated license?
assuming it does say this somewhere, have you attempted to contact the developer to request the source code? for example here https://app.macoou.com/inquiry What was the result?

if yes to the above and no resolution:

could try reporting via whatever google's mechanism is; "flag as inappropriate" i guess
could contact the SFC https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ they are the only org I am aware of that does this kind of thing as a general activity; I doubt they would be interested in this little hobby project-looking dev
if the dev is using FLOSS code, for example which was published under GPL, and they are not complying with the license in redistribution, then you could notify the devs of the GPL code
if you wish to pursue the matter independently you will need to find about about the dev's local jurisdiction and how to carry out a legal action there. looks like that would be japan.