Really, @purism? You copy a bunch of open-source apps and make it look like they are yours without any mention of the original apps? I think you should delete these apps immediately and publicly apologize. Or at least don't have the audacity to call yourself a "Social Purpose Corporation that does not exploit people and puts doing social good over maximizing profit ", because its obviously not true.

Don't get me wrong, its fine to fork (and others), but please adhere to GPL 3, which says "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date."

Show thread

@ConnyDuck love to pay for a bunch of rebranded free apps and uh, the promise of more?

@ConnyDuck They also forked Mastodon and somehow made Eugen do their necessary changes for them

@foxhkron yes I saw that, also looks like an AGPL violation to me, as there is no way to tell what software it is from their frontpage

@lain I have no clue. But Eugen seems to have done all the necessary changes for them in that fork (remove reports for example)


@foxhkron do you have a link to their repo? I can't find it @lain

@lain @foxhkron @ConnyDuck >fork for opt in public-places

public-places? do they mean federation?

@ConnyDuck I often take GPL programs and was never aware of "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.", to be honest. So maybe the Purisum people didn't know either and it wasn't evil intent.

Right now still contains the original Tusky, so it is quite obvious, what it is. Was that the case when you last looked into the repository? On the other hand it was renamed. Hope they'll react soon! I bought Librem 5.

@ConnyDuck Couldn't that "relevant notice" just be the commits in the git repository? When GPL was first written, most people probably worked with plain text files but no version managment.

@kayb Other Tusky forks put the info on the about page. Maybe their current setup is good enough to stand in a legal dispute, Im no expert on that topic. But they are definitely deceiving users and its affront to contributors to the open source apps they are now making money with.

@ConnyDuck Hope they'll get in touch with you, comment in here or whatever! I would still think they didn't plan to be incorrect.

@kayb @ConnyDuck legally (aka as required by the license, interpreted by me not having a background in law, but with a dispute history) you need to preserve or link to the history of the contributions and the authors.

@kayb @ConnyDuck The app will have to provide a link back to the sources (found in their own repo) where the author is still listed as Conny Duck (and others)
In my opinion legally there has to be a reference back to the original repo (as the original authors are not present in the new repo).

@kayb @ConnyDuck nevertheless (now I'm not talking legal and license) this is shitty behaviour. If you just fork the app (and e.g. just change the style to fit your framework) you should show the origin of the work.

@kayb @ConnyDuck if e.g. they take it as a base and make tusky run in a non Android environment (as pureOS is supposed to be "a regular Linux") this will provide a new benefit to the community instead of just forking and republishing the same. But as long as they adhere to the legalese it's hard to do something officially against it.

@kayb @ConnyDuck maybe contacting them to clarify the situation will be the best way to go. But if they raise money with a rebranded tusky (or any other free software) has a bad taste and seeing the possible customer base this could backfire real bad for them.

@kayb @ConnyDuck closing statement for now: I have some experience with the topic of forking GPL based projects and the new party making money with it. If they strictly adhere to the GPL your options are limited. feel free to get back to my layman's advice.

@Moepmoep @ConnyDuck Nice, thanks for your extensive clarifications. It indeed makes sense, that it's required to link to the original project.

@ConnyDuck Did they get in touch with you or something alike ?

ist das wie wenn ich #halycon @nipos ohne was zu safen forken WÜRDE

nur damit ich das verstehe was die da schreiben

@mondstern @dada @ConnyDuck Du musst mir nicht sagen,wenn du das forkst.Du musst einfach nur den Quellcode deines Forks unter der AGPL3 Lizenz zur Verfuegung stellen.Dann ist die Lizenz erfuellt.

@maximilia @nipos @ConnyDuck @mondstern @dada Das ist rein rechtlich korrekt,aber Klagen sind fuer einen open source Entwickler ohne richtige Einnahmen zu teuer und ausserdem ist es eine Arschlochaktion,mit der man auch die eigene Community veraergern kann.Deshalb hat GPL Missachtung meistens keine Folgen.Fuer Purisms Image waere es aber natuerlich schlecht,wenn raus kommt,dass die die Lizenz gebrochen haben.

@ConnyDuck @purism What is also interesting is that the apps show up in the google store, which makes me wonder if there are any trackers.

Speaking of, does google force you to have trackers for apps in the store?

@Cedara no, there is no need for trackers in the apps, but of course Google Play can track what apps you install without that

@ConnyDuck Did they even try to contact you about that? I've just read that page and if I didn't know Tusky so well I wouldn't be able to identify what app they are using. The whole page is so poorly written, it feels like no one reviewed it at least once.

@ConnyDuck That's so shitty of them, holy crap. That's the kind of mistake I don't expect from a company heavily involved with free software.

@Anna yeah. And it seems they have already raised at least 5000$ with it. 😖

@ConnyDuck @purism the irony of this coming out on the first of may!! May day of all days!

@ConnyDuck @purism This is really destroying the reputation of the whole project for me...

@gaab @purism yeah the idea is nice but the execution really bad

@ConnyDuck @gaab @purism Why should anyone interested in free/libre software and a web of diversity opting for "centralized" services run by a single company instead of grabbing the "original"? (I know the answer - its just for the sake of comfort...)
To me this has a strong taste of "googling" free software together and bind the users to the services of @Purism. Till now i was not really interested in @Purism, now i'm sure i will avoid their products.

@guzzisti @ConnyDuck @gaab @purism @Purism I'm not sure whether you are correct. I guess the reason for the fork is that they will convert Tusky to work with a mobile KDE desktop. Because that's what the Librem 5 will work with.

@kayb @ConnyDuck @purism I'm not sure as well, but looking at the competitive chart provided by them, it's pretty much about rebuilding "the bad big ones" with free software and to provide all the services users may need/want. It's just that @Purism claims to protect privacy and so on. But using centralized services have a few pros and cons besides that.

@guzzisti Not sure whether I get you right, but where do you see centralization? What they use is Matrix (Librem Chat), Mastodon (Librem Social) with the Tusky fork mentioned here and Mail which are all federated services. Just with dedicated apps to use those, which is the situation with anything you want to use on a computer except Web Browsing.

@kayb I see centralization in @purism running all of this services at once. I can't find a benefit for "free software" in @purism establishing additional instances of services (federated or not, ) instead of encouraging the users to choose the services (free or not) they like or need. Whats the reason in binding users to the services of a single company? I thought we all had experienced what this approach leds to (remember google and facebook?) and then choosen to go our own way.

@guzzisti It matters a lot whether those services are federated or not. As long as I don't depend on their services, I don't care at all and rather welcome them offering some free service. Especially since I expect the people who funded the Librem 5 to be well aware of possible implications when using services by a certain party (though I don't see any negative aspects, only the possibility they could, in theory, occur in the future, like advertising on a Mastodon instance or so).

@guzzisti @ConnyDuck @gaab @purism @Purism This is a really awful take on the whole reality of the situation. An ill-fated misreading at best.

Truth is that the apps are all free/open. They operate their own instances of both mastodon ( and Riot, with their own clients.

They do not charge you for the apps, their crowdfunding campaign is for other upcoming products like encrypted email (there's NEVER enough of these) and encrypted file storage, as well as a FREE VPN tunnel.

@ConnyDuck @purism the laptops are fine, the phone is fine, but the services thing? Genuinely can't see any reason at all to even go near them. There are free alternatives that run on exactly the same privacy-respecting bases (hey look we're all already using at least one of them). They're just asking for money with flashy slogans - it's a bit pathetic honestly. Some shit is in need of a little sorting out.

@OTheB @ConnyDuck @purism I'm a backer of the Librem 5 and still optimistic, but.. along with the the PIA announcement, this looks like another easily avoided misstep. At the very least, @ConnyDuck should have been given the heads up on this one. Matrix obviously were.. (like 2017).

I've mentioned this before in another discussion....they should really give royalties to the upstream developers if they wanted to redeem their image and maintain the ecosystem. That would be the right thing to do.
@OTheB @ConnyDuck @purism

@ams @OTheB @ConnyDuck whatever it turns out to be, this leaves a sour feeling. The service offered seems to be a single login to existing federated services hosted by @purism.

@Moepmoep @ams @ConnyDuck @purism Yeah. They're just hosting their own little centralised group of services, all being heavily downgraded forks of existing decentralised services.

Makes me think of suckless, only with this you're *paying* to have less.

@OTheB @ams @ConnyDuck @purism I don't read it like they are centralising it. E.g. for librem social they state "with millions of people already active".

@Moepmoep @ams @ConnyDuck @purism I meant as in yeah they federate, but they're grouping their own stuff together into a central place, presumably with the idea that people will buy into it and then basically be hosting their lives on these central services just like they might with Apple or Google or whomever. The difference being this is FOSS and you have access to the other federated instances of everything.

It's an unwalled garden, but still a garden.

Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community