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."


@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 They obviously haven't had the time to change the readme file yet.

@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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation - because anarchy is much more fun with friends. is a small Mastodon instance for and by the Chaos community surrounding the Chaos Computer Club. We provide a small community space - Be excellent to each other, and have a look at what that means around here.
Follow @ordnung for low-traffic instance-related updates.
The primary instance languages are German and English.