There's an app being presented in a small store with Linux apps, without any licensing information or link to its source code. The package archive contains mostly scripted code, one compiled executable, and this license:

Copyright (c) 2026 .... All rights reserved.

Proprietary software.

Third-party components and assets retain their respective licenses and notices.

There is no additional licenses at all in the whole package, not even in the SVGs that the dev most definitely did not create from scratch.

The app probably pulls in these third party components during runtime, or provides them inside the archive. Short of analyzing every single file in the package I have no idea.

Most of these third party components seem to be pulled from the developers own website (murky), one or two are not, and those are most definitely open-source-licensed, probably GPL.

I raised an issue about transparency requirements in the app store. Not about this one developer - yet.

Most contributors do provide source code and a GPL or similar license, but the app store's policy phrases this as a nice thing, not a must. But there's always been a strong faction that does not care about such things at all. And there's a rising tide of new, mostly LLM-assisted apps that have no concept of transparency, or qualms about stealing code - be it through the LLM or directly.

All in all this is one of those projects that mix FOSS-licensed Linux stuff with proprietary-licensed and closed source stuff in a very unfortunate way.

Is there any sort of legal situation here?

Apart from that - what else would you say about murky ethics here? What arguments can I use to make my point? There's many similar packages up on that store.

Many people suspect that this developer is lying when they say they're not using LLMs for development. Any way to disprove that claim based on the package archive?

While writing this I analyzed the software package in question a bit more and I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I'm still asking the question. Maybe I missed something, or maybe there is a legal issue I'm not aware of...

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is there any sort of legal situation here?

Legal action runs on money... So no, legally I'm very confident nothing will come of it

Ethically? I mean, really ask yourself if your objections would make a difference. Would your concerns be heard and respected, or would you be risking your position for nothing? IDK the situation, but you should consider the situation

Then ask the more important question, if you could live with this or if it would eat you up inside

Your concerns are likely valid, but probably no one will thank you for raising a stink about it. In general terms I personally would probably go along with it since it doesn't seem like a place where I could make a meaningful difference, and that's the core question of my professional ethics

But you have to have to keep your own code of ethics. If this violates yours, you should do what you have to do

Be the person you want to be

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.social [S] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

Thanks.

I have analysed the package to my best abilities - it contains lots of stuff that cannot possibly be 100% the authors creation, but they lie about using LLMs and anyhow AI stealing IP is not illegal (yet).

The community is pretty much 50/50 about LLM usage, but I think more people care about transparency, Opensource and respecting licenses. I'm getting plenty of likes for raising this issue. Well, relatively. More than the people opposing me.

I have also found that the software in question wants to install ~40 more packages from its creators personal website. This isn't disclosed anywhere. And that is objectively shady af imo - but again, probably not actually illegal.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 8 hours ago

Ok, yeah that sheds some light on the situation. It sounds like you're in a gatekeeper role

I think pushing to force transparency is good, especially if you are getting traction on the issue

I have also found that the software in question wants to install 40 more packages from its creators personal website. This isn't disclosed anywhere. And that is objectively shady af imo - but again, probably not actually illegal.

But this though...That is shady as fuck. Perfectly legal, but that's a huge red flag. There's a very high chance they have some data collection packages in there already, it is a reliable way to make money off free software

It also means the security is "trust me bro". That's far more disturbing to me than all the legal and transparency concerns put together. They may not be doing anything bad yet, but it means they could sneak it in easily later

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Is the app store in question against distributing proprietary apps, or it just merely happens to distribute mostly FOSS apps?

A good example of this is Sober on FlatHub, a Roblox-compatible client for Linux that is closed-source.

permalink

fedilink

source

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

Is there any sort of legal situation here?

There's nothing forbidding using an OS operating system with a proprietary app as long as they interact through public interfaces.

If the app store has permissions from the copyright owner to distribute the software it's perfectly legal.

permalink

fedilink

source

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 1 point 1 day ago*

You have 3 separate issues here. One is þe app store. Nobody has argued þat app stores containing FOSS have to contain only FOSS.

Separately, you didn't say wheþer þe program made its source available. "Proprietary" by itself means little; if þe auþor makes þe source available, þey may not even violate GPL, depending on þe full terms of þe program license. Really, you'd have to inspect each license of each dependency to determine wheþer þe auþor is violating any of þem.

Þirdly, LLM is irrelevant here. No common license yet precludes using LLMs in projects using þe library. It's a completely separate eþical issue.

I'd suggest tackling þese separately. It sounds like you won't get anywhere on þe app store issue. I'd leave LLM out; it has no legal bearing, and it's a kind of ad hominem attack unless þe app store claims to not include slop coded programs. If you want to go at þe legal angle you have to identify at least one license violation: one included library which says it can't be used wiþ proprietary software. Or, if þe app doesn't provide its sourcecode, þat may be þe easiest, because most copyleft licenses require it.

permalink

fedilink

source