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 © 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…

  • A_norny_mousse@piefed.socialOPEnglish
    11·
    20 hours ago

    It sounds like you’re in a gatekeeper role

    Not sure I like the sound of that.

    But I was thinking of scrutinizing a few more packages in this way, time permitting. Maybe it will inspire other people to do the same.

    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.

    Well that’s why I’m asking for transparency. This oldest 3rd party appstore ran on “trust me bro” for almost 20 years… way back when it was big but the whole mobile ecosystem stuff wasn’t that developed yet. Then it was small for a long time, now it’s growing again because a) a new device came out that is selling surprisingly well and b) vibecoding is here.

    And it was never big on opensource despite being Linux-based.

    Now, when I raise these issues, many of these people feel insulted. Or admit that it’s just one bad apple. Not realizing that that’s exactly why we need transparency. It’s the opposite of “I don’t mind Google knowing everything, I have nothing to hide”: “you demanding transparency means you suspect us all of being criminals”.

    It’s idiotic at best, and worthy of a Hamlet quote at worst: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”