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…
Disclaimer: if you think I posted this in the wrong community please refrain from commenting or downvoting, use the report button instead. Thank you. FWIW, I did read the sidebar and imo it is open-ended enough to allow for questions like this one.
Impossible to tell without any detailed info. An installer script can come with a proprietary license. It’s a lot of red flags, though. I really dislike software circumvent the operating system and load random (to me) code from the internet. That’s how malware works. There could or couldn’t be a “legal situation” here, depending on what the software does and how it’s put together.
Dunno what you’re talking about with the sidebar?! I don’t see rules alike what you describe…
Yeah, I also found out now that it pulls in additional packages from the developers personal website, which is completely opaque as well.
sidebar
“If it’s free and open source and it’s also software, it can be discussed here.”
Like I wrote, it seems like this can include questions like this one (and not just articles).
seems like this can include questions like this one
Yes. I’d say genuine questions are very welcome. At least to me, talking to people is way more fun than just reading the news!
Whether there is a legal issue depends entirely on 1) the jurisdiction of the app developer, and 2) the jurisdiction of any third party whose code they may be mis-attributing or misusing.
What arguments can I use to make my point?
Make the point to whom? The app store? None, and there should not be; you can’t and shouldn’t be able to initiate legal claims on someone else’s behalf. If you suspect that they are bundling OSS software against the license terms of that software, you should reach out to the OSS owners. They have the right and means to make a claim. Otherwise, as far as you know they could have an agreement with the devs (and more realistically and importantly, any claim of relief you make- including removal of the app- may not be what they want).
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?
Not feasibly, unless they accidentally packaged a .claude file into it.
