
UBlock-LLC taking code from ad blocker uBlock Origin without proper attribution - k1m
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1063777353678110720
======
fapjacks
Not only having code stolen without attribution, but stolen by the company
running AdBlock, who appears to have just co-opted the uBlock brand. This is
GPL'ed code being stolen with clearly deceptive and rent-seeking behavior. I
wonder if the Software Freedom Conservancy would be interested in taking a
look? [https://sfconservancy.org/](https://sfconservancy.org/)

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
I thought that it was by the same scammer that ran ublock.org?

~~~
fapjacks
From my understanding, the original turd that began soliciting donations for
uBlock was made an offer to sell the Github repo to the turds behind AdBlock.
And what you're seeing here is a clear demonstration of that group's very poor
understanding of the law.

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
Thank you for explaining. Would you happen to know if he is still involved
with the project (as an employee or something)?

~~~
fapjacks
That I do not know, sorry. While he is not a good programmer (judging from
what little is available on his Github), the AdBlock rent-seekers do not seem
to have technical skills (judging from the way they do things). So I could see
a justification for either case.

------
whizzkid
Couple of advise for the original uBlock origin author (gorhill)

\- Please get the extension together under one platform instead of forks and
stuff (MacOS, Edge). This problem will keep the fake uBlock alive otherwise.

\- "uBlock" name is already involved too much with unpleasing issues. Would
you consider renaming your product? I think renaming would solve more problems
than you would think.

Thanks for the extension btw :)

~~~
pablo-massa
I ask about renaming the product back in 2016 [1] and the author response was:

 _I won 't change the name -- it is too well established now.

It's unfortunate that ublock.org causes confusion, but in the end he is
hurting himself more in the long run than he is hurting uBlock Origin, it's a
conscious choice he made to scam people,[1][2] he will have to deal with
whatever consequences there is doing so._

[1]
[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1451](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1451)

~~~
whizzkid
I did not know that. Well, I am sorry that he has to deal with this BS. These
kind of issues drains a lot energy especially when it comes to OS software.

------
thesausageking
Note: UBlock-LLC is owned by Betafish, the company behind AdBlock.

------
jamiek88
This isn’t the first time that code base has been ripped off. Must be
frustrating for the authors.

------
djsumdog
It looks like the UBlock-LLC still has a GPLv3 license file. Are they
violating the license in some way?

~~~
fapjacks
Yes, they violated the license. [0] They just stole his commits and changed
the name, like some sort of cartoon clown business. The license requires
_conspicuous_ copyright attribution and statement and explanation of changes.
Meaning, not just some untrue one-liner buried at the bottom of a wall of
text. What they've been doing is obviously not in line with the terms of their
use of the code.

[0] [https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-
gpl...](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-
gplv3-require-attribution)

------
wild_preference
What's with forks of adblockers just lightly modifying the name?

uBlock -> uBlock Origin
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History)

Adblock -> Adblock Plus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#History_and_stati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#History_and_statistics)

Is the temptation of skimming off existing branding worth the mass confusion?

~~~
kirb
In fact the current AdBlock has no relation to the original AdBlock:

>AdBlock's efforts are not related to Adblock Plus. The developer of AdBlock,
Michael Gundlach, claims to have been inspired by the Adblock Plus extension
for Firefox, which is itself based on the original Adblock that ceased
development in 2004.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock)

And as another commenter pointed out, uBlock was transferred to another
developer and the original developer forked it to continue as uBlock Origin.
Why still doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s a mess and it’s all so morally questionable.

~~~
lucideer
> _the original developer forked it to continue as uBlock Origin. Why still
> doesn’t make sense to me._

The original developer forked it because the new maintainer he had entrusted
it to was trying to monetise by collecting donations under alleged false
pretenses, while allegedly removing attribution of other previous
contributors. Many/most of those previous contributors to original uBlock went
on to follow the original dev and contribute to the Origin fork.

------
nikanj
Many site owners don’t like you blocking the ads that fund the site, but still
incurring costs by using the service.

They might see this as poetic justice.

