

Warn HN: Elance clients are stealing code from GitHub - supster

I&#x27;ve hosted source code for a couple of my side project iOS apps on Github (that are like 90% done), and it looks like somebody is claiming them as their own on Elance and bidding for developers to complete them.<p>My code:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sapanbhuta&#x2F;Cents<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;sapanbhuta&#x2F;Clean<p>Contracts on Elance:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.elance.com&#x2F;j&#x2F;ios-app-bug-fixes&#x2F;67713491&#x2F;<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.elance.com&#x2F;j&#x2F;ios-app-update-needed&#x2F;67714378&#x2F;<p>I&#x27;m all for open-source and code sharing for the sake of learning, but something about this just seems disgustingly wrong.
======
potatosareok
This is probably not the place for me to go off on tangent, but why are you
getting upset? Do you think he can finish this project on elance for $500
dollar? How is this going to affect you?

He is scummy guy. Ok. Agreed. But like eru said, you make your code available
under MIT license. You can't have it both way of putting your code under a
license like that and then complaining when someone uses it in a way you don't
like. It seems very hypocritical to me to be angry if he is using your license
properly. If I put $100 dollar out to charity and they don't use it in a way I
see fit, that is my fault, not theirs.

Worst case scenario he makes someone to finish the app and makes a lot of
money off it. And then you have a right to be angry if he violated your
license in any way. But also you should think that you are very angry because
you had app 90% of way done and someone gets all credit for taking it that
last 10%. But then that is your fault for not taking it that last 10%
yourself.

I will most likely lose all my 10 hn point for this but I would just drop a
note to elance and then forget about this issue. Don't be vindictive about
this. You are amazing person and have an amazing day, be more happy :) Good
luck on being a doctor, forgot about this guy.

~~~
eru
> He is scummy guy. Ok. Agreed. But like eru said, you make your code
> available under MIT license. You can't have it both way of putting your code
> under a license like that and then complaining when someone uses it in a way
> you don't like. It seems very hypocritical to me to be angry if he is using
> your license properly. If I put $100 dollar out to charity and they don't
> use it in a way I see fit, that is my fault, not theirs.

That's almost true, but not quite. Does the MIT licence allow you to remove
attribution?

~~~
charlesdm
Was attribution removed? The only links in the elance posts that I can see are
links to the original repository.

Yes, he can profit from them. That's the entire point of MIT/BSD licenses, so
that companies can use certain libraries and/or components in their commercial
software.

------
eru
In this particular instance the elancer might have violated the license. But
if they were more careful about preserving attribution (and a few other
cosmetics), it seems like everything would technically be above board.

Before you use an open source licence, especially the MIT style licences, you
should ask yourself, if you are OK with a random stranger profiting off your
work commercially.

In any case, I advice against suing, since it's unlikely you are going to see
any money. (IANAL.) I also doubt that a random elance developer will be able
(or willing) to finish your work for 500 USD.

~~~
yuashizuki
But he should atleast ask github to ban this fraudsters, worst case senario
sue github for supporting users who violate such licenses. Maybe sending a
leagal notice to github would get you results. Atleast there is no doubt that
he violated the license

~~~
eru
Yes, sending a friendly note to github seems like a good idea. But don't
expect too much apart from the satisfaction of seeing his current account
banned.

~~~
yuashizuki
Yes, but moraly we should all mark these individuals and there emails and
other info, so they are banned for ever. This individual is probabely using
this work to show off on his resume. This is fraud, we all should take this
very seriously.

~~~
sinemetu11
> we should all mark these individuals and there emails and other info, so
> they are banned for ever.

This seems a bit over the line. So the elancer has no way to right this wrong?
OP should just message the person. If he doesn't fix it then contact the site
admins, etc. But hosting code with MIT license as others have already
mentioned is permissive. I'm not a big fan of the online witch-hunt when
someone messes up. If they learn from it and move on they're still a target
and have already been banned forever but what should be an evolving community.

------
fabulist
I think you're right to take offense, this person is blatantly claiming credit
for your work. Their repository on Git doesn't even show it was forked from
yours.

I'd suggest you get in touch with GitHub and Elance; they'll probably have one
or both accounts suspended, and hopefully they'll abandon the endeavor after
that.

------
supster
NOTE: Hey guys, OP here, just to clear up the confusion the
github.com/sapanbhuta repo is mine. I included it for comparison purposes. The
elance site is the other person using the code as his own. Hope that makes
more sense lol

------
danielki
As others have said - long as proper attribution is provided in the finished
product, it's within the terms of the license that you put up. In the future:

* If you don't want your code available to the public, use a private repository - either Github's paid plans or Bitbucket (free private repos) or something similar.

* If you want your code publicly available, but not to be used in this way, use a different license - GPL/LGPL, CC BY-NC-SA, etc. Research to figure out which one works best.

------
charlesdm
You released these apps under the MIT license. This means that people can do
with it what they want, as long as attribution is given in the app or when
source code is used in binaries

If you did not want this, you should've released it under a different license
(e.g. GPL).

Why are you upset?

------
nesu
Thanks for this post. I myself have a small app that I am thinking whether to
publish as GPL or other licenses (MIT or Apache). But I am worried about some
shady users who would rather distribute the binaries without the source.

I would react the same. At least, before other users change my own code or
even profit from it, they should try to contact me. But MIT license does not
oblige users to disclose the source. Nothing against MIT license, but it's
somehow not a good fit for stuff that don't require the full source in order
to run.

Why not release a new version, and publish it as GPL? That would be clearly a
violation if they accept bids on Elance like that. Or try dual licensing.

~~~
brudgers
If you release under GPL, are you prepared to hire lawyers to enforce the
license terms? It's ok if someone isn't, but in that case, why bother?

~~~
nesu
>If you release under GPL, are you prepared to hire lawyers to enforce the
license terms? It would be good if one can hire lawyers, but to be honest,
most developers working on side projects are not (at least in my honest
opinion).

>It's ok if someone isn't, but in that case, why bother? At least there is
some sort of protection, and at least to scare away those who cannot afford
the risk of being sued. Who knows, a lowly developer now might be able to turn
things around and finally afford lawyers at his whim. Or even gain some
backers.

------
brudgers
Controlling access to Github repositories requires a paid account. The price
of a free account is an open source licence.

~~~
Perdition
Incorrect. A free account means your repos are publicly accessible, it does
not mean the code in those repos is under an open source license.

~~~
brudgers
[IANAL]

If the source code is publicly accessible, it seems _ipso facto_ legally
infeasible to assert closed source license terms up in it. That's not to say
that the terms could not prohibit compilation, interpretation, and other forms
of machine execution. But the source is open by the author's choice when the
terms and conditions of Github are accepted.

~~~
DanBC
When magazines used to print sourcecode listings they very much retained the
rights to those listings. They didn't allow redistribution in print or on
tape.

That doesn't seem to be a complicated case and I'm not sure what would be
different with hosting the code on github under a weird licence "read but no
other use".

~~~
brudgers
Exactly. Of course here the license used was MIT, but like all licenses the
reason it was a license is that the rights holder was a rights holder. If the
code was in the public domain then license choice would be moot.

The bigger point is [IANAL] that "open source" only has legal relevance in
regard to concepts like trade secrets (a common connotation of "closed
source") where revealing the source code might be subject to tort. Any rights
that others have derive directly from copyright law and the way in which the
rights holder decides to assert their rights.

Putting something in a public Github repository makes it open source, but
"open source" is mostly a common language phrase not a term of legal art.

~~~
malisper
> "open source" is mostly a common language phrase not a term of legal art

The term "open source" does have an official definition[0]. It doesn't mean
what most people think it does and that is one of the reasons Richard Stallman
has criticized it[1].

[0] [http://opensource.org/docs/osd](http://opensource.org/docs/osd)

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point....](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

~~~
brudgers
It's a certification of particular licenses. It's not a legal standard. That's
why public domain is a grey area for OSI: [http://opensource.org/faq#public-
domain](http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain) and the failure to certify
Creative Commons Zero.

Carving public domain source code out of the definition of "Open Source" is
the sort of thing trade bodies do. But it's something that one can argue
before a judge. The copyright status and license are all that matters.

------
mapster
If he/she is going to submit the presumed finished product to apple store,
could you not intervene there?

------
yuashizuki
He changed the license by removin ur name and placing his. This it self is a
violation of the license.

------
yuashizuki
DO u not see whats wrong here, he created a github repo changed the name on
the license to make it look like he created this open source project. This is
called FRAUDE. Down Vote me if u hate me for speaking the truth.

------
yuashizuki
I am pretty sure all his other repos are fraud to.

------
yuashizuki
I suggest you sue this fucker directly, he has violated the lincense terms and
condition. [https://github.com/sapanbhuta](https://github.com/sapanbhuta)

press fedral charges on this asshole.

~~~
detaro
Uhm... that appears to be OPs account, just saying.

