What's going with this @tibbi @naveensingh ?

I can confirm it's true, but I don't have details on who, when, or where.

ye, the sale is in process

As a regular contributor I'm very disappointed.

Understandable, I'm sorry you couldn't find a suitable business model for this project. Thanks for your work in these years

I hope ZipoApps understands that they cannot simply make the apps closed source and suck out the userbase because these apps are used by people that value the FOSS principles.
Otherwise the users will switch to real FOSS alternatives and/or the apps will be forked.

I hope ZipoApps understands that they cannot simply make the apps closed source

That would violate the current license of all the apps. GPLv3 forbids it.

That would violate the current license of all the apps. GPLv3 forbids it.

The owner of the code still owns the copyright and can relicense the code under whatever license he/she wishes.

The owner of the code still owns the copyright and can relicense the code under whatever license he/she wishes.

That's not as easy. There are a few things:

• https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en#Consider
• https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.en#GPLInProprietarySystem (if apps use any external GPL libraries)
• https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/270/is-it-possible-to-close-an-open-source-project

Like many others, I am very disappointed about this move 😞

Not directly because of a sale, I can understand that you want money for your work. But because of who the apps are sold to.
This company ZipoApps seems to be mainly about quantity instead of quality, has lots of ad-ridden crapware in the PlayStore and does not adhere to privacy standards. All in all, most values of this company seem to completely contradict the values of SimpleMobile apps.

Another app lost to ZipoApps. They will add advertisements, trackers and more as they have done for other well-made apps that they've purchased in the past.

Thank you for maintaining it thus far.

Since it's GPL I suppose anyone interested in maintaining it can simply fork and republish.

Until then, I disabled auto-update on PlayStore for the SimpleMobileTools apps I have.

Of course, the license allows the project to be forked and maintained and I would be happy to do so in my free time but I believe it's essential to honor @tibbi's decision. He's been tirelessly maintaining this project since it was created, it would only be fair if he gets to determine its future direction. I'll proceed with maintaining a fork only upon receiving a green light from @tibbi.

@naveensingh What do you mean by: "it would only be fair if he gets to determine its future direction."? The direction of the fork?

Why do you need green light from @tibbi ?

When I mentioned 'it would only be fair if he gets to determine its future direction' I was referring to the direction of the current project, not some forked version. As for seeking a green light from @tibbi, it's a courtesy to ensure that he's comfortable with the idea of someone else taking on the maintenance. Given his experience and commitment to the project, I want to make sure he approves before proceeding with the fork.

The owner of the code still owns the copyright and can relicense the code under whatever license he/she wishes.

No, relicencing is very complicated. It requires the consent of everyone who ever contributed, which will not be given I believe. So the owner can sell, but the licence has to stay the same. They are allowed to relicense everything they have contributed though, so they could change the licence of some parts of the code, but relicensing everything is a violation of the terms.

@naveensingh I think he lost the right when he sold it and killed it. And he already showed what he wants.

https://github.com/you-apps

https://www.reddit.com/r/SimpleMobileTools/comments/18929pq/simplemobiletools_was_sold_alternatives/

Is time to move to another project. Unfortunately is the life cycle of all apps: sell or die when the devels move to other projects or centers their hearts in the real life.

I'm sorry, I get that you would have to sell Simple Mobile Tools, but to ZipoApps? Hell no, hell to the back no.

They're notorious for buying apps from developers like TreyDev and then packing the apps with ads, putting a "no-ads" subscription to remove it for $15usd a week.

^^ An example of an app published by ZipoApps, (This app should only have one $2-10 lifetime purchase to remove ads, not a weekly subscription model more expensive than a month of Spotify)

As far as I know, they go directly against the ethos of Simple Mobile Tools, and they're going to alienate your user base in their pursuit to make as much money as possible. What they're going to do with your set of apps is going to be so predictable that it's almoat comical, and I would never use an app published by them.

I hate the fact that these people think 15/week, ~65/month, is a great price for removal of ads and "premium support" when they suck at making updates and their apps need little to no support at all. Its all subterfuge to pretend that its a great service when its literally a nothing burger with gold shavings sprinkled on top. Jerks and a giant waste of space on the internet, and the developers not announcing the fact they are selling the apps are just as big of jerks for being non-transparent.

Time to edit all my posts to boycott these apps and stop them from hurting our communities.

If someone will fork it i will definetly help and contribute.

@naveensingh I think you should just do it if you really want, you should not push the dev into "allowing" it because this is a shady company..

I have no experience in Kotlin but i want to learn it anyway so...

I dont think we should also fork everything

• its too much work
• there are better (for some simple apps) alternatives anyway

(for example the calculator)

It's always a controversial step and even though I too hate this sale, I support the original author for this decision.

On a personal level, it's hard to maintain open source software without any significant financial support. Even if everything goes right, there could be lots of nuances going on in his life at a personal level which we don't need to know, that could be driving this decision.

Since Simple Mobile Tools is a Gold Sponsor of Linux Mint, I feel the situation must be dire for him to take such a step now.

The beauty of FOSS software lies in the fact that anybody can fork and continue the maintenance. We don't need to expect or rely on the original author to support the software in perpetuity 🙂.

I believe the best we can do here is to tell him we are unhappy about this, but we still respect his decision and his personal space. Thank you @tibbi for creating and maintaining these awesome apps all these years!

So, your typical user that is currently using google play simple mobile apps will just randomly one day get ads on apps they installed and possibly some personal data mined via telemetry? Am I missing something?

@musq

It's always a controversial step and even though I too hate this sale, I support the original author for this decision.

On a personal level, it's hard to maintain open source software without any significant financial support. Even if everything goes right, there could be lots of nuances going on in his life at a personal level which we don't need to know, that could be driving this decision.

Since Simple Mobile Tools is a Gold Sponsor of Linux Mint, I feel the situation must be dire for him to take such a step now.

I dont respect that decision. If he said what was happening and some good reason for that, before this happened then I could and would respect that decision. Maybe he would even get that money from us if we knew what would happened without that.

The official website PlayStore dev ID linked to : https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=9070296388022589266 (Simple Mobile Tools) with 0 apps. [archives]

While all apps repository badges linked to : https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=8214346176194980263 (Simple Mobile Tool). Here no "developer website" provided in Additional Information. [archives]
What's going on?

The official website PlayStore dev ID linked to : https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=9070296388022589266 (Simple Mobile Tools) with 0 apps. [archives]

While all apps repository badges linked to : https://play.google.com/store/apps/dev?id=8214346176194980263 (Simple Mobile Tool). Here no "developer website" provided in Additional Information. [archives] What's going on?

The Developer (tibbi) renamed his 'developer/business' name for his apps pending sale to ZipoApps.

I presume he renamed the developer account that holds the suite of apps so he can retain the name "Simple Mobile Tools" on another as he owns the domain name.

Going through all the apps on his developer page on Google Play, SMS Messenger, Calendar, Flashlight, Contacts, Gallery, Draw, File Manager, Camera, Calculator, Keyboard, Notes now all have the "contains ads" warning.

A major breach of trust considering his own website says, and I quote:

"A group of simple, open source Android apps without ads and unnecessary permissions, with customizable colors."

In other words: He sold his installed userbase to another company.

So, will the people using these apps get a notification or any prompt inside that app informing them of the sale/ads/telemetry?

Well, I've already forked and mirrored all the repos to my own Forgejo server, plus grabbed the latest APKs. If enough people do that same, we can rebuild from here.

not really, thats not how it works

I'm kinda shocked that you are not aware of the terms of the licence your projects are protected by. No matter how they are going to relicence parts of the codebase or fork them, making the projects closed source is a clear violation of the terms. The whole point of this licence is to prevent that from happening. But I guess it's not your problem after all. It's the buyers problem and I'm sure they are aware of it, don't care and will do it anyways. But If someone is willing to spent time and resources on this, they could let the whole transaction fail because it's not quite legal what they seem to be planing and if they can't make them closed source, they might not want to buy them after all. Just making you aware...

You don't owe anyone anything, you are just trying to make a living without being miserable like the rest of us. Thank you for your work so far, I'll simply migrate to another app and not insult you for not working on something you don't enjoy anymore just for my own benefit like a narcissistic manchild. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors.

Is there any resolution as to the GPL issues raised in the thread?
If there isn't a CLA, you're not legally allowed to relicense GPL code.

This is quite a pressing issue, as it means that the new owner can't
just move the apps into a private repository and add their usual
array of bloatware, adtech, etc. Instead, it would need to be open-source.

![thats-bait.gif]

You're right he owes you everything, let me know how the court case goes since this is illegal and he's not just hurting your feelings by not maintaining your favourite apps until death

You're right he owes you everything, let me know how the court case goes since this is illegal and he's not just hurting your feelings by not maintaining your favourite apps until death

You know exactly that this is not what this is about.

You know exactly that this is not what this is about.

So sue him then, or is complaining in github comments until you get bored all you're capable of?

It would be great if we could avoid (ego-driven) flamebait and focus on the actual issues :/

not really, thats not how it works

I'm kinda shocked that you are not aware of the terms of the licence your projects are protected by. No matter how they are going to relicence parts of the codebase or fork them, making the projects closed source is a clear violation of the terms. The whole point of this licence is to prevent that from happening. But I guess it's not your problem after all.

It might be, if he signs a contract than contains a "I own all necessary rights to sell this code" clause and that isn't true.

It might be, if he signs a contract than contains a "I own all necessary rights to sell this code" clause and that isn't true.

You're totally right. That would mean all sorts of trouble.

Does this potentially open up Tibor Kaputa to lawsuits from other contributors of code to the SimpleMobileTools suite, assuming he sells their code without their consent, and if he does not have a license agreement allowing him the rights to do so?

Without these rights, he would only be able to legally sell his own self-written code to ZipoApps?

This is a massive disrespect to everyone who has ever donated or contributed.

Hope you are getting rich with this move @tibbi

Does this potentially open up Tibor Kaputa to lawsuits from other contributors of code to the SimpleMobileTools suite, assuming he sells their code without their consent, and if he does not have a license agreement allowing him the rights to do so?

Without these rights, he would only be able to legally sell his own self-written code to ZipoApps?

This is a massive disrespect to everyone who has ever donated or contributed.

He is allowed to sell the management and his code. which benefit of doubt lets assume he has done, Zipo has two options, either keep everything open source and just develop in house with code releases, Or remove all code that 3rd parties have contributed.

IF all of the code was sold as if he had the right to it, then yes, that opens up copyright violations and whatnot. IF zipo modified and distributes the code as is, that opens them up to the same can of worms. Any contributor who has code in the distributed apps can file a DMCA if the code is not opensource

Astian has forked all the tools with the firm promise to always keep the source open source and without selling the products, we also promise not to place advertising or sell user data. https://github.com/goastian.

We invite everyone to join the Astian Suite project

I have my hopes in @naveensingh's fork (https://github.com/FossifyX) as he was a long-time contributor to SMT, so I can be sure that he will continue the apps with old principles.

Hi @tibbi, respect for your work and SimpleMobileTools, but I think (IANAL) you're getting into murky water here and risking yourself and ZipoApps an interesting lawsuit.

The GPL protects source code more than liberal licences do. In particular, unless contributors have transferred copyright ownership of their contributions to you, you cannot unilaterally decide to re-license the source code and make it proprietary. This may be different for liberal licences, but the GPL specifically protects source code to a greater extent. Also, whatever proprietary adware ZipoApps wants to add is not compatible with the GPL. Therefore, unless you go and strip out every single third-party contribution to the source, the legal basis for re-licensing looks bleak.

I think the real question is what do you think should change to make future development of the apps sustainable. Are you simply looking for more funding, or have you given up altogether? These apps are great and used by every single GrapheneOS user that I know. I think everyone here wants their development to continue.

@naveensingh and other contributors, if you are unhappy about your copyrighted code being closed source and abused by the new owner, you could try sending a copyright infringement notice to Google Play store to take the app down. Easy way to do something if you want to, rather than wasting effort with lawyers.

IMO the only real value to the new owner is the Google Play Store account as it allows them to make a quick return by pushing ads/spyware to millions of unsuspecting users.

I have seen this before where a FOSS owner will sell control of the FF/Chrome extension store account or Google Play store account and the sketchy owner just push ads out on the store. If anything, by taking down, you save the community of users.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Put a donation link once the new fork stabilizes.

Not sure about the future plans, they likely wont be open source. But that means that the f-droid variants will stay the same as now.

Translation: "gpl violations inbound but thats not my problem any more"
Its funny to see how little you care about a detail that (hopefully) will sink the entire sale, leaving you with no acquisition and a completely tanked reputation

@floopered "Its funny to see how little you care about a detail that (hopefully) will sink the entire sale, leaving you with no acquisition and a completely tanked reputation"

Unless you contributed large sums of money to SMT, I don't see how you can justify such a harsh response. Tibbi has likely devoted thousands of hours for years on these apps and you hope he gets a completely tanked rep? Furthermore, the apps have been open-source from the beginning and they are still available for no charge on F-Droid. Not only that, but Naveem, one of the project's contributors has forked all the apps (see above) and has committed to maintaining them. How about you?
[Edit: confusing sentence]

@floopered "Its funny to see how little you care about a detail that (hopefully) will sink the entire sale, leaving you with no acquisition and a completely tanked reputation"

Unless you contributed large sums of money to SMT, I don't see how you can justify such a harsh response. Tibbi has likely devoted thousands of hours for years on these apps and you hope he gets a completely tanked rep? Furthermore, the apps have been open-source from the beginning and they are still available for no charge on F-Droid. Not only that, but Naveem, one of the project's contributors has forked all the apps (see above) and has committed to maintaining them. How about you? [Edit: confusing sentence]

The reason there is such a harsh response isn't because we don't appreciate the hours they have put in, it is because the community was bait-and-switched with no warning, if this was just discussed beforehand, it wouldn't have been as huge of a deal as it is.

At current, it appears to be a sellout because of the way that it was done, with 0 input from the community or contributors.

@tibbi Hello, a pleasure Alfonso, we are in charge of the Midori browser oriented towards privacy, security and before selling, please let's talk.

You are in charge of an abandoned app? Midori hasn't been updated on F-Droid in 2 years! To maintain proper security browsers typically receive weekly updates, and sometimes more. If you took over SMT apps what's to say you wouldn't abandon them as well?

The general UX is getting worse for both users and devs for quite a few years now.

In what way is Android getting worse for users? I see nothing but improvements using GrapheneOS.

@tibbi Hello, a pleasure Alfonso, we are in charge of the Midori browser oriented towards privacy, security and before selling, please let's talk.

You are in charge of an abandoned app? Midori hasn't been updated on F-Droid in 2 years! To maintain proper security browsers typically receive weekly updates, and sometimes more. If you took over SMT apps what's to say you wouldn't abandon them as well?

Friend Midori has never been abandoned, the project is more alive than ever, we have been working on the migration to Gecko y Geckoview

https://news.itsfoss.com/midori-11/

https://ubunlog.com/midori-11-ya-fue-liberado-y-estas-son-sus-novedades/

https://alternativeto.net/news/2023/11/midori-11-0-released-with-improved-performance-and-integration-with-other-astian-services/

Midori, a project that was left for dead years ago, we achieved that and much more, the fact that in F-droid there is no update does not mean that it has been abandoned, the last update on Google Play is recent and we have not released anything because we are working now on Geckoview, and to the Midori community on Telegram we promised to return to F-droid but it has never been abandoned.

Please avoid uninformed comments or hateful messages or destructive criticism because we know what we're doing.

While I appreciate everyones contribution, you should know that like 99% of the current code has been written by me and other paid devs, so no need to overreact the licensing thing...

Anyway, thanks for the support, but Im locking the conversation as it doesnt really lead anywhere. Wishing you all the best :)