I completely agree that people should be warned not to install the app from the play store, however, isn’t the app under an MIT license (as stated in the LICENSE file)?
Doesn’t the MIT license permit “deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software” as long as they include the MIT license (which perhaps they have not done, but I have not checked)?
If they did include a copy of the license, then wouldn’t it be incorrect that the copy of the app is “counterfeit”?
I am quite possibly incorrect about all of the above.
The cry of the so-called permissive licenses adopters are never ending
Then again, even if GPL2/3 was used, you’d still be at the hand of Google to report it, but you might have the reason as “violates license for not providing source code” or somethin. For MIT? Nothing can be said…
Reading through the Google Play policies (Developer Policy Center) I am guessing that the particular part of the policy, that is violated in this case, is the impersonation and/or intellectual property clause(s).
Looking at the listing, I see no claim that the “author” is the original developer and again, I see no evidence that the license (MIT in this case) has been violated (other than perhaps the license is not included or stated - maybe it is within the app, but I have no desire to install it to find out). Too me, not including the original copyright notice would indeed violate the policy. Is that all that they would have to do then to be compliant (with the license and the Play policy)?
What am I missing? Which part of the Google Play policy is violated?
I only ask these questions as I find the MIT license and the often misunderstanding of it (including my own) quite interesting.
Ah! Having the same app ID, to me (dilettantishly), is sufficient for violating the Play policy (impersonation). Whether Google agrees or would do anything about it is another question.
