How bizarre. The thief has already deleted the thread. So obviously guilty just by the fact that it's clearly a browser app inside a desktop wrapper. That makes absolutely no sense as an architecture decision. And it uses all of Photopea's libraries. Before the thread was deleted, they had spawned a few sub‑agents to come in and bully the Photopea creator. But none of it was believable; it was clearly an angry thief lashing out.
That makes absolutely no sense as an architecture decision.
It makes a lot of sense architecturally. It's much simpler to update a webpage than force every user to update their app when something needs to change. Consequently a lot of apps, especially on mobile, use a system webview with a page loaded from a server and rendered to look like the app for anything that gets regular updates. The alternative is having lots of versions of the page and needing to manage all the different variations of payloads from them.
Backwards compatibility in an API isn't that hard, but when there's a simpler option (a webview) people will take it.
That said, if there's no native stuff in the app, it is a bit harder to justify.
> It's much simpler to update a webpage than force every user to update their app when something needs to change.
The set of capabilities available to native desktop apps is a superset of the capabilities available to browser-based Web apps.* Ergo, if browser-based app distribution possesses some desirable quality, the same path is available** to a native app not built on W3C/WHATWG APIs.
* You can frequently come across people make a similar logical error in the opposite direction when it comes to being more distrusting of browser-based apps than native binaries, especially with an undue focus on the risk of the app exfiltrating your data over the network—even though a native binary can do strictly more damage than a browser-based app, which is at least confined to its sandbox and the associated execution model.
** It does require, though, that one actually take that path.
“ being more distrusting of browser-based apps than native binaries, especially with an undue focus on the risk of the app exfiltrating your data over the network”
Not a logical error. A notarized or app store app can be blocked from accessing the network so there is no data exfiltration happening. The malware risk is negligible thanks to Apple’s vetting.
“It's much simpler to update a webpage than force every user to update their app when something needs to change”
That much is true, but I consider this misfeature a clear disadvantage for the customers using the app, which are at the mercy of the developer.
The days of updates being something positive are long gone. Nowadays they’re a mix of UI redesigns requiring relearning stuff, spyware, unwanted bloat, bugs and a couple of actually useful things thrown in.
That's all wonderful until some dipshit decides to cut features because they were too much of a maintenance burden. At least with the desktop app you can push back and not update.
So far from your behavior - a 1 day old account with its only issue to accuse the original developer - seems to stick. Maybe that's a clue to how you've handled this?
There is zero chance the author of that issue read their own post.
The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable. Just adding source maps for those libraries is enough to become compliant.
I have no clue with regards to LGPL on the web but since it is delivered via WASM, there is a linking boundary so it might just be an issue regarding letting users bring their own implementation.
> The vast majority of license violations are just MIT or ASL projects whose license text got stripped in the minified deliverable.
"Just"? The requirement to retain verbatim copies of the license text and copyright notices is pretty much the whole point of those licenses. A downstream project that isn't following the terms of the license that it was offered under is violating the license, full stop.
(Side note: not a fan of the tribalism and reactionary tu quoque-y sentiments coming out in the comments here and in the linked comments on GitHub (which, to be fair, is predictably awful). If there are folks distributing unauthorized copies or derivative works of Photopea, those need to be taken down (or DMCAed). If Photopea itself is not in compliance with the licenses of its dependencies, it needs to be brought in compliance. Neither these things or nor some other acts undertaken by any of the persons involved cancels anything else out.)
there's the rub, ai cloned is not derivative in the copyright sense. we need to figure out what we value as a society here and let the law catch up. its wild right now
That's not the rub. We don't have to figure those things out here. The Photopea Offline repo that started this whole mess contains literal copies of the Photopea bundles/assets copied from the Photopea website.
that may be true, but doesnt change the outcome. that it's literal copyright infringement here is quaint: the same user can turn around and give us a new photopea clone with 0% matching code in about 10 minutes. then what?
When it comes to questions of copyright and the infringement of copyright, the small matter of whether or not infringement occurred is in fact not merely an inconsequential detail.
The MPL ones are nonsense (given that the analysis is not done on the "source code form" of the library), but MIT license requires attribution. Photopea should include an "About" with attribution of the libraries used to develop it.
The Apache license also says "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License".
Your net elevation change is just the difference in altitude between your starting point and your ending point. So yes, it’s independent of route, but that’s not what the term “climb” refers to. It’s not a net elevation change; it’s a cumulative elevation gain, because in bicycling and walking the in‑between parts burn energy. Human legs don’t have regenerative braking, so every time you gain a foot of altitude you don’t get those calories back when you lose a foot of altitude.
If you hook an Apple TV (or similar) up to any 4k TV, and turn CEC on (to let the Apple TV control it), and never set it up otherwise, it becomes a dumb monitor.
I suspect we're dealing with a child here with a cloud code subscription who isn't quite familiar with US copyright law or software licenses yet.