[mehh]

First off, looks like a nice app, well done.

So what exactly is your objection? You open-sourced it under GPL, you mentioned they made some changes, have they not open sourced them and thus broke the terms of the Licence, is that what bothers you?

Or is it lack of attribution and notifying you, which would be a decent and respectful thing to do?

What was your actual intention here: 1. Create an app to help the world during this terrible time? 2. Build something you could make some money from? 3. Build something to get kudos from?

As it stood your app wasn't available as Apple rejected it, these guys made it available and thus if your goal was option 1 they helped you!

If option 2, then you failed upon failure and serves you right.

If option 3, I'm not sure you GPL requires attribution within the app, but they do have to open source there changes and thus should make it clear, its built upon your work.

[mhdhejazi]

It'd be totally fine had they respected the license or attributed the project. It's great to know that people use your app and find it useful, and that's why I offered the app to JHU to publish it in their name when Apple rejected it. I'm bothered more by the way the app is published without attribution and how I knew about that.

[pengaru]

Does your app have an About App page or other clearly visible GPLv3 banner containing your name, which they then removed?

[mehh]

That sounds like a fair complaint to me!

[jiveturkey]

how exactly did they not respect the license?

i just don't understand your complaint at all.

[smichel17]

The GPL requires that derivatives (A) credit you, and (B) release their source under the same license.

IANAL but this is not nitpicky legal details; it's the entire point of a copyleft license.