[silviot]

The authors have this to say about it:

> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.

Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613

[_cenw]

Isn't the solution to this more generally to trademark your name, not to change your license to something less permissive?

[prmoustache]

Doesn't make it open source. And as someone commented before me, trademarks can take care of this without using a proprietary license.

[2Gkashmiri]

you can use Mozilla public license and still do that. you can do that with AGPL no problem.

[theK]

Is there a documented best practice for doing this with the MPL?

[alexvoda]

The best practice is to consult an IP lawyer.

[theK]

I agree, hiring law professionals with proven expertise in the relevant domains can be a valid (and costly) way to do get assurance.

As the parent hints that there are documented ways to do this sort if thing with open source licenses I would like to hear from them how this is done, just because you or I don't know it doesn't mean that somebody else hasn't found a bulletproof, court trsted way to do this.

[theK]

Interesting approach, hopefully it works out because the problem they are addressing is an important one IMO.

If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork.

EDIT: typos