[misnome]

Interesting - I hadn't considered that the BSD licence doesn't seem to require the copyright notice to be displayed before downloading - so it could display the copyright notice in the purchased program, and be compliant?

This case doesn't seem on the surface of it, to be completely clear cut. Is there a case to argue that it is morally wrong for them to charge for something that is free, (apparently) without adding value? Perhaps. Legally, though, the case might be different.

[dododo]

the bsd license says: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, .... in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

much of open source is redistributed at a cost, "(apparently) without adding value". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[chrisballinger]

I'm only interested in the representation of this software as his own, and including it in his "portfolio". If it turns out the BSD doesn't offer me strong enough legal protection against this kind of behavior, I will consider a move to the GPL with an App Store exception.

[misnome]

Incidentally, you mentioned you sent DMCA takedowns, but Chupamobile seems to offer submissions to it's own copyright notice address too on the T&C,

> "If you think your products has been copied or there was some breach of copyright please inform us by sending an email at report@chupamobile com, including:"...

So it might be worth hitting that also. I'd also like to make clear that I completely sympathise with your situation, if my other responses had implied otherwise.

[icebraining]

The GPL doesn't prevent people from selling your code as-is either, though it does prevent them from doing so using a different license.