[chrisballinger]

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of ChatSecure nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code. Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own.

Representing someone else's work as your own is plagiarism, regardless of the software license.

[beagle3]

Note: I think these guys are obnoxious freeloaders, and I'm on your side, however:

> I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the license was that you had to attribute me if you were selling my source code.

Perhaps they do - and if they do, they are within their rights (as granted to them by yourself through the BSD license).

> Either way, they are the ChatSecure name to promote themselves and representing the work as their own.

That would be a trademark violation, and potentially false representation.

As for trademark, if you want to take legal action, you probably need to register it with the USPTO (assuming you are in the US). I am not a lawyer either, but when I inquired about it a few years ago, it was apparently required to register trademarks and copyrights before taking legal action.

False pretenses have much higher standard than you would assume: Unless they write anywhere "we are the sole author of this work", they are probably legally ok.

If this affair upsets you (as it seems it does), you would probably be better off with a GPL license - it's a signal to (ab)users that you care, as opposed to BSD which is a signal that you don't.

I think you are the good guy here, but I'm not sure you have much legal standing after using the BSD -- unless they removed your copyright notices.

[misnome]

IANAL, but reading this: - Redistributions of Source Code must retain....

Doesn't seem to me to exclude selling the source code without displaying the information up front, as long as the copyright notice is still included with the source code (which we don't know, because we don't know anyone who bought it). And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used.

Edit: fceccon pointed out that the name and logo are being used in the header, so yes that seems to make it much more clear cut, albeit turning on the legal definition of "Derived"

[fceccon]

    And I can't see the third clause being triggered, because neither the name you gave it, or your name are being used.

They're using the ChatSecure logo and name on the page[1] header, so I think the third clause is triggered.

[1] http://www.chupamobile.com/products/details/600/Secured+Chat...