UBlock-LLC taking code from ad blocker uBlock Origin without proper attribution | Hacker News Reader

UBlock-LLC taking code from ad blocker uBlock Origin without proper attribution

twitter.com

151 pointsk1m22 comments

Not only having code stolen without attribution, but stolen by the company running AdBlock, who appears to have just co-opted the uBlock brand. This is GPL'ed code being stolen with clearly deceptive and rent-seeking behavior. I wonder if the Software Freedom Conservancy would be interested in taking a look? https://sfconservancy.org/

I thought that it was by the same scammer that ran ublock.org?

From my understanding, the original turd that began soliciting donations for uBlock was made an offer to sell the Github repo to the turds behind AdBlock. And what you're seeing here is a clear demonstration of that group's very poor understanding of the law.

Thank you for explaining. Would you happen to know if he is still involved with the project (as an employee or something)?

That I do not know, sorry. While he is not a good programmer (judging from what little is available on his Github), the AdBlock rent-seekers do not seem to have technical skills (judging from the way they do things). So I could see a justification for either case.

Couple of advise for the original uBlock origin author (gorhill)

- Please get the extension together under one platform instead of forks and stuff (MacOS, Edge). This problem will keep the fake uBlock alive otherwise.

- "uBlock" name is already involved too much with unpleasing issues. Would you consider renaming your product? I think renaming would solve more problems than you would think.

Thanks for the extension btw :)

Consider gorhill may not have the resources or interest in doing all this work. uBlock Origin is a fantastic free product but it's a little chaotic. I wish it could be different.

I totally understand that. It is not an easy job.

I ask about renaming the product back in 2016 [1] and the author response was:

I won't change the name -- it is too well established now.

It's unfortunate that ublock.org causes confusion, but in the end he is hurting himself more in the long run than he is hurting uBlock Origin, it's a conscious choice he made to scam people,[1][2] he will have to deal with whatever consequences there is doing so.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1451

I did not know that. Well, I am sorry that he has to deal with this BS. These kind of issues drains a lot energy especially when it comes to OS software.

Going by what happened to the verious 'adblock' extensions I think changing the name is a temporary solution at best.

Without some kind of strong trademark protection it's apparently impossible to not have extensions with misleadingly similar names pop up.

Note: UBlock-LLC is owned by Betafish, the company behind AdBlock.

This isn’t the first time that code base has been ripped off. Must be frustrating for the authors.

It looks like the UBlock-LLC still has a GPLv3 license file. Are they violating the license in some way?

Yes, they violated the license. [0] They just stole his commits and changed the name, like some sort of cartoon clown business. The license requires conspicuous copyright attribution and statement and explanation of changes. Meaning, not just some untrue one-liner buried at the bottom of a wall of text. What they've been doing is obviously not in line with the terms of their use of the code.

[0] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4577/does-gpl...

What's with forks of adblockers just lightly modifying the name?

uBlock -> uBlock Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History

Adblock -> Adblock Plus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus#History_and_stati...

Is the temptation of skimming off existing branding worth the mass confusion?

uBlock is the fork, not uBlock Origin.

In fact the current AdBlock has no relation to the original AdBlock:

>AdBlock's efforts are not related to Adblock Plus. The developer of AdBlock, Michael Gundlach, claims to have been inspired by the Adblock Plus extension for Firefox, which is itself based on the original Adblock that ceased development in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock

And as another commenter pointed out, uBlock was transferred to another developer and the original developer forked it to continue as uBlock Origin. Why still doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s a mess and it’s all so morally questionable.

> the original developer forked it to continue as uBlock Origin. Why still doesn’t make sense to me.

The original developer forked it because the new maintainer he had entrusted it to was trying to monetise by collecting donations under alleged false pretenses, while allegedly removing attribution of other previous contributors. Many/most of those previous contributors to original uBlock went on to follow the original dev and contribute to the Origin fork.

Many site owners don’t like you blocking the ads that fund the site, but still incurring costs by using the service.

They might see this as poetic justice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com