Actually, this whole site is pretty strange. Lots of code and open source projects just kinda copied into an app library.
> Developers Earn Money On Outpan!
> How It Works
> Once you choose to monetize your apps we'll take care of everything. Outpan will use sophisticated ads with optimized placements on your apps to autmatically generate revenue for you.
From https://www.outpan.com/developers
So basically this is monetization spam
Not trying to be overly cynical, but I don't know how true that is. It's still possible this was lifted without the creator's consent.
"Musical Chord Progression Arpeggiator by LetsPlayAGame A quick way to sketch out musical chord progressions.
Copyright (c) 2019 by Jake Albaugh
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."
So that looks to be mostly in the clear, but it would be nice to know if the uploader really is the creator.
That said, there are also many proprietary apps and games on Outpan too and if an app is posted by someone who doesn't have the rights to do so, it is removed and the user is banned; then again with open source, as long as the license is valid and the terms followed properly, we can't really remove them. In the case of this particular app, it was under MIT license as mentioned in the about section. I understand that the 'About' section of the app may not be super clear causing confusion, we'll try to make it more visible.
This is common on mobile app stores too: for example there are many variations of the ZXing barcode app which all follow the terms of the open source license, some are even paid apps.
Another example would be cloud services offering commercial products based on mysql, redis, elastic...
As a community, do we want to be sending eyeballs to the original source, or a monetized copy?
OP is free to do what he or she is doing, we are free to block it as spam or link to the original source.
I can see why this would get some people fired up. It definitely feels a little gross presented in this manner. But... it IS MIT liscense. Nobody made the author release it this way.
He could have easily released the demo on his own website and not provided the code "without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies".
I'm glad people pointed out the original author, I just went and browsed his codepen page. But we have to assume he is OK with people coyping or even selling the code assuming the license is not breached.
I'm saying that links to this kind of aggregator have no place on Hacker News. What benefit is it to the community to have the authorship hidden and ads added?
Talking about licensing is orthogonal to my point. Blogspam is totally legal and not accepted here. This is no different.
Not the first spam, one of which was even titled Show HN: