Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

My impression is that they aren’t legally allowed to reuse any of the source code that was ever used in vanced.

But if they create a new thing as a new team and claim that it shares nothing with vanced; and, critically, they never release the source code from the original vanced (which presumably hasn’t been subpoenaed); then they can reuse the source code, because nobody will know the difference.

This, presumably, would be what they mean by “complications” if they release Vance’s code: it’ll retroactively prove that their new """unrelated""" project is actually related after all.

View on HN

Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with that.

bytecode, not source code.

Modified bytecode, not just bytecode (or else any APK hoster would be illegal)

Any APK hoster which distributes bytecode (or any other software) without prior permission acts illegaly.

Redistribution of copyright protected material requires authorization of the right holder. Code (or programs compiled from code), usually fall under this rule.

(In the US) hoster privilege usually allows them to not be liable unless they know about a specific infraction. In some jurisdictions some platforms (such as youtube) are required to monitor uploads proactively for known copyright violations.

As noted in OP, the takedown was related to reuse of trademark (logo, name), not redistribution of the modified binary.

The comment tread is arguing that it's hard to prove modified binary rather than the easier way; reuse of the trademark. Either way, both the modification and redistribution are illegal.

> because nobody will know the difference

Bytecode inspection is a thing. It isn't too hard to know if two apks share a large amount of source.

Bytecode inspection works both ways in this case.

Vanced itself is based on decompiled bytecode of original Youtube app. Another team can build on top of Vanced app just like Vanced devs built on top of Youtube app. So we wouldn't necessarily say whether it is using a hypothetical "source code" leaked by Vanced team or not by bytecode inspection (nor would it matter much).

But why? If the complaint is just about the logo this makes no sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com