Cobra Apps & Drivers License Changes

To be honest, I’m gobsmacked at some of the reactions too!


I'm also struggling to find the issue here.
It's your code and if you wish to wrap it in a license, good on you. It is your code after all.
I'm just glad that you take the time to publish code that all of us in this community can use.
It's certainly made my life easier.
Thanks again @Cobra


That's a little bit of a defensive reaction, I think. While I disagree with your statement about collaboration, you're free to do whatever you want with your code, obviously, it's your hard work after all.

Good luck.

I have no problem with it at all. Andy has done awesome work and it is appreciated. He does not have to provide ANY of it or maintain anything or such.

From my perspective I just want to make sure that if I look at "open source version 1.02" of something that it does not completely disappear as a reference when "not as open" version 1.03 comes out. Or if it will disappear, I just wanted to know.

In MOST cases you can view the history of the code uploaded. So if there is an older version that you need you should be able to "view repo as of this date" and get access to the version you need.

Ah, so a function of github really. Thanks! I host code on my own site mostly (have to do something with the domain and space I pay for) so not familiar with all github's possibilities. Makes perfect sense, but I have always been more worried about getting the latest version rather than the history (besides what is documented in the code).

I think it's incredibly generous of any software developer to let anyone use it completely free of charge. I am eternally grateful to Andy and the other skilled coders on here who contribute so much time and effort for the benefit of the whole community.

For anyone to then quibble in any way about restrictions on copying code and releasing it themselves is beyond my comprehension.


Cobra does great work, and writes great code. He has every right to control it how he sees fit - no argument there.

But it is also an end users right to not use things that have potentially damaging legal clauses in the terms of use wording - no matter how unlikely they are to come to fruition. If you can't see that as a valid stance, then :man_shrugging: .

Just wanted to chime in and say, THANK YOU. I've been using your apps across platforms for some time now. It is what it is and regardless of what direction it takes, thank you.

1 Like

No I can't see that as a valid stance to be honest. You can't accidently use someone else's code and release it as your own, which is the only time the licence would kick in, so I genuinely don't see the problem.

1 Like

You're entitled to your opinion, even though I disagree. :+1:

I'm always very cautious about 'reuse' clauses - they are subject to interpretation and misuse, and logic is not always the victor in those legal cases. If I didn't develop code and apps I probably wouldn't care, but I do.

I never re-use bulk code, and even when I leverage small code I cite sources diligently. But clauses like these make it too dicey to risk what a 'little bit' of code derivation is versus too much.

You are right, though, if you aren't a developer it doesn't really impact you.

Again, I'm not complaining and have no issue with what Cobra is doing at all. I'm just defending that there ARE other valid positions besides your own.

I think the key is that @Cobra wants to protect the code he's written. As I'm sure you do (at least occasionally), as a developer.

With that in mind, I suspect if you found use for some of his code and asked politely, he'd come up with a suitable arrangement to allow you to reuse the code.

As I fall in the camp of share-and-share-alike, I am disappointed that there wasn't a standard "free" software license granted, whether it be Creative Commons, GNU, or MIT... but that's his choice as author.

1 Like

I’ve been out for the evening and just came home to this.

Bottom line is that if you are a ‘user’ of my code then it makes absolutely no difference how it’s licensed if it is for your own use..
You obviously have the choice to use it or not as Jason has demonstrated.

If you are a developer and wish to include parts of my code in your own app for distribution then I’m happy to discuss your use (I don’t invisage any fee involved) and will probably grant permission to most people.

But, there are some “developers” (I use the term loosely) here and elswhere who I would never give permission to.
These are the people I am protecting my code from.

I’ll ask a question here...
It took me MONTHS of my free time coding, and weeks of beta testing (thanks again to my beta testers) debugging, refining and retesting to bring you Super Tile in it’s current form with the icons, countdown etc.
(I have a full time job too.)

Does anyone think that it is fair that someone is able to grab that code, change it a bit, then releases it under their own name?

This has already happened to me a couple of times with other code I have released and at the time, whilst I was furious, I could do nothing about it because I had released it as open source.
Now, with future releases, I will be able to do something, should I wish to.

The alternative to this new license is that I stop releasing updates to current apps and keep new apps for myself and a select few people who I trust.
This is really not the path I want to follow.

On an associated note..
If anyone is using my apps and no longer wishes to do so but has made a donation of any amount, then they are welcome to PM me with the details (date, amount and paypal account name) and I will happily refund them immediately without question.

At the end of the day, I will reiterate, if you don’t wish to be bound to the new license terms for my apps you may do as Jason has done and uninstall them.



So you're saying you don't want to see my awesome Viper Apps Andy?? :wink:

I think it's a totally valid move, and it's a hard space for developers to be in. It sounds like you're still community minded in what you're making, but just don't want to allow rogue elements to profit off you.

1 Like

Uber Tiles by Viper...coming soon


I was thinking Uber Tiles Plus. Everyone loves a plus! :stuck_out_tongue:


Much as I enjoy the entertainment provided here guys, it’s almost 2am here so time for bed!

1 Like

Should have been a mic drop at the end of that.

1 Like

Andy, FWIW I think your license is totally reasonable to prevent the abuse you mentioned--which sucks. Yeah people can be lame. That said, I wish it was more open to how we as a community work together as regards app and driver development.

Working with source code isn't unlike music, you can't be out working with other artists and not pick up things. Absolutely, nobody should be able to go sing your songs without attribution. But was that slide I just used in this song influenced by your use of it in another song? That's a tricky determination, and I hate being in courts (as per my other comment).

So based on your current license I avoid reading your code, very deliberately avoid clicking through, so that I can't possibly be influenced by any of your ideas. Because that seems to be the only way I as a developer can avoid infringing on your expressed rights.

As I stated in the other thread: there are existing open source licenses which will do what you've expressed in this thread, without the draconian cutoff of any and all shared development of ideas.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and it is disappointing people would steal your work and claim it as their own. Unfortunately it appears to be a fact of life anywhere nowadays (happens regularly enough to me at work even). Some cultures do not really even see it as a negative thing though, "we" are the fools for not protecting our work better or such.