Bitcoin Forum

Economy => Scam Accusations => Topic started by: SopaXT on June 07, 2017, 10:49:48 AM



Title: bitkeys.org - open source tools with copyrights removed
Post by: SopaXT on June 07, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
Hello!
I've noticed that user BitkeysOrganization (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=991710) runs a site, bitkeys.org, which offers various tools for working with Bitcoin.
They make it look like that the tools were developed by themselves and don't hesitate to openly ask for donations.
In fact, the tools offered on their site are stolen and stripped of copyrights:

https://bitkeys.org/bulkchecker - http://www.homebitcoin.com/easybalance/easybalance.html
https://bitkeys.org/bitkeys - https://bitaddress.org
https://bitkeys.org/BIP39Mnemonic - https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/
https://bitkeys.org/transaction - https://coinb.in

It's okay to republish open-source code, but replacing the copyrights and inserting your own donation address isn't.
When I posted in their original thread, they quickly removed it and made a new one.

Additionally, there might be backdoors inserted by them to snoop on users' private keys.


Title: Re: bitkeys.org - open source tools with copyrights removed
Post by: sweetdesirez on July 01, 2017, 09:10:30 PM
Hello!
I've noticed that user BitkeysOrganization (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=991710) runs a site, bitkeys.org, which offers various tools for working with Bitcoin.
They make it look like that the tools were developed by themselves and don't hesitate to openly ask for donations.
In fact, the tools offered on their site are stolen and stripped of copyrights:

https://bitkeys.org/bulkchecker - http://www.homebitcoin.com/easybalance/easybalance.html
https://bitkeys.org/bitkeys - https://bitaddress.org
https://bitkeys.org/BIP39Mnemonic - https://iancoleman.github.io/bip39/
https://bitkeys.org/transaction - https://coinb.in

It's okay to republish open-source code, but replacing the copyrights and inserting your own donation address isn't.
When I posted in their original thread, they quickly removed it and made a new one.

Additionally, there might be backdoors inserted by them to snoop on users' private keys.

So it was open source right? Then why are you crying so much just for credits? If you feel they have violated the licensee  terms by removing your name and adding their donation address, why don't you file a UDRP and get it down?


Title: Re: bitkeys.org - open source tools with copyrights removed
Post by: HCP on July 04, 2017, 06:14:43 AM
As I posted in the other thread... I think you'll find they have not broken any of the licensing rules attached to the "Open Source" bitaddress.org...

Quote from: view-source:https://bitkeys.org/bitkeys/bitaddress.org.html
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
   <!--
   Donation Address: 1BLockZ1y8xcf78cbSKdo88qLuJ8XUhtFL

   Notice of Copyrights and Licenses:
   ***********************************
   The bitaddress.org project, software and embedded resources are copyright bitaddress.org (pointbiz).
   The bitaddress.org name and logo are not part of the open source license.

   Portions of the all-in-one HTML document contain JavaScript codes that are the copyrights of others.
   The individual copyrights are included throughout the document along with their licenses.
   Included JavaScript libraries are separated with HTML script tags.

   Summary of JavaScript functions with a redistributable license:
   JavaScript function      License
   *******************      ***************
   window.Crypto         BSD License
   window.SecureRandom      BSD License
   window.EllipticCurve      BSD License
   window.BigInteger      BSD License
   window.QRCode         MIT License
   window.Bitcoin         MIT License
   window.Crypto_scrypt      MIT License

   The bitaddress.org software is available under The MIT License (MIT)
   Copyright (c) 2011-2016 bitkeys.org (pointbiz)

   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.

   GitHub Repository: https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org
   -->
The permissions are quite explicit that anyone can basically to whatever they want with the source code... including sell copies of it... as long as the copyright and permissions notices are left intact... which it would appear they have done... and by removing the bitaddress.org branding, they ARE adhering to the license... as the name and logo are not part of the open source license so must be removed.

I'm fairly sure the Mnemonic checker is also under MIT license... and so is Coinb.in... can't say for the balance checker, can't seem to find any License for it...

While it may be pretty poor form to not be as forthright as perhaps they should be that the code is a derivative work... it still isn't some sort of huge crime.


Title: Re: bitkeys.org - open source tools with copyrights removed
Post by: Spoetnik on July 04, 2017, 06:54:49 AM
Stripped & Replaced ?
Can you be specific in where you seen this violation ?

I don't like misrepresentation.
Making it look like you made the software is bad no matter how you want to split hairs.

Credit belongs to the rightful owner period.

But are the OP's claims here accurate ?
And them deleting your comment does sound bad though.
I think we all would need more info on this topic before picking a side.