Mupen64Plus "Code License"

I was recently made aware that some branches of my app (Mupen64Plus, Android Edition.. a port of Mupen64Plus to Android), published by a couple of other developers, were taken down from Google Play after an individual named Michael T. (For privacy reasons, I'm not writing his full last name), filed a DMCA claim with Google. In it he cited the following copyright violation:

These developers have stolen our source code and rereleased it as an app filled with adware. He has violated our Code License.

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that one of the targets was an individual who did the same thing to me and I was certainly not sad to see him go, this still concerns me a great deal. Since Mupen64Plus is released under the GNU General Public License Version 2, and the developers released the full source code for their apps, I do not understand what term of the license was violated. The statement implies that attaching an adware system to a project is a violation of the GPL. I do not see anywhere in the license that indicates this. I suspect this wasn't the only problem that Michael had with the apps, though, because one of the apps he had taken down didn't have adware in it.

I have a couple of questions, perhaps some folks on here may know:

1) Is there an individual named Michael on the Mupen64Plus dev team? (I would assume he goes by a developer alias if so) I want to rule out the possibility that this individual was just pretending to represent Mupen64Plus and abusing the DMCA for whatever reason.

2) Specifically, which term in the GPL was violated (I assume there were different violations for each app cited, since like I mentioned not all of the apps had adware in them)

3) Does anyone on the Mupen64Plus dev team have a problem with my app (Mupen64Plus, AE)? If so, what specifically, and what do you want to see done to correct it?

That's the thing. All of them had the full source code posted on SourceForge (yes there were heavy modifications to make it run on Android.. I wrote or incorporated most of these modifications into Mupen64Plus AE, which these apps were branched from). Even the linkage to the adware code was posted in their respective repositories. It doesn't seem that the issue was not releasing the source code, but rather with the adware itself (although one of them didn't have adware anyway). I'm not a lawyer either, so just trying to figure this out and make sure I'm not in violation of anything with my project too.

They were all released under the GPL, so I'm thinking the same thing that it was an issue with a profit being made (although the GPL specifically addresses this in the preamble, so it isn't a violation of the license to make a profit, as long as the terms of the license are met).

You may have a point about the name I chose (although that wouldn't apply to the branches anyway). I mainly kept it to give the Mupen64Plus team credit, so users wouldn't think I wrote the emulator entirely myself since they did most of the work. The AE at the end distinguishes it, the icon is modified, and the documentation says that even though it is a port of Mupen64Plus it is not officially supported. Far as I know, everyone who has had problems with the app has come to me for assistance and not Richard or Hacktarux, so I feel like folks get that there's a difference. But it could still be a concern to someone.

Thanks, Richard, I do appreciate your support. I haven't figured out a good contact for Google yet that isn't automated, though (impossible to talk to a real person about a developer related issue). Emails to the support address get kicked back unless they are from a Gmail account with an open case. Maybe you could email something to my Gmail account and I could forward it to Google (although frankly I think they are ignoring my emails, because I ever get any response).

Btw, there is some LGPL code in my source (the SDL components), but the majority is GPL, and I think the two are compatible.

Google's system for DMCA claims is completely automated, so unfortunately there are no "smarts" in place to smell out the trolls. Case in point, a random guy in China got my account permanently banned by filing fake claims against the donation version of Mupen64Plus AE I had on there a while back. Never once was able to talk to a real person at Google, and my counter claims and emails to developer support were completely ignored. My guess is they'd rather just wash their hands of the whole thing rather than hiring someone to actually look into these cases to make sure they aren't complete bogus.

BTW, Techworkz (the guy whose branch doesn't have ads in it) got another DMCA filed against his app he re-published, from the same Michael T. character. This time he actually received an email as well:

I am the lead committer of the Mupen64 project, based in Romania. Do not attempt to reupload the app as I will file a DMCA claim against it. I have successfully filed DMCA claims against all N64 Emulators on the Google Play market because they all violate my code license.

If too many of your apps get taken down, your Google account will be banned.

Click to expand...

Maybe we'll have more luck communicating with him directly this time to figure out who he is and what terms of the GPL specifically he believes are being violated. I expect he is just a random vigilante who is taking advantage of Google's flawed system to follow a calling that he apparently feels is worth committing perjury over. Really irks me that people can get away with this BS.

Turns out "Michael Tompkinsal" is just an alias. This is actually Brad Geng again, the same guy who got my Google Play account banned by filing fake DMCA claims against Mupen64Plus AE a few months ago so he could corner the market with his branch. The way I figured out who he is is a long story, so I won't go into it here (I have a six-page thread that goes into this thing in more detail on my forum at paulscode.com for anyone who wants more information). The guy even filed DMCA claims from this alias against his own apps published under his other alias (his head is clearly not screwed on very straight). He seems to just be someone having fun screwing around with the system because he can get away with it. Probably some 12-year old kid "joy riding" with an IP proxy.

Anyway, sorry for bringing this up on here (I probably should have done a little more homework before I started this thread).