Code theft: Codease uses my LLBLGen 1.x sourcecode as if it is theirs!

This morning I found out that CodeAse, sells a tool, CodeAse 2.0, which is just LLBLGen 1.x but with different screencolors. LLBLGen 1.x is BSD licensed, but that doesn't mean you can simply rebadge it and sell it as if you wrote it! The BSD license clearly states you have to mention the original author of the work you use in your software in the About box and documentation. This didn't happen.

This apparently is the downside of releasing software under the BSD license: there are always lazy people around which just grab your hard work and act as if they spend 3 months of programming the stuff, because they didn't.

To all the people who want to purchase CodeAse 2.0: you can better get the free LLBLGen, it's the same code and it doesn't cost you a dime: To all the people who have already purchased CodeAse 2.0: you bought a product which violated the license of the code it contains. I'm not sure what that means for your situation, but if I look at SCO, I'd drop CodeAse on the spot.


  • this is exactly the problem with the licence you chose. Don't forget that Microsoft uses BSD code in Windows with only very minor notification, and basically unless you choose a different licence, there's nothing you can do about this. In fact I think the BSD licence no longer contains the advertising clause....

  • That Export .NET sounds like McLaws' GenX control.

    I'll mail him about this. Thanks for the tip.

  • It can also be's eXport.NET... but that's commercial too... A bit too much work perhaps to create your own tool with that.

    I'm not aware of an open source excel exporter tool for .NET, if there is, it's a likely candidate...

  • this company is also called orilogic. The exporter is not real Excel, it just seems (from reflector) to emit HTML, which Excel can parse.....

  • Just spread the word folks. If this isn't outright theft, it's certainly in the gray area. Word of mouth might be sufficient to at least partially nullify their ill gotten gain.

  • Sheesh. There are always slackers ripping off the hard work of others.

  • Well, well,

    Thanks Martin for letting me know. Theft is theft, I guess that for some people, nothing is sacred!

  • Frans,

    how do you deal with the situation?

    Are you going to let them know, that they have stolen your source ?

  • I've mailed them, they mailed me back that they disagreed... The license is very clear, very small and they didn't meet any of the points. Their product is for over 90% my code, still they claim copyright.

    They're in singapore, I'm in The Netherlands, I'm not really sure what to do, besides spreading the word. I hope enough people will know that they are just trying to make a quick buck by deliberately not obeying a license.

  • what makes it so bad is that all they have to do to comply with the license is say that the code is based on LLBLGen and then point out the things they added. They did add a few things and the price is low enough, there really is no excuse for this at all.

    But don't let a thief and liar change your view on licensing, it doesn't matter what license your code was under (GPL or non-open), a thief is a thief and they don't care which rule they break. Their answer is "we didn't use your code" so that wouldn't change just because your licensing terms changed.

  • Shannon: Yeah, they had to do so little, it's absurd they didn't do it.

    Well, one advantage of the GPL any other license will never have: it has a big group of followers which are very active. Spreading the word of a GPL violation on for example /. will mobilize these groups instantly and it's a bit of power towards the violator you miss when you use another type of license, unfortunately :/

  • I'm sure you could do the same with the BSD license, but the fact (sometimes) sad fact is that the physical distance and political differences between you and the thiefs means that the chance of anything ever happening is slim-to-none.

    I notice they did remove the blatently stolen article from their site, so they do have some sense, maybe there is hope.

  • As a last resort I yesterday asked them why they didn't simply obey the license terms and suddenly they were willing to do so. I've mailed what I wanted them to do (adding a single line to the about box, as stated in the license) however haven't heared since. I'll try mailing them later today again.

  • THanks JF, it's also on slashdot now (not the FP, in the ask /. section).

    I've mailed them again, see if they respond...

  • Honestly I don't think it'd matter if the code was GPL or BSD - companies like this would take the code anyway.


    s'ok Frans, LLBLGen Pro beats the snot out of 1.2. ;)

  • Brian :)

    Yeah, I don't think the license itself will stop them. It's however the crowd of followers who can stop them...

  • It has been solved. They 've updated the application and documentation. :)

Comments have been disabled for this content.