Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection • Hacker News Board

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#71

Post by overfeed » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 1:56 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #52

Lammy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

> Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. How is it a fallacy? The ability to pull in MIT/BSD code into a commercial product without providing the source is an extra freedom over (say) the GPL. The license does give end-users one more freedom than copyleft licenses? Some folks may not like that extra bit of freedom, and want to put the restriction that you have to (re-)share the cod…

> The license does give end-users one more freedom than copyleft licenses?

IMO,the end-user is the person downloading and using the software from the app store, not the free-riding intermediary who repackages it. Copyleft ensures the end users can modify their software by guaranteeing access to its source code, and it accomplishes this by constraining any privileges of would-be intermediary repackagers from impinging this fundamental end-user right.

When judging which software offers more rights, you must first establish which party you prefer to have primacy: downstream developers, or the users of the software who run the released packages on their devices.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#72

Post by thraway3837 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:41 AM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #62

thraway3837 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, your response is mostly accurate. But lets not hide under some "Popescu never lied". I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance of Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument and then acted like he was 100% innocent when Apple explained to him in very clear terms what the issue was and was told exactly what he needed to do in order to resolve it and get back into good standi…

> I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance That's a copout for such a harsh public accusation. > Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument Or? So you're already equivocating. Originally you claimed that he was sharing the account, but then when I pointed out that he only paid for the other account, you've moved the goalposts to "shared an account or payment instrument". But w…

huh? Popescu ruined his reputation within the community from this behavior. Everyone was misled by his initial claims, because he had been in contact with Apple over his misconduct for quite some time before he was kicked off the App Store and then went crying to the press with lies.

Not sure how that is not everything I claimed it to be. Omitting or saying one thing and then eventually admitting "oh yeah, actually this other thing did happen", its irrelevant what that "thing" was, because it was material to the kick ban and it was a lie by omission. Is that what you're pulling hairs over?

Defending an individual against megaEvilCorp is commendable, but in this case (and many other cases), Apple is in the right here. The developers who get kick banned are all scammers or worse.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#73

Post by lapcat » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 10:42 AM UTC

thraway3837 wrote: post #72

lapcat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance That's a copout for such a harsh public accusation. > Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument Or? So you're already equivocating. Originally you claimed that he was sharing the account, but then when I pointed out that he only paid for the other account, you've moved the goalposts to "shared an account or payment instrument". But w…

huh? Popescu ruined his reputation within the community from this behavior. Everyone was misled by his initial claims, because he had been in contact with Apple over his misconduct for quite some time before he was kicked off the App Store and then went crying to the press with lies. Not sure how that is not everything I claimed it to be. Omitting or saying one thing and then eventually admitting "oh yeah, actually t…

> huh?

Is "huh" supposed to be your evidence?

> Popescu ruined his reputation within the community

False.

> Everyone was misled

False.

> he had been in contact with Apple over his misconduct for quite some time before he was kicked off the App Store

He had no misconduct. Your narrative is completely false. Popescu used his credit card to pay for the account of a relative who abused that account. This is the only thing that happened. Apple's systems auto-closed Popescu's own innocent account because it was associated with the same credit card.

I would note that the ban was only temporary, and Apple eventually corrected its mistake. For example, Popescu's Mac app continues to be notarized by Apple, which would not be possible if Apple banned Popescu as a scammer. You can download the app yourself and verify this.

And again, you've produced no evidence for your baseless, scurrilous claims. I won't reply again unless you have links and quotations. I've given documented evidence, including from Gruber himself. You've offered nothing but untruths, things you've seemingly invented in your own mind.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#74

Post by archagon » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #18

Lammy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stealing an open source repo It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back. Nor is the copycat project prevente…

Can confirm. I used to hate when people published their code under MIT instead of GPL. But now that I work at a startup that competes with a few open source offerings, I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over.

It will be absolutely hilarious when open source projects adopt the jqwik approach and start prompt injecting their code, comments, and any/all other text content. The LLM users’ histrionics will be delicious.

Re: Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection

#75

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 3:19 AM UTC

Laurel1234 wrote: post #59

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm. I used to hate when people published their code under MIT instead of GPL. But now that I work at a startup that competes with a few open source offerings, I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over.

> I love having Claude check in on their progress and port the content over. Genuine piece of shit, nice.

The solution is simple. Don't license your code MIT. MIT enables this