Cool that they did that, but they could also start behaving properly. The app labels itself at GPL licensed, but the most recent releases are not available on GitHub. It's been the situation for quite a while now and it's been raised with the author a few times in the issues. They don't seem to care.
Small nitpick: GPL requires to provide a source copy on request. It does not require the author to make it public. Also, original authors can dual license, so the GPL would only apply to users, not them, and they are free to change license for versions at any point in time.
Unless they have GPL dependencies I'm not sure they have to release source for a binary release. If I write some code and grant you a license to use it under the GPL, I would have thought I still am the copyright holder and don't need any kind of license to do whatever I want with it.
My understanding is that the GPL specifies that any further redistribution of binary code (by the licensee) has to come with an offer to be able to receive the source code, which they can then modify and redistribute under the original license. If the original licensor doesn't actually allow access to the source code, there's no way for that to happen and I'd argue that the licensor is being unreasonable by asking licensees to comply with something they have no chance of being able to comply with. (Short of decompilation, which wouldn't yield the original source code.)
I have no idea of the legal implications of all this (I'm not a lawyer), but there has to be some kind of legal thing that prevents the original licensor from being unreasonable in this way, I'd hope?
The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code - fee example relicense and distribute under another license.
The license only binds the licensee that received the code under the respective license.
Things get more complicated if there are external contributors that may have contributed under specific legal arrangements, but in the simple case there’s no legal way to force the original copyright owner to publish sources.
I realise the license doesn't bind the original copyright owner. That's not what I was arguing.
I'm saying that if the original licensor (ie. the copyright owner) offers software that they fully own to people under the terms of the GPL, they're binding the licensee (ie. the entity receiving the software) such that further redistribution of the binary that the licensee received has to come with an offer to receive the source code - which is something that the licensee cannot offer if they don't have access to the source code themselves.
I'm arguing that such a situation (ie. the original copyright owner not offering source code, but at the same time saying that the people receiving the software have to offer the source code if they want to redistribute the binary) is unreasonable to the point where it feels like there may be some legal action that could be taken, as at that point the license is asking people to do things that they literally cannot do.
The original copyright owner still has the right to distribute the software they wrote and have the original copyright for under a proprietary license.
> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code
For any small to medium sized projects with zero external contributors, it's highly unlikely that anyone would pursue legal action so the person who owns the project does de facto have this right whether or not it's legal according to the license.
> Things get more complicated if there are external contributors
I don't think this is complicated - unless there's a contributor agreement that people have signed that says otherwise, people have copyright on the code they have contributed so the original creator doesn't have a right to relicense their code.
However, again it comes down to whether anyone would bring a legal fight and the answer is almost certainly no. Forking the code is much more likely at that point.
>> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code
> whether or not it's legal according to the license
The original author is not bound by any licence. Only the licensees are. The licence they chose to use by definition cannot bind them; they are issuing the licence.
(They are obviously bound by the licences of anything that they use, but that’s not what the person you’re replying to is talking about)
The app doesn't label itself as GPL licensed... The terms of the installed Android app are clear that it's closed source [0].
There's a community edition that's GPL, and it does say they're 'going open source' but clearly it's not the exact same app as the official distribution:
This is the repository for the Chatbox Community Edition, open-sourced under the GPLv3 license.
Chatbox is going open-source Again!
We regularly sync code from the pro repo to this repo, and vice versa.
It looks like they have a GPL licensed "community edition" and a closed $19.99/month commercial edition. I supposed the GPL licensed version's raison d'etre is marketing, since non-technical users cannot tell the difference between the two.
Small anecdote, but back in early 2024 (like, March), I did a ton of searching for an AI helper app that would allow me to use the gemini API key from AI studio. Chatbox was one of only two that I found (can't remember the other), but even back then I was astounded by its functionality and ease of use. It supported a ton of stuff, like custom system prompts, etc. Basically recreated a lot of the lmstudio experience but on a phone.
You'd be surprised, but it was extremely difficult to find an android app that supported API key usage. Ahead of its time.
I stopped using Chatbox as it didnt allow an Openrouter API key (which in turn allows all models Openai, Claude, Grok, Gemini etc) and started using Msty instead. I might revisit Chatbox and see if its improved.
Based on the marketing page and App Store page, I can't really tell what sets this apart from ChatGPT. It looks like essentially the same thing, with a slightly different UI. What features does it have that add value over ChatGPT?
> Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store.
As a shining bright light of hope, I will list some apps I have installed which do not appear to me to fall into those buckets.
1. Anki - Flash cards app, I can memorize stuff. It's really good.
2. KDE Connect - Zero exploitation, open source, even sorta works
3. Peakfinder - So far this app has seemed okay. "I programmed PeakFinder during the day and danced Tango during the night" - Peakfinder's creator
Also, about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine. This is what I miss most about android.
I do think that by percentage more of the iOS apps are exploitative crap or full of ads, probably because you need to pay $100/year for the app to keep existing at all.
One of tricks to get fewer exploitative apps is to avoid iPhone and never install anything that needs google play services.
Also, delete any app that has an ad instantly unless it's really important.
Its really sad to search for some basic functionality like "use phone as wireless mic for PC" only to be hit with wall of in-app pirchases and ads. I understand that the main reason is keeping app on store requires paying ransom to google, which is the worst reason one could imagine.
I had the same realisation about game app specifically - in the early days of the App Store, I’d buy several games a year, and play dozens more free games. I can’t remember the last game I bought.
This is a site mostly centered around startups and building products. I notice a common anti-mobile-app sentiment here, and the criticisms are valid, but I think that it’s important to keep in mind that for many apps having a mobile app is important to the success of your business because the vast majority of people prefer mobile apps to mobile websites.
Users want apps and it’s important not to assume that the majority of users will think like HN users. Even if your app is mostly just a webview wrapping your website, being in the App Store matters.
Cool that they did that, but they could also start behaving properly. The app labels itself at GPL licensed, but the most recent releases are not available on GitHub. It's been the situation for quite a while now and it's been raised with the author a few times in the issues. They don't seem to care.
Small nitpick: GPL requires to provide a source copy on request. It does not require the author to make it public. Also, original authors can dual license, so the GPL would only apply to users, not them, and they are free to change license for versions at any point in time.
Unless they have GPL dependencies I'm not sure they have to release source for a binary release. If I write some code and grant you a license to use it under the GPL, I would have thought I still am the copyright holder and don't need any kind of license to do whatever I want with it.
My understanding is that the GPL specifies that any further redistribution of binary code (by the licensee) has to come with an offer to be able to receive the source code, which they can then modify and redistribute under the original license. If the original licensor doesn't actually allow access to the source code, there's no way for that to happen and I'd argue that the licensor is being unreasonable by asking licensees to comply with something they have no chance of being able to comply with. (Short of decompilation, which wouldn't yield the original source code.)
I have no idea of the legal implications of all this (I'm not a lawyer), but there has to be some kind of legal thing that prevents the original licensor from being unreasonable in this way, I'd hope?
The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code - fee example relicense and distribute under another license.
The license only binds the licensee that received the code under the respective license.
Things get more complicated if there are external contributors that may have contributed under specific legal arrangements, but in the simple case there’s no legal way to force the original copyright owner to publish sources.
I realise the license doesn't bind the original copyright owner. That's not what I was arguing.
I'm saying that if the original licensor (ie. the copyright owner) offers software that they fully own to people under the terms of the GPL, they're binding the licensee (ie. the entity receiving the software) such that further redistribution of the binary that the licensee received has to come with an offer to receive the source code - which is something that the licensee cannot offer if they don't have access to the source code themselves.
I'm arguing that such a situation (ie. the original copyright owner not offering source code, but at the same time saying that the people receiving the software have to offer the source code if they want to redistribute the binary) is unreasonable to the point where it feels like there may be some legal action that could be taken, as at that point the license is asking people to do things that they literally cannot do.
The original copyright owner still has the right to distribute the software they wrote and have the original copyright for under a proprietary license.
> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code
For any small to medium sized projects with zero external contributors, it's highly unlikely that anyone would pursue legal action so the person who owns the project does de facto have this right whether or not it's legal according to the license.
> Things get more complicated if there are external contributors
I don't think this is complicated - unless there's a contributor agreement that people have signed that says otherwise, people have copyright on the code they have contributed so the original creator doesn't have a right to relicense their code.
However, again it comes down to whether anyone would bring a legal fight and the answer is almost certainly no. Forking the code is much more likely at that point.
>> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code
> whether or not it's legal according to the license
The original author is not bound by any licence. Only the licensees are. The licence they chose to use by definition cannot bind them; they are issuing the licence.
(They are obviously bound by the licences of anything that they use, but that’s not what the person you’re replying to is talking about)
The app doesn't label itself as GPL licensed... The terms of the installed Android app are clear that it's closed source [0].
There's a community edition that's GPL, and it does say they're 'going open source' but clearly it's not the exact same app as the official distribution:
0: https://chatboxai.app/en/termsIt looks like they have a GPL licensed "community edition" and a closed $19.99/month commercial edition. I supposed the GPL licensed version's raison d'etre is marketing, since non-technical users cannot tell the difference between the two.
Small anecdote, but back in early 2024 (like, March), I did a ton of searching for an AI helper app that would allow me to use the gemini API key from AI studio. Chatbox was one of only two that I found (can't remember the other), but even back then I was astounded by its functionality and ease of use. It supported a ton of stuff, like custom system prompts, etc. Basically recreated a lot of the lmstudio experience but on a phone.
You'd be surprised, but it was extremely difficult to find an android app that supported API key usage. Ahead of its time.
I use Pal for iOS, it has a lot of nice features and it’s a native app.
I stopped using Chatbox as it didnt allow an Openrouter API key (which in turn allows all models Openai, Claude, Grok, Gemini etc) and started using Msty instead. I might revisit Chatbox and see if its improved.
Based on the marketing page and App Store page, I can't really tell what sets this apart from ChatGPT. It looks like essentially the same thing, with a slightly different UI. What features does it have that add value over ChatGPT?
Chatbox is basically a client for various LLM. It can even connect to locally hosted LLM on Ollama.
how is this different then t3chat?
T3chat was launched much later so the real question is how t3 is different from it or any other chat.
t3chat doesn't have a mobile app.
Do I need to use the API key, or it uses my subscription?
API key
You know what I just realized?
I couldn't tell you the last time I installed a new app on my phone.
Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store.
> Everything there is mostly out to exploit me, or a direct security liability regardless of what app store.
As a shining bright light of hope, I will list some apps I have installed which do not appear to me to fall into those buckets.
1. Anki - Flash cards app, I can memorize stuff. It's really good.
2. KDE Connect - Zero exploitation, open source, even sorta works
3. Peakfinder - So far this app has seemed okay. "I programmed PeakFinder during the day and danced Tango during the night" - Peakfinder's creator
Also, about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine. This is what I miss most about android.
I do think that by percentage more of the iOS apps are exploitative crap or full of ads, probably because you need to pay $100/year for the app to keep existing at all.
One of tricks to get fewer exploitative apps is to avoid iPhone and never install anything that needs google play services.
Also, delete any app that has an ad instantly unless it's really important.
>This is what I miss most about android.
oh don't worry, Google is trying to kill that too. you won't have to miss Android soon. https://developer.android.com/developer-verification discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
> about 70% of the apps on F-Droid https://f-droid.org/ are fine
Wait, what's wrong with the other 30%?
There's stuff like NewPipe, which is just youtube videos so it's awful for the soul.
There's also games and blockchain apps which are bad for the soul
Its really sad to search for some basic functionality like "use phone as wireless mic for PC" only to be hit with wall of in-app pirchases and ads. I understand that the main reason is keeping app on store requires paying ransom to google, which is the worst reason one could imagine.
I experienced deja vu today when an upcoming festival’s website encouraged me to install a custom app for the event on my phone. Felt very 2010(ish).
I had the same realisation about game app specifically - in the early days of the App Store, I’d buy several games a year, and play dozens more free games. I can’t remember the last game I bought.
On average 90% of time spent on mobile devices is in native apps.
That's.. how is that relevant?
This is a site mostly centered around startups and building products. I notice a common anti-mobile-app sentiment here, and the criticisms are valid, but I think that it’s important to keep in mind that for many apps having a mobile app is important to the success of your business because the vast majority of people prefer mobile apps to mobile websites.
Users want apps and it’s important not to assume that the majority of users will think like HN users. Even if your app is mostly just a webview wrapping your website, being in the App Store matters.
Compile it yourself https://github.com/chatboxai/chatbox
Unfortunately GH has an older version. The latest official releases don't have the code published, contrary to the licence.
Well, you’re talking to a company that trademarked “Apple”.