What they did to the Droppy developer
I've been following the whole Droppy situation for a while now. The app was free, the dev was genuinely nice about everything, and then SaneBar and Atoll went after him. I managed to get my hands on the actual conversations and emails, and honestly? It's way worse than people think.
Scroll down and read everything. I'm posting this because someone has to. This guy doesn't deserve what's happening to him.
So what actually happened?
Ok so here's the deal. Droppy was this free macOS app that one guy built on his own. It was genuinely free, the dev was active in the community, and people liked it. He was just doing his thing.
Then out of nowhere, SaneBar starts going after him. And not even with their real account -- they used an alt called fluffy-muppet on Reddit. The account was literally 17 days old and every single post was about SaneBar. Not suspicious at all right?
And then Atoll filed a DMCA takedown on his GitHub. Even though Atoll themselves literally copy from The Boring Notch (and the Boring Notch dev confirmed it). The hypocrisy is insane.
What really gets me is how the Droppy dev handled it. Look at what he actually did:
- Gave fluffy-muppet a free license key as a peace offering
- Offered to collab and even share revenue with them
- Emailed them to try and sort it out like an adult
- Openly admitted he used to think differently about paid apps and said he grew from it
- Always kept free versions of Droppy available
And what did he get back? Lawsuit threats. Intimidation. Fake accusations. An alt account spreading garbage about him on Reddit. And GitHub just... ghosted him when he tried to fight the DMCA.
Read the screenshots below. I'm not making any of this up. It's all there in black and white.
GitHub just completely ghosted him
So Atoll filed a DMCA takedown against Droppy's GitHub repo. Jordy (the Droppy dev) responded with this really detailed counter-notice to GitHub Trust & Safety. I got a copy of it and it's honestly impressive how thorough and professional it is. He went file by file, explained everything, and asked for specific proof.
GitHub never responded. Not once. They just completely ignored him. He sent 5+ follow-up reminders. Nothing. That's insane to me.
Hi GitHub Trust & Safety,
Thank you for forwarding the DMCA notice regarding the repository iordv/Droppy.
This response is submitted in good faith, without prejudice, and without admission of infringement.
I dispute the notice as overbroad and factually incomplete, and I request that GitHub obtain more specific proof before any repository-wide action is taken.
Key Points
1) Upstream derivation undermines exclusive copyright claim
The cited Atoll project includes a NOTICE stating it "includes software derived from the boring.notch project," and at least some cited Atoll files include "Originally from boring.notch project." That directly affects the scope of any exclusive rights claim and requires line-level ownership attribution by the claimant.
2) Similarity is due to platform-constrained APIs
The accused files implement standard macOS patterns (CoreAudio properties, CGEvent/NX key parsing, DisplayServices symbol loading, temporary file lifecycle handling, SwiftUI hover transforms). Similarity in API names, constants, and high-level control flow in such modules is expected and does not by itself establish actionable copying of protected expression.
3) Historical blob URLs, not current state
The cited URLs point to specific past commit snapshots. Several flagged files have since materially changed in current development history.
4) No line-mapped infringement analysis provided
It offers generalized assertions but does not identify exact protected passages allegedly copied, nor separate third-party/upstream code from claimant-authored code. For a GPL-based claim, that distinction is essential.
File-by-file technical clarification
A) Parallax3DModifier.swift
Both projects implement a known SwiftUI parallax pattern. That implementation pattern is common and constrained by SwiftUI APIs. The Droppy implementation differs in naming, settings wiring, animation tuning, and integration context.
B) LockScreenManager.swift
The cited versions differ substantially in architecture and responsibilities. Atoll's file includes broader coordinator/view-model/sound/animation responsibilities. Droppy's cited manager is a much narrower lock/unlock event manager.
C) TemporaryFileStorageService.swift
This area uses standard temp directory safety patterns and .webloc generation, which naturally produces overlap. Any ownership claim here must distinguish claimant-authored expression from upstream derived code.
D) BrightnessManager.swift vs DisplayServicesDynamic.swift
Atoll's cited file is a small dynamic symbol wrapper. Droppy's cited file is a larger manager with polling, state, fallback handling, and UI/HUD integration. Shared symbol names are OS API symbols, not unique creative text.
E) VolumeManager.swift vs SystemMediaControllers.swift
Atoll's file bundles multiple system controllers. Droppy's cited file is scoped and structured differently, with different fallback and integration strategy. CoreAudio property constants and access patterns are standard.
F) MediaKeyInterceptor.swift
Both parse system-defined media-key events (again API-constrained). Droppy uses a different integration model (closures/callback organization and behavior differences), including transport key handling policy.
What was requested from GitHub and the claimant
- A line-by-line claim chart for each accused file, with exact Droppy lines, exact Atoll lines, and explanation of why each cited passage is protectable expression rather than API-constrained or standard implementation.
- Ownership chain for each claimed passage: identify which passages are original to claimant and which are from upstream "boring.notch" or any other third-party source.
- Clarification that historical blob references are the intended scope, and whether current revisions are still alleged to infringe.
Good-faith actions taken
- Conducting a full clean-room audit and isolating high-risk modules for independent rewrite where necessary
- Preserving complete development history and evidence
- Prepared to continue cooperating promptly once the claimant provides a specific, line-mapped submission
Requested: No immediate repository disablement while actively contested in good faith, and a reasonable extension for technical/legal review once specificity is provided.
Follow-up emails: All ignored
It didn't stop at the counter-notice either. Jordy kept emailing GitHub after that. He sent a 3rd reminder telling them he literally sells this app to provide for his family and these claims are outrageous. He sent them proof that Atoll copies their code from The Boring Notch. He demanded they actually look into it. At least 5 reminders total. They never wrote back. Not even a "we're looking into it." Nothing.
3rd Reminder
"These claims are outrageous"
Jordy sends his 3rd reminder, explaining he sells the app to provide for his family. GitHub gave him 1 week to respond but won't reply to his emails. He also asks once again for a response about the takedown of github.com/iordv/Droppy.
5+ Reminders Sent
"GitHub doesn't respond"
Jordy demands a rectification, saying they literally copy everyone else while he has NEVER copied anything. Discord conversation shows Jordy sent 5 reminders with no response. Nate (Wick dev) confirms Atoll also copied from Wick: "they are the one who copied the one part of Wick I've shown. I put it in the alcove showcase, then 3 days later they had it in Atoll."
Still no response from GitHub
A detailed counter-notice. Multiple follow-up emails. At least 5 reminders. Technical proof that Atoll copies from The Boring Notch and Wick. Full cooperation offered. And GitHub just... never answered. Not even an acknowledgment. This guy's livelihood is on the line and they can't even send a reply? Come on.
The actual conversations
These are real screenshots from private messages between the Droppy dev and fluffy-muppet (who is SaneBar). I didn't edit any of these. You can see how the Droppy dev kept trying to be reasonable and collaborate, while fluffy-muppet just kept threatening him and using alt accounts. Click any screenshot to see it bigger.