As everyone knows Wuplay is in beta so things change on a regular basis. One recent change caused a lot of confusion: I moved the Layout tab functionality into the new sidebar tab in the web configurator. I had no idea this would cause so much confusion but it definitely did. What I have done is, instead of putting the layout tab back, I went a step further and added a catalogs tab. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion.

https://preview.redd.it/0qzz51eh5neh1.png?width=868&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d373d70c092e6f6ceeb214257cc91c8937fed5d

There seems to be confusion regarding this change so I thought I would make a dedicated post. The change was listed in the changelog but I know not all users read changelogs.

The Layout tab used to be named Catalogs and now it has been renamed again to Sidebar. This is the natural evolution of an app in beta.

When you click on Home or Discover, you will have a Manage Layout option available. See screenshot.

https://preview.redd.it/pzeetnq2v0eh1.jpg?width=487&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d745ead20f6c2c63b40f05f55eb2de44a4d3b639

Edit: just to be crystal clear, in no way do I think the Nuvio team was involved in this. All signs point to a solo anonymous poster. I have no ill will towards Nuvio or its team.

---

Someone has made serious claims against myself as a dev and Wuplay as an app. You can view the claims at https://pastebin.com/CR5tQNAt

Response to Claims of Undisclosed Code Reuse in WuPlay

A document has been circulated alleging that WuPlay (app.wuplay.androidtv) is an unattributed, GPL-violating clone of NuvioTV / OmnioTV. I am WuPlay's sole developer, and I take open-source licensing seriously, so I reviewed every specific technical claim in that document against the publicly available source of the projects it names. The claims do not hold up.

This is a point-by-point response, relying wherever possible on facts that anyone can verify for themselves in the public NuvioTV and OmnioTV repositories.

---

The standard that actually applies

The GPL — like copyright generally — protects specific source code: the literal expression a developer wrote. It does not protect:

• Ideas, features, or product categories. "An Android TV app that plays content from Stremio addons" is a concept, not a copyrightable work.
• Public protocols and APIs. The Stremio Addon Protocol (manifests, catalogs, meta, streams) is an open specification. Every compatible client necessarily implements the same models and endpoints.
• Standard programming idioms. Common patterns taught in official documentation are not anyone's property.

Two apps in the same category, written in the same language (Kotlin/Compose is the standard for Android TV), talking to the same open protocol, will inevitably resemble one another in features and high-level architecture. That resemblance is not infringement. Infringement requires copied expression — a specific file, class, or function reproduced from the original. The circulated document does not identify any. Instead, as shown below, its concrete "evidence" points at shared idioms, the public protocol, classes that do not exist in the upstream at all, and — in its most specific claim — the upstream project's own configuration.

---

Point by point

1. "Identical, highly-specific API keys: TV_LOGIN_WEB_BASE_URL and IMDB_TAPFRAME_API_BASE_URL"

This is the document's most concrete claim, and it collapses on inspection.

Both of those variables are NuvioTV's own build-configuration keys. They are visible to anyone in NuvioTV's public app/build.gradle.kts — TV_LOGIN_WEB_BASE_URL even carries the default value https://nuvio.tv/tv-login, and IMDB_TAPFRAME_API_BASE_URL is named after the upstream author's own IMDB service.

Neither key — nor any variant of either — exists anywhere in WuPlay. Not in the current build configuration, and not at any point in the project's history. WuPlay's configuration variables are entirely WuPlay-namespaced (WUPLAY_*).

In other words, the "matching, non-standard API keys" presented as a smoking gun are NuvioTV's settings, not WuPlay's. The claim describes the upstream and attributes it to me.

2. "Copied cache components: MetaCacheStore, CatalogContentCacheStore, HubDiscoveryCacheStore"

None of these class names exist anywhere in NuvioTV or OmnioTV. You cannot copy a class out of a project that does not contain it. The upstream's caching types carry entirely different names and cache entirely different entities.

Caching catalog and metadata responses is the obvious design for any client that talks to remote Stremio addons — doing so is a shared responsibility, dictated by the protocol, not shared code. A generically-named cache store is convergent engineering.

3. "It relies on Supabase"

Supabase was raised as a specific point, and it is a clean one to settle: WuPlay does not use Supabase. The word appears in zero files of its source, and in its entire commit history — no client library, no SUPABASE_URL, no anon key, nothing.

By contrast, Supabase is a core, pervasive dependency of both NuvioTV and OmnioTV. It is referenced across dozens of files in each, wired in through their public build configuration (SUPABASE_URL, SUPABASE_ANON_KEY, SUPABASE_FALLBACK_URL, prefixed NUVIO_SUPABASE_*) and pulled in as a first-class library dependency. A project cloned or decompiled from those codebases would carry that integration throughout. WuPlay carries none of it — which is, again, the opposite of what a derived work looks like.

4. "NetworkResult repackaged as ApiResult; a SafeApiCall wrapper appearing 15+ times"

A sealed result type (Success / error variants) paired with a safeApiCall wrapper that runs a network call inside try/catch is the single most common networking idiom in Android development. It appears in Google's official app-architecture guidance and in an enormous number of entirely unrelated apps. NuvioTV uses it; so do thousands of projects with no connection to Nuvio whatsoever.

The document itself concedes the type was renamed — i.e. the names differ. What it is actually pointing to is that two Kotlin apps both use idiomatic Kotlin error handling. That is not evidence of copying; it is evidence of writing normal Kotlin. (The two implementations also differ in substance — different HTTP client, different error taxonomy, different function signatures — but the more fundamental point is that the pattern is universal.)

5. "251 data-layer files and 77 model files were duplicated"

These figures correspond to neither project's actual source tree. They are characteristic of decompiler output: decompiling a compiled APK explodes each source class into many synthetic artifacts (one per lambda, anonymous class, synthetic accessor, and generated helper) and mangles their names. Counting decompiled fragments tells you nothing about source-level copying — a single hand-written file routinely becomes dozens of decompiled ones. The real source layers in question are a small fraction of the cited numbers.

6. "Systematic removal of nuvio / omnio / tapframe identifiers"

This claim is unfalsifiable by construction: you cannot demonstrate that something was "removed" by pointing at its absence. Every original codebase also lacks those strings.

There is a meaningful test here, though, and it points the other way. A genuine derived work — a fork or a decompile-and-rebrand — leaves fingerprints: it retains the upstream's distinctive internal identifiers, the ones no independent developer would coincidentally choose (project-specific constants, sentinel values, internal helper names, private config keys). I checked WuPlay against a set of NuvioTV's distinctive identifiers. WuPlay contains none of them. A project that had been "stripped and rebranded" from Nuvio would be saturated with exactly those fingerprints; WuPlay has zero.

7. "QR configurators, profile PINs, and self-updaters are uncredited ports"

Features and ideas are not protected by copyright or the GPL — only specific code is. QR-based device pairing, PIN-locked user profiles, and in-app update prompts are common across the streaming-app landscape and long predate all of the projects named here. Sharing a feature is not sharing a codebase. It is also worth noting that profiles with pin protection have been available since the first release of Wuplay (0.1.0-beta) and only came to Nuvio later.

---

What would actually substantiate the allegation

A credible claim of GPL infringement identifies specific source placed side by side — "this function in WuPlay is a literal or near-literal copy of that function in NuvioTV," shown in original (non-decompiled) source. The circulated document does none of this. It lists:

• a universal Android idiom (the sealed result type + safe-call wrapper),
• an open public protocol (the Stremio addon models),
• class names that do not exist in the upstream,
• inflated file counts from decompiled artifacts, and
• the upstream's own configuration keys, misattributed to me.

None of that is copied code.

My position

I respect the GPL and the work of the Stremio and Nuvio communities. If anyone can point to a specific passage of WuPlay source that is a literal copy of GPL-licensed code, I want to know, and I will address it directly and promptly — that is a concrete, answerable question. The document in circulation does not raise one. On inspection, its technical claims are either descriptions of standard practice and public protocol, or simply incorrect about what my code and the upstream code actually contain.

v0.6.7-beta

Hotfix release — bug fixes only.

Fixed

• Wrong episode playing when advancing to next episode or manually choosing an episode
• Error message when trying to advance to the next episode