This was a BlackBerry project, though, and it wasn't something you could install on a desktop - that may have been a contributing factor, but I never had any problems with them continuing to host the content after I deleted it.
If the project is licensed under GPLv3 (or any other strong copyleft license), wouldn't they be illegally hosting it because they are bundling their malware dropper with software that isn't compatible with the license?
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
Same with the Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]:
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
In reality though there's a reason there are many different OSS licenses - many devs want options around attribution and yes, around use in limited ways. A please don't use this for abject evil clause may not meet the no true open source dictionary definition, but pragmatically speaking it's not necessarily a terrible idea.
The GIMP project learned this the hard way: http://www.gimp.org/news/2015/05/27/gimp-projects-official-s...
Since they used to be the official source, their repository tend to have very high PageRank and they're essentially cashing in on it. Since the content they host is open-source, this is technically legal, but it's scummy as all hell.