DeepSeek plug-in dsh-our-free-model receives an unsigned "lawyer's letter"; authenticity unconfirmed

AT A GLANCE

dsh-our-free-model was required to cease operation and delete its repository, but the purported "lawyer's letter" lacks identifying information and has not been confirmed by Tencent.

Article

32000 DeepSeek plug-in dsh-our-free-model threatened by a mysterious "lawyer's letter": required to 7 delete the repository within days, but the signature block was blank

Beating AI Flash,GitHub has approximately 32000 Star in the open-source DeepSeek plug-in project dsh-our-free-model suddenly received a "lawyer's letter" spanning 20000 characters.

The poster claimed to be authorized by the rights holders of WorkBuddy and CodeBuddy, accusing the project of reverse-engineering Tencent's official client, bypassing interface validation, and using free credits to invoke AI models. The letter required the developer to cease the relevant conduct within 3 days and 7 delete the entire repository within days, or face litigation and regulatory reports.

However, the project had already removed Tencent's channels at 10: 29 that morning. At 16: 21, another contributor submitted PR, attempting to restore model invocation by rewriting request content to bypass Tencent's client-side validation. Approximately 39 minutes later, the "lawyer's letter" appeared. The contributor subsequently voluntarily withdrew PR, and the relevant code was not merged.

Rather absurdly, the letter did not provide the law firm, handling lawyer, authorized rights holder, or contact information, and bore no signature or seal. The posting account was not registered until October 16. The letter also claimed that the developer submitted code attempting to restore the Tencent channels only 3 minutes after removing them. However,GitHub public records show that the relevant PR were actually nearly 6 hours apart.

There is currently no confirmation from Tencent that it issued the letter. Many developers in the community have questioned its authenticity, suspecting that someone is using the name of a lawyer's letter to pressure the developer.

Original link https://m.theblockbeats.info/flash/372984

Key points

Beating AI stated that GitHub project dsh-our-free-model has approximately 32000 Star and received a purported "lawyer's letter" spanning 20000 characters.
The poster claimed to be authorized by the rights holders of WorkBuddy and CodeBuddy, accusing the project of reverse-engineering Tencent's official client, bypassing interface validation, and using free credits to invoke AI models.
The letter required the developer to cease the relevant conduct within 3 days and delete the entire repository within 7 days, or face litigation and regulatory reports.
The original article stated that at 10: 29 that morning, the project had removed Tencent's channels; at 16: 21, another contributor submitted an attempt to bypass client-side validation PR。
The original article stated that approximately 39 minutes later, the purported "lawyer's letter" appeared; the contributor subsequently withdrew PR, and the relevant code was not merged.
The letter did not provide the law firm, handling lawyer, authorized rights holder, or contact information, and bore no signature or seal.
The posting account was not registered until October 16.
The letter claimed that someone submitted restoration code only 3 minutes after Tencent's channels were removed, but the original article stated that GitHub public records show that the relevant PR were actually nearly 6 hours apart.
There is currently no confirmation from Tencent that it issued the letter, and community developers have questioned its authenticity.

AI-assisted interpretation

The following is analysis, separate from reported facts. Verify important claims independently.

This is an unverified threat to delete a repository: someone, in the name of a "lawyer's letter," accused an open-source plug-in of improperly invoking models and demanded that it cease operations and delete its repository within a specified period. However, the letter lacks identifiable lawyers, rights holders, contact information, and a signature or seal, and its time description is also inconsistent with the GitHub records described in the report.

Why it matters to readers

If the demand came from the genuine rights holder, the project could face service interruption, repository deletion, litigation, or regulatory reports; if the letter is not genuine, it may be an attempt to pressure the developer in the name of the law. Neither scenario has currently been officially confirmed.

Beginners should not treat the words "lawyer's letter" as automatically meaning confirmed official legal action. When using plug-ins that rely on unofficial invocation methods, they should monitor whether the repository is deleted, functionality is discontinued, and the relevant rights holders issue a formal statement.

Risks and unknowns

It cannot be confirmed whether the poster was genuinely authorized by the rights holders of WorkBuddy and CodeBuddy.
It is not possible to verify whether the letter is authentic or valid, or who issued it.
Tencent has not yet confirmed whether it sent the letter.
The letter's claim regarding the code submission time is inconsistent with the GitHub public records cited in the report.

DeepSeek plug-in dsh-our-free-model receives an unsigned "lawyer's letter"; authenticity unconfirmed

Article

AI-assisted interpretation

Why it matters to readers

Risks and unknowns

Related Developments

Related concepts

Keep following

Security Center