I don't like videos either tbh, but I would be ok with posts that are properly identified, so like [video] [news] [opinion] etc lol

yea and when that happens I just cancel, then I can worry about all the ad blocking and stuff, but currently it's worth it for me

This should be correct yes, as long as you don't include code that was added after the license change you should be in Clearwater.

Technically speaking I don't think it's allowed for him to have changed the license to a more restrictive license in the first place because he didn't rewrite the entire project when he did so which means it's still containing code that under the license terms are supposed to be open indefinitely, but if you want to avoid all that drama you can just play it safe and Fork the version prior to him editing the license

Personally speaking now this isn't going to stop the people that he's trying to avoid that hassle with, because I don't think he has legal ground because I don't think the license change was within the allowed terms of his license in the first place

Sending as a second comment cuz I just now read your source, but it's different than what my original comment was.

I didn't realize the density that GPL code puts into your project, it does seem upon looking into it that that is correct that he cannot under GPL terms redistribute that software under the license that he's chosen. He is violating the GPL by doing so, because even with permission of the contributors, GPL code cannot be converted over to a lesser freedom code without a full rewrite, because code that was generated while under the GPL can't be locked down at a future date via a license that that is stricter than the existing one. The only thing you can do is make it less restrictive than GPL.

That being said, the only people who can report violations of code that is not following the GPL, are going to be copyright holders so if everyone was indeed okay with it there's no one who would be able to pursue the violation anyway

My main concern is that he states that he has permission from every contributor so he isn't misusing it, then immediately locks the repository to only people who had contributed before.

I understand it's probably just a tactic to lower the amount of useless information from people wanting to comment from posts like this, but it doesn't look good from a point of view of declaring Victory and then retreating immediately.

Man that post is about three or four paragraphs too long to be any Microsoft form advisor post.

Usually it's a "Welcome to the forum, please run an update and sfc /scannow and try safe mode then clean install" then ghosting when you update saying it doesn't work

What's the point of sfc /scannow if it's going to require an installation media to use, isn't that the point of a recovery partition? Does Windows just not ship with that Anymore?

Man the audacity of that though, they came into his house, interrupted his evening and then asked him to turn off the stream that he's doing. All while he didn't actually do anything wrong.

The entitlement is insane.

I had to read the title a few times myself, it's long and most of it could go into the body

fully agree, the maintainer pulled a "It's my toy and I'm taking it elsewhere" which is never healthy for a project like that. Instead of embracing the fact people were active in the project he only focused on the fact that there was some malicious parties that were violating GPL, so his solution was to kill most external support of the project. It won't survive that

according to the maintainer he got permission from everyone, and those who didn't give the permission for he rewrote the code for. Least that's how it seems to be here

Regardless as the maintainer of that GitHub clarified in a closed pull request, it's not actually allowed on Github to have a license that blocks the ability to do forks and modify the programs yourself, I never knew this but it says it on the page he linked.

basically it seems if you post a project as public on Github, you implicitly grant a license to fork and use the code regardless of what it's terms say since you need to follow those terms for the Github platform usage. The section 6 I'm not sure about though, cause the terminology confuses me, I can't tell if it means that it can be supercedes or that it supercedes a private license

it seems his intent isn't to dissuade people contributing, he's just been burned a few times with GPL violations so he's changing the terms to prevent that