instead of offering any aid or insight, i was immediately stereotyped as “an android user” and told “we don’t offer tech support for android” basically for no other reason than “because android users bitch too much and then give you a bad review,”

This sounds like there were several users berating you, not (just) the developer?

It's a tricky one. You can't ban every user from your Discord just for being condescending.

Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.

Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.

Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.

Edit:
A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.

G*mers are entitled pieces of shit.

Linux users are arrogant hipster assholes.

It's a perfect storm for creating just the worst people ever. And that's before we add the weird belittlement open source devs get.

right but unless you sign a contributor licensing agreement when you contribute then the copyright owner can't relicense code you contributed.

so if you contribute to a GPL codebase it's pretty legally perilous to try to unilaterally relicense code that isn't "yours".

this is pretty nebulous territory anyways, but I'd argue it's pretty unethical to relicense to a more restrictive license essentially "taking" the GPL code from contributors

If he only wants to create something and not deal with any user issues, he could just do that. Going out of his way to tell users to fuck off is extra work he could just not do and everyone would be happier

He's not obligated to provide that support. But the tone sure makes it seem expected.

actively going out of your way to remove the existing support is petty and just an asshole move

Sure, but the dev doesn't owe anything to anyone. He of course could ask community for help with this, sugar coat every answer, spend his (I assume already very valuable and sparse) free time to deal with assholes while trying to organize wider developer base to manage the issue and so on.

But he/she is still not obligated to do so and most definetly not obligated to deal with assholes all day every day instead of working with the passion project. Anyone around here thinking this is a wrong call can step up and volunteer to manage the thing, you don't even need to know how to code, just filter trough the crap and create meaningful tickets and find people from community who're willing to spend their time on fixing it.

For me it is no harder to read, it's more like people sprinkling in Shakespearean English to their normal speech, it just comes off as either being pretentious, or random xd

He's upset because people are bothering him for packages that are out of his control. A similar thing happened recently with OBS where a distro was packaging it in a non-standard way, iirc.

Interesting. The only thing i knew is: the escape key is really important for Unreal Tournament.

The problem has originated because he changed the license resulting in older versions being the only way to ship duckstation.

Edit: lisence to license

yes and no:

the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can't really revoke a GPL license. that's not really a thing.

and the part about

If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.

seems to me like you are implying that "use under the old license" means "run the program on my own machine", but that's not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.

under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:

The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.

(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)

this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.

you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.

for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn't legally do anything about that.

which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.

Only if you are the sole contributor or get a written consent from all contributors. GPL doesn't hand over the copyright to the maintainer.

Since it's an open source project, it's pretty easy to make a fork and readd Linux support.

It doesn't matter what he does, because any project on GitHub can be forked, and it's in their TOS.

By creating a project there, he agreed to that TOS, so he can't disallow forks, simple as that.

Sure the dev doesn't owe anything, but he is actively putting in the work to remove existing support. Instead of just doing nothing he is sticking it to the linux user by removing support

Edit: I don't see how removing your own, working PKGBUILD will prevent people from installing broken 3rd party packages and complaining about it in your project.

No, but the app will inevitably have bad reviews on Android because it will not be as good - both technically and in terms of "customer service".

FOSS can't usually compete with big tech in this area and it is one of the biggest drawbacks to FOSS in general. You are on your own.

yes, correct, assuming a solo project!

thank you for the correction.

Indeed. If he changed the license to allow packaging the new version, at least all of those reports would be of the current version rather than the last GPL one.

Let the community in and use their time to contribute rather than locking it down as a one man project and then complaining about it.