You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, but that's ok.

Commit.

It is still open source. The attempt at relicensing isn't legally valid. The consent of earlier contributors was not obtained.

No, I understand exactly what you're saying, you're stating that people doing free work owe you things, and I'm stating that the licence absolves them of all obligations you claim they have.

Besides, you have not stated on what basis the developer "owes" you support besides attacking them and other commenters in this thread on an ad hominem basis.

If you wanted guaranteed support, you could ask the original author if you can get a maintenance and support contract for their application, where the limits and costs of that support are outlined in the contract.

The first line is so completely, utterly wrong. XD thus not bothering with the rest.

Thanks for playing and better luck next time!

There's zero responsibility or liability on open source work. Specifically, this is licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, which has the following clauses:

Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

a. Unless otherwise separately undertaken by the Licensor, to the extent possible, the Licensor offers the Licensed Material as-is and as-available, and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Licensed Material, whether express, implied, statutory, or other. This includes, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence or absence of errors, whether or not known or discoverable. Where disclaimers of warranties are not allowed in full or in part, this disclaimer may not apply to You

b. To the extent possible, in no event will the Licensor be liable to You on any legal theory (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise for any direct, special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, exemplary, or other losses, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of this Public License or use of the Licensed Material, even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such losses, costs, expenses, or damages. Where a limitation of liability is not allowed in full or in part, this limitation may not apply to You.

c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.

Deed - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International - Creative Commons

(creativecommons.org)

Bref, the developer doesn't owe anyone anything beyond what is stated in the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, the GitHub TOS and the local laws where the developer lives.

Dude seems like a troll, just quit feeding it, downvote him and move on. Engaging just makes them more persistently stupid.

Please explain how it is wrong.

Lol why? You don't give a shit. No one who has commented in this exchange does.

And that's fine as far as it goes, but let's not be disingenuous and pretend we're righteous.

Forget it, Jake. It's the internet.

You've dodged my question. Please explain how what I've stated is wrong.

Telling you I'm not going to answer you because I don't believe you care and it's a waste of at least my own time isn't dodging your question. I told you exactly. Waste of time.

I owe you nothing.

Then I don't know why you're here in the first place.

I suggest you delete your comments if you're going to attack people ad hominem by calling them a "cry baby" instead of clearly stating your opinion and refuse to have a conversation about it. You won't have people replying to you about a conversation you don't want to have.

As you said, it's a waste of your time, and a waste of everyone else's time.

Oh yeah, this guy works for free and doesn't like getting reports for things that are beyond his control, this guy is a huge baby, fuck him for working for free!

You're not paying his salary, he doesn't owe you shit. No liability and all that.

People like you are why open source developers quit. They don't get paid for this, and when it's no longer pleasant, they stop doing work.

Oh, 100% troll, I'm just enjoying watching them dig their own hole and run out of responses.

He could, you know... Ignore reports like that instead of dropping support entirely out of spite.

Normally you'd be right, but in this case the guy just actually does have a history of being an a****** to everybody. This is very much a case of a developer being the problem.

He has a history of starting s*** being an a****** and then complaining when everyone else is an a****** to him.

That's not even getting into. Basically every problem he is complaining about is of his own making or his own ignorance.

The whole aur problem is because of his own, very likely illegal license change

I use the Duckstation flatpak funny enough

Assuming newer versions are derived from code that was licensed GPL in the old version, the newer versions (which include new code) are also licensed GPL, whether the person writing the new code likes it or not.

You'll find the copyright owner is Sony.

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.