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.

No ad hominems here, buddy, even if that does sound fancy.

We are all free to engage or not as we like.

That's freedom, and of no one else's concern. I don't need permission from others to share my opinion, nor to withhold it.

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

lol fantastic. Well as long as you are enjoying it too, by all means

Well, yes, but triage is work.

I don't disagree that this could be handled better, but it's his decision if he no longer feels like Linux is worth supporting.

I don't know if he gets harassed for ignoring reports from downstream builds or what, but I know this was a problem for Bottles and OBS where users became very irate and rude in the bug reports because the downstream version was broken.

I understand. Thanks a lot for the info.

Flatpak is dead, moving to appimage. Finally, an appimage that isn't broken.

No, this is plainly wrong. A license is a proclamation of the copyrightowner how others can use their material. The copywrite owner does not license their own work to themself, they can do whatever they want with their copyright. If you are not the copyright owner you have to have the license and afe only permitted to use the material after that license.

So the original code wasnt gpl at all then. If this was true i would be pretty sure this repo would already be closed.

Thats not completly right at least under german law (and most likely also under us law).

A license is basically a contract between you and the copyright owner.
If the copyright owner changes the distribution of a piece of software to a new license you have a diffrent contract with them. So you have to hold up this new license.
If you already had a license (in this case gpl) you can use this old contract, but you can not download a new copy delete what was added since the copyright change and use that under gpl. You would have to proof that you had the gpl license before or in this case that it got relicensed to you.

what a ridiculous idea. that's not how anything works:

copyright applies to the intellectual property, not the exact file.

so the code itself is the copyrighted thing, not the file you download.

it doesn't matter whether you download the gpl version, you type out the gpl version by hand, or delete all new code until only gpl code is left.

all you would need to proof is that the code is identical to the gpl code. how you got to that code is completely irrelevant.

you have some fundamental misunderstandings about copyrighted material, intellectual property, and fair use.

most importantly: copyright applies to intellectual property. the idea of a thing, not the physical thing.

so in the case of this emulator, the file and where you got it from is completely irrelevant; only the content of the file, the code, has any meaning. which means any files that contain the same code are identical in the eyes of the law, regardless of how you got them.

copyright is not a contract, but a license. and a license is a manual that explains how intellectual property (the idea of a thing, not the physical thing) is allowed to be used by someone. it's not specific to an individual, which is why contracts have to be signed by both parties. so no, you don't have a contract and no obligation to adhere to the new one at all. you can choose to use the old license, as long as you don't use any of the new code.

unless you want to modify and/or distribute the new code, the license (CC-BY-NC-ND) is irrelevant for the user.

and you can modify your own private copy as much as you want, you just can't distribute it, or modify and use it in a way that is illegal in some other way. but that's about it.

and all of this applies to both US and german law.

and none of this is remotely relevant, because the gpl version is still available for download!

nothing got replaced, so the gpl license is very much still applicable to that version of the software!

"new" does not mean that the old version went anywhere; it's still around. and you can still use, modify, and distribute it under the gpl.

Ha thank you for your informations. Much apreciated.

But are FOSS spirit and asshole users the same thing? On that, I disagree.