https://haveibeenpwned.com/

check your email addresses, then check for malware on your system.

that’s definitely not normal…

workaround: zip the folder?

i know it’s a little annoying, but it does make it into “one file” ;)

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.

for “this dude” to have any meaning to anyone, there needs to be a name attached at the very least.

that alone is personal information.

personal information is any information that can be used to uniquely identify a natural person.

this app was nothing but personal information being deliberately spread without the persons consent.

man am i glad this sort of bullshit isn’t even up for discussion in the EU…what an absolute nightmare for privacy…

yes, correct, assuming a solo project!

thank you for the correction.

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.

yes you can!

…for new versions. not for already released ones.

at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.

edit: assuming a solo project. see below.

i mean…an app directly copying a black mirror episode (but almost exclusively targeting a specific demographic) does ring some very, VERY loud alarm bells…

like, this is literally the plot of nosedive.

it’s a social credit system.

and none of the people even know they HAVE a score, so it’s somehow even worse than the fictional scenario.

this will, absolutely, hurt innocents and it will do so by design.

“fuck them innocents!”…just because they happen to be men?

how is that anything other than misandrist?

how is that defensible?

how is doxxing, mass libel, and targeted harassment a solution to sexism and rape culture?

I’d be really interested in hearing anything about how this is supposed to help women, because i struggle to see how sowing massive, unearned distrust between men and women is going to make anyone any safer…

I’m really, REALLY glad that the GDPR would nuke this sort of nonsense from orbit…uploading pictures of strangers, for the explicit purpose of gossiping about them behind their backs, spreading awful rumors?

what. the. actual. fuck. is wrong with you people?

and i don’t mean women, or men: i mean americans and their total disregard for privacy and digital safety. what the hell…

says right at the end: this is from 1992