:rolleyes: No go. What’s done is done. ‘Ignorantia iuris nocet/non excusat’ - same principle applies, ignorance does not exclude…
Or if unaware, think ‘universal laws of physics’.
Inertia. Broken glass - only thing left is to make new work. Recycle, reform… Lesson learned.
I get the anger of Charles Foreman. Question is are you allowed to add google tracking in open software and rename it? If not he should sue the school of the teacher.
Actually, the teacher removed the tracking. As well as the watermark. And the vulgar language. All of which is understandable for a teacher.
I am pretty sure that you can’t un-open-source published code with a license(he can however dual license the existing code and only do his future improvements on the proprietary version). I hope that stays the case, because otherwise we’ll all have to be super skeptical of all code on the internet that says it is open source whether or not it is open sourced as it says it is… That seems undoable.
What I am very surprised about is that it took a fork until Foreman noticed he accidentally open sourced it… Did he somehow never read what is written about the program while people were discussing whether it is open source?
Okay. I totally missed that somehow.
He had made the conscious decision to release it under the ISC - on 23 April Charles Foreman stated “. . .but nothing is stopping someone from forking the code” (can’t find the reference, mentioned here: https://twitter.com/turtletooth/status/910003187440009216).
And 18 days ago Foreman told someone off (who merely made a suggestion to improve the software):
the reason is because I think it’s a good reason. good luck. fork this ****, make your own installer, and **** off. you sound like a real ****.
As far as I can see, Charles Foreman did not make a mistake when he licensed the code under the ISC. He just doesn’t like others removing his swears in the software. I think he is taking that personally somehow.
Here is his response to another teacher asking him to remove the swearing:
BTW I am not judging here - Charles seems very talented, an artist first, and still young. Yet, he doesn’t work in a school environment (I do), and has no idea that swearing and profanities never are tolerated on school grounds. That is just how it is. His Goonies example works in a specific context (swearing in a movie), and cannot be used as a reason to allow swearing by teachers or in the books/software that are used in a teaching context. Of course, swearing is used within the context of novels and movies that may be shown/used during classes. It’s the context that counts. Charles negates that difference: context decides what is acceptable.
Can I ask the meaning of “swears” in the context of software code?
Edit:
Oh, I get it, do not mind
That person he told off was annoying here. He couldn’t accept that the app opened after installing, also the “Be grateful that anyone uses your app” attitude going on. It’s a free app, don’t treat the devs like they owe you something.
Sorry, I meant that in his response he again mentioned to fork his app instead of complaining. Implying his original ISC licensing was a consciously made decision, and not a goof on his part.
Haha, reading that discussion made me love this developer 
He seems like an obnoxious idiot to me.
^ same does your sentence :rolleyes:
Hope, you’re aware it’s an image made in your mind.
For me his expressions are free of limitless self-censored stupidity from modern day prophets.
& the majority is evil.
Let’s not pretend he’s writing something profound—he likes to amuse himself with edgy humor is all. 
I get that he’s HILARIOUS!!111; especially if you’re 15 years old. However, berating users and relicensing to force other (superior) forks to keep stupid shit most users don’t want is a fool’s errand. He’s a clown that wants your email to download it, put Google Analytics in to track you, and will antagonize you if you give feedback he doesn’t like.
If ya’ll want to make him your hero, it’s no skin off my back. I just think he’s an obnoxious idiot squandering his project is all.
So immaturity (in both dialogue and coding) is being called ‘candid’ and juvenile statements laced with profanity is being called ‘speaking from the heart’. Yet it’s possible that some of these people having orgasms over his style of development/feedback are the same ones who trashed Tiles for making a Blender fork featuring a crying baby on the splashscreen.
Is this hypocritical, or does it only apply if such behavior does not strike so near to one’s area of interest?
The quarrels are quite uninteresting when this young fresh app is in its early phase of trying to building up a community on a “threat” of forks which will probably in the long run harm the build up phase and the overall popularity of it.
Sudden licensing changes and the overall uncertainty right now isn´t helping.
Tracking in a creative program is terrible and thus the interest is at least on my side pretty low.
Hopefully its all being sorted out especially the tracking should be imo removed in the next release(s).
And what is maturity, dearest?
Old habits die hard.
:no::yes:
‘VR’ evolution, baby.
Yes, as long as all the source code has been contributed by a single entity(read person or company) owning the copyright he/she/they can change the license on a whim.
Quoted for agreement.
And… disappointment.
However, I would argue that whatever code he had posted and which users downloaded while it was licensed with that open source license is forever licensed under that open source license. I doubt that a court would allow retroactive license change after the transaction (download) has taken place.
In other words, of course he can change the license for future downloads and releases if all code contributors agreed to it, but he can’t change the license for code that people had already downloaded.
Fully agree with Shenan. As sole contributor to the code, he is free to say: “From this day forward, my code is proprietary and all and any changes I make to it remain my property”. We have heard enough times how difficult it is to change the license in a popular open-source code project as each and every contributor will have to agee with the change. Being sole developer short-circuits all that hassle.
The ISC-licenced code that is out there however is forever free for someone to fork, improve, remove/add whatever they like. If he’s serious about his ISC license change, this efectively means that the ‘free’ program is now abandonware unless picked up by someone else.
Adopting a large code-base which has not had the time to aquire an active developer community however is pretty hard apart from cosmetic changes…
will it work on windows xp?
