Please remove binaries; as per license

[rednoah]

I'd like to politely remind you that the code you cloned without permission is not "free as in beer" and distributing licenses is explicitly disallowed:
https://github.com/filebot/filebot/blob/master/LICENSE.md

[NaruZosa]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say they're already aware.

[rednoah]

Yes, but one can always be nice and polite first. ;)

[Techman]

@rednoah You delete the source code for FileBot off of GitHub? The link you have in the parent comment is no longer valid.

[TRIPSLORD]

@rednoah Lol shut up bozo 🤡

[HitWithSpader]

Wasn't this under the GPL? Anyways, you probably violated it for making it paid and the source code no longer available in newer versions.

[rednoah]

Wasn't this under the GPL? Anyways, you probably violated it for making it paid and the source code no longer available in newer versions.

FileBot was open-source and GPL-licensed up until FileBot 4.7.9. The FileBot 4.7.9 code base can thus be freely used / forked / developed further provided that any changes remain open-source and GPL-licensed. Any version / revision newer than that is notably not GPL-licensed.

GPL notably does not transfer ownership to the public. The author is still the owner and can thus make the work (and especially newer changes / additions) available under a different license. Super easy, barely an inconvenience, if the code base has one author and zero GPL dependencies.

That's the theory. In practice, I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you. I don't have a legal department, and neither do you, so that's that. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[jrpike]

@rednoah you are not free to violate licenses and then complain about others that follow them.

GPL-3.0:
8. Termination.
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

You, the author, are not a distinct party with regards to the license; you are beholden to the license just the same as non-authors.

I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you. I don't have a legal department, and neither do you

If you say so.

[rednoah]

@jrpike ChatGPT politely suggests that you are wrong:

Q: As the sole author of piece of software, can I change the license from GPL to proprietary?

A: Yes, as the sole copyright holder, you absolutely can change the license of your software from GPL to a proprietary license, or to any other license you choose.

[AlexanderTheGrey]

@rednoah A chatbot told you, so it must be true!

The reality is that you can relicense future releases (or dual-license) if you're the sole copyright holder. But you can't revoke the GPL on copies already distributed, and you can't relicense others' contributions or embedded GPL code without permission. I highly doubt there is no third-party GPL-licensed code or user contributions in the FileBot codebase originally distributed under the GPL license, meaning what you did is legally ambiguous. There were a million ways you could've monetized FileBot (such as utilizing AGPLv3) that wouldn't have made you a pariah in the open-source community.

Most people aware of how you alienated the open-source community will never support you under any circumstances, especially with all of the memory-holing you tried.