Proprietary Firefox extension contains AGPL-licensed code

[christianbundy]

I've downloaded the source code from your Firefox extension and it's easy to verify that it uses the same code from master with small changes. I've included a zipfile of the extension here: octotree.zip

@buunguyen Four days ago you made this claim:

The closed source version was a complete rewrite of Octotree.

Could you please clarify what you meant by "complete rewrite"?

cc: @Powersource

[buunguyen]

@zacanger

I built and made Octotree free for 5 years. It was mostly a thankless job but it was okay, until I couldn't do it all by myself and started paying developers to help. That was even before I charged for Octotree. The majority of commits to Octotree were done by me and the developers I hired.

I have been trolled for a long time since I started charging for Octotree. On GitHub, Twitter, Reddit and others. I didn't want to change the old source from AGPL to unlicensed but you see, that's the reason I have been trolled for this week. Enough is enough. Whether you perceive it "cool" or "uncool", I don't care.

@christianbundy

it's easy to verify that it uses the same code from master with small changes

This is simply not true. If it was true, just use the code from master and make the "small changes" yourself and stop with the spams.

Bottom line on the topic of open-sourcing:

• The old source code in master is no longer under AGPL because it's been the reason of this week's trolling comments
• The closed source version will remain closed and we will won't be harassed into open-sourcing it

Open-sourced or not, Octotree will remain free forever. If anyone finds it useful, please subscribe to the Pro plan to support the continuous development effort of 4 fellow developers. If you can't, that's okay, just please don't make life harder for us. Thank you.