From here on out my code will no longer be GPLv3 due due to many code rips then claiming they wrote it, it will be Licensed for Personal Use Only, alter it or re-posting as-your-own-code can result in civil action.
If I catch you I'll use every means available to rectify that.
I did respond to the issue you had earlier, and that person's posts were taken down, and a warning/reprimand issued. I think it's fair to say that people don't know the distinction between these different licenses. We agree with you that people should not violate the licenses in posted code.
Irrespective of that, people will take code and do things they shouldn't, either out of ignorance or other reason. We will take steps like we did this morning when this is brought to our attention.
Thank you Bruce. It's really frustrating to say the least. He couild have asked me for help since he knew it was my code but he didn't and that tells me one thing.... he intended to rip off my code. That is why I was so livid.
I wouldn't reach the same conclusion. More likely, he didn't know any better. He said as much in one of his posts. It's one of the questions like on Law and Order of intent. It's not a crime if there was not intent to commit the crime, which entails knowing that it is a crime. So if he didn't know that the license meant not to do what he did, he probably was not intending to rip you off per se. It's a reasonable expectation that posted code can be messed with. But he crossed the line by posting his version of it in ignorance and violation of the license.
Fair enough.... I'll leave it as that.
Steve Martin.... "I forgot armed robbery was illegal"
Without attribution, I would have pounced. 
I don't know the history here, but I can certainly see the emotion.
It really sucks (and is indefensible in any definition of 'open source') to have someone falsely claim ownership of someone else's code.
However, the GPLv3 already provides pretty strong language (which I believe has been tested in court) prohibiting modifying claims of ownership (copyright) of the original code. I don't really see how a different license would give you any stronger grounds for civil action....but maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer (and hopefully you've consulted one of those).
Also, I assume you're referring to new code you write not being GPLv3 licensed. I'm pretty sure that Richard Stallman would have some choice words if anyone -- even the original copyright holder -- attempted to create a derivitave work by changing the license terms from GPLv3 to something more restrictive.
There is no original code left. Everything has been rewritten. If you don't like it or anyone else doesn't like it... fill-in-the-blank
Download the Hubitat app
