Commit 6d59c11 adds the text Redistributing this app as your own is NOT permitted to the project README, presumably intended as an additional restriction on the project's GPLv3 licensing terms. However, GPLv3 section 7, "Additional Terms," includes a provision that allows recipients of a GPLv3-licensed project to ignore most additional restrictions applied to said license by the licensor.
IANAL, but this StackOverflow question provides some interesting discussion about the extent to which the GPL may prevent your redistribution terms from being legally enforceable. The short version is that it is unclear. However, it must at least be noted that the added provision is against the spirit of the GPL, and to an extent the spirit of the open source movement as a whole.
I would encourage you to revise the app's new redistribution terms so that they are GPL-compliant (possibly by requiring that redistributed copies be named differently - see GPLv3 section 7, bullet point (c)) or to change the license under which future versions of the application is distributed to something that better aligns with your wishes as the copyright holder. But as it stands, the additional redistribution terms added to the README are are at best legally confusing, and in the worst case completely ineffectual.
Commit 6d59c11 adds the text
Redistributing this app as your own is NOT permitted
to the project README, presumably intended as an additional restriction on the project's GPLv3 licensing terms. However, GPLv3 section 7, "Additional Terms," includes a provision that allows recipients of a GPLv3-licensed project to ignore most additional restrictions applied to said license by the licensor.IANAL, but this StackOverflow question provides some interesting discussion about the extent to which the GPL may prevent your redistribution terms from being legally enforceable. The short version is that it is unclear. However, it must at least be noted that the added provision is against the spirit of the GPL, and to an extent the spirit of the open source movement as a whole.
I would encourage you to revise the app's new redistribution terms so that they are GPL-compliant (possibly by requiring that redistributed copies be named differently - see GPLv3 section 7, bullet point (c)) or to change the license under which future versions of the application is distributed to something that better aligns with your wishes as the copyright holder. But as it stands, the additional redistribution terms added to the README are are at best legally confusing, and in the worst case completely ineffectual.