Notice how the developer argues he forbids packages and how the AIR is in violation of this? But an AUR PKGBUILD is not a package - it’s build instructions. It doesn’t distribute or package anything, you can check it yourself. It’s not called “PKG” for a reason. He misunderstands his own license and believes the allegedly broken PKGBUILD violates it.
He may be right about some users annoying him with bug reports though I’d be surprised if it was that common. It seems like he got a couple of reports, noticed the “forbidden” PKGBUILD and then reacted like this. Just like when changing the license from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND in order to combat… GPL violations and trademark infringements?
Frankly, the project has not had parricularly stable leadership in a while. Though a bit unfair of a comparison, compare it to Dolphin and you can see a night and day difference in project management.
If someone wanted to maintain the PKGBUILD for this project, it’d be trivial to include a patch that removes the code he added trying to make it not build.
Or, to make sure to not be in breach of the no-derivatives part of his lisence, just reimplement it and ship with a patch that fixes his “blocker”.
I haven’t read anything VILE here. It’s happening because he’s both controlling and implicitly bad at maintaining said control. Had he not insisted on trying to control packages he would have had a working package like every other software project in the ecosystem that is properly maintained for free by other people’s labor.
it’s honestly why I don’t open source any of my projects.
like, I want to make the world a better place but at the same time it cannot cost me my QOL because some entitled punk thinks they can demand shit from me.
People just expect open source devs that do this shit in their free time with absolutely no compensation to bend over for them and do everything they please. The good thing about open source development is that you can just help with the development yourself.
Yes, but no one can help this one developer because they changed the license. So now the project is just source available, not open source. They chose to be alone.
I’d go further, you should help with the development. Seems like some people would rather spend hours hounding a developer to implement their thing, rather than figuring out how to do it themselves…
I just cannot wrap my head around an emulator dev who isn’t daily driving Linux…
Damn people are really misunderstanding this comment. Legitimately just don’t know anyone who is involved in FOSS projects who doesn’t primarily use Linux. Not really passing judgement here, just making an observation.
I’m all for jerking around on Windows folks to use Linux in jest and fun, but to purposely shit on a major contributor of any foss for not using Linux makes my blood boil.
honestly, I hope the dev reads this and takes my advice.
as a Linux guy, run dude. fuck these assholes. they don’t deserve your time, your talent, or your efforts. gank your shit, rewrite the license, and block any Linux use. and make sure you call out the distro(s) responsible. sometimes assholes have to be put in their place to learn anything. even then, if history tells us anything they’re just going to go poison some other poor dev and forget about you.
fair enough, but that doesn’t mean he has to do everything anyone asks him. he’s still within his rights to close the source down and obliterate it from the internet. others will come and pick up the torch.
right but unless you sign a contributor licensing agreement when you contribute then the copyright owner can’t relicense code you contributed.
so if you contribute to a GPL codebase it’s pretty legally perilous to try to unilaterally relicense code that isn’t “yours”.
this is pretty nebulous territory anyways, but I’d argue it’s pretty unethical to relicense to a more restrictive license essentially “taking” the GPL code from contributors
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Assuming newer versions are derived from code that was licensed GPL in the old version, the newer versions (which include new code) are also licensed GPL, whether the person writing the new code likes it or not.
No, this is plainly wrong. A license is a proclamation of the copyrightowner how others can use their material. The copywrite owner does not license their own work to themself, they can do whatever they want with their copyright. If you are not the copyright owner you have to have the license and afe only permitted to use the material after that license.
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Edit:
A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can’t really revoke a GPL license. that’s not really a thing.
and the part about
If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.
seems to me like you are implying that “use under the old license” means “run the program on my own machine”, but that’s not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn’t legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
Thats not completly right at least under german law (and most likely also under us law).
A license is basically a contract between you and the copyright owner.
If the copyright owner changes the distribution of a piece of software to a new license you have a diffrent contract with them. So you have to hold up this new license.
If you already had a license (in this case gpl) you can use this old contract, but you can not download a new copy delete what was added since the copyright change and use that under gpl. You would have to proof that you had the gpl license before or in this case that it got relicensed to you.
Not really sure how you read my comment as “shitting” on anyone. I’m just commenting that it’s unexpected and unusual for a FOSS dev to not be Linux user. Idc what they do, just making the observation as someone involved in the FOSS space that most of my peers are more likely to shit on windows than Linux.
you didn’t make an observation. you made a statement. you stated that it’s impossible to fathom why anyone doing foss would continue using Windows over Linux.
it’s not impossible, you just choose to disregard their personal preferences.
“It’s impossible” is often used not to literally describe a logically impossible event but instead as an exaggeration. “I can’t possibly fathom why” is also not literal, it means under regular circumstances.
I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer grass that cuts your skin over regular grass means for typical people using grass in typical garden/field situations. That could be someone’s person preference but that it’s not typical, it’s unexpected.
itt: a bunch of entitled Linux youths that don’t understand burnout or QOL.
dude has set a limit to what he wants or is willing to do. still gets called a bitch for defining the line and is still called an asshole.
some of y’all even bring up multiple cases of other foss devs doing/saying the same thing, continue to call them assholes.
🤔 There’s a pattern here…but I’m just too blinded by the brilliancy of my distro to see it…
Notice how the developer argues he forbids packages and how the AIR is in violation of this? But an AUR PKGBUILD is not a package - it’s build instructions. It doesn’t distribute or package anything, you can check it yourself. It’s not called “PKG” for a reason. He misunderstands his own license and believes the allegedly broken PKGBUILD violates it.
He may be right about some users annoying him with bug reports though I’d be surprised if it was that common. It seems like he got a couple of reports, noticed the “forbidden” PKGBUILD and then reacted like this. Just like when changing the license from GPL to CC-BY-NC-ND in order to combat… GPL violations and trademark infringements?
Frankly, the project has not had parricularly stable leadership in a while. Though a bit unfair of a comparison, compare it to Dolphin and you can see a night and day difference in project management.
Ironic that a guy who facilitates large amounts of piracy is complaining about violating license agreements.
If someone wanted to maintain the PKGBUILD for this project, it’d be trivial to include a patch that removes the code he added trying to make it not build.
Or, to make sure to not be in breach of the no-derivatives part of his lisence, just reimplement it and ship with a patch that fixes his “blocker”.
TIL dolphin can emulate psx.
The problem has originated because he changed the license resulting in older versions being the only way to ship duckstation.
Edit: lisence to license
I wonder if he received permission from all the other contributors to change the license of their contributions.
Seriously, this thread is honestly vile and these people are a perfect example as to why this is happening.
How they are this blind to their own toxicity is beyond me
I haven’t read anything VILE here. It’s happening because he’s both controlling and implicitly bad at maintaining said control. Had he not insisted on trying to control packages he would have had a working package like every other software project in the ecosystem that is properly maintained for free by other people’s labor.
deleted by creator
it’s honestly why I don’t open source any of my projects.
like, I want to make the world a better place but at the same time it cannot cost me my QOL because some entitled punk thinks they can demand shit from me.
I don’t think you have any projects anyone would use. If you did you could ust tell the imaginary entitled punk you don’t have time.
You don’t have time to tell them all you don’t have time.
Removed by mod
Reddit
Defending a dick head dev they know nothing about or their history and insulting end users under false assumption. Overly self righteous.
Yep, reddit as fuck.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word “entitled”.
People just expect open source devs that do this shit in their free time with absolutely no compensation to bend over for them and do everything they please. The good thing about open source development is that you can just help with the development yourself.
Yes, but no one can help this one developer because they changed the license. So now the project is just source available, not open source. They chose to be alone.
deleted by creator
You know, you don’t need to censor yourself on here. I don’t think anybody’s going to be offended if you just write “shit” or “asshole”.
I thought they said ahunter2.
I understand. Thanks a lot for the info.
I’d go further, you should help with the development. Seems like some people would rather spend hours hounding a developer to implement their thing, rather than figuring out how to do it themselves…
deleted by creator
OK I didn’t know that, stupid move on his part then… What do you mean by likely illegally?
Not a license expert but he changed the license to a more restricted one but did not ask contributors which the previous license may have required.
Except the Duckstation developer changed the license to where they don’t accept contributions from others, so we couldn’t help even if we wanted to.
I just cannot wrap my head around an emulator dev who isn’t daily driving Linux…
Damn people are really misunderstanding this comment. Legitimately just don’t know anyone who is involved in FOSS projects who doesn’t primarily use Linux. Not really passing judgement here, just making an observation.
I’m passing judgement. He’s a weirdo
I’m all for jerking around on Windows folks to use Linux in jest and fun, but to purposely shit on a major contributor of any foss for not using Linux makes my blood boil.
honestly, I hope the dev reads this and takes my advice.
as a Linux guy, run dude. fuck these assholes. they don’t deserve your time, your talent, or your efforts. gank your shit, rewrite the license, and block any Linux use. and make sure you call out the distro(s) responsible. sometimes assholes have to be put in their place to learn anything. even then, if history tells us anything they’re just going to go poison some other poor dev and forget about you.
The original code was GPL which he illegally re-licensed to creative commons.
fair enough, but that doesn’t mean he has to do everything anyone asks him. he’s still within his rights to close the source down and obliterate it from the internet. others will come and pick up the torch.
And likewise, that doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to give him shit for doing it.
If you are the copyright owner you can relicense any way you want learn some copyright law.
right but unless you sign a contributor licensing agreement when you contribute then the copyright owner can’t relicense code you contributed.
so if you contribute to a GPL codebase it’s pretty legally perilous to try to unilaterally relicense code that isn’t “yours”.
this is pretty nebulous territory anyways, but I’d argue it’s pretty unethical to relicense to a more restrictive license essentially “taking” the GPL code from contributors
This is true, but it’s also true that the older gpl versions can’t be revoked.
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do. Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Assuming newer versions are derived from code that was licensed GPL in the old version, the newer versions (which include new code) are also licensed GPL, whether the person writing the new code likes it or not.
No, this is plainly wrong. A license is a proclamation of the copyrightowner how others can use their material. The copywrite owner does not license their own work to themself, they can do whatever they want with their copyright. If you are not the copyright owner you have to have the license and afe only permitted to use the material after that license.
yes you can!
…for new versions. not for already released ones.
at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.
edit: assuming a solo project. see below.
Only if you are the sole contributor or get a written consent from all contributors. GPL doesn’t hand over the copyright to the maintainer.
Dolphin is the poster child example of changing licences properly. It was a painful job just getting in touch with all the long inactive devs.
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Edit: A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.
yes and no:
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can’t really revoke a GPL license. that’s not really a thing.
and the part about
seems to me like you are implying that “use under the old license” means “run the program on my own machine”, but that’s not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn’t legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
Thats not completly right at least under german law (and most likely also under us law).
A license is basically a contract between you and the copyright owner. If the copyright owner changes the distribution of a piece of software to a new license you have a diffrent contract with them. So you have to hold up this new license. If you already had a license (in this case gpl) you can use this old contract, but you can not download a new copy delete what was added since the copyright change and use that under gpl. You would have to proof that you had the gpl license before or in this case that it got relicensed to you.
You’ll find the copyright owner is Sony.
So the original code wasnt gpl at all then. If this was true i would be pretty sure this repo would already be closed.
Not really sure how you read my comment as “shitting” on anyone. I’m just commenting that it’s unexpected and unusual for a FOSS dev to not be Linux user. Idc what they do, just making the observation as someone involved in the FOSS space that most of my peers are more likely to shit on windows than Linux.
you didn’t make an observation. you made a statement. you stated that it’s impossible to fathom why anyone doing foss would continue using Windows over Linux.
it’s not impossible, you just choose to disregard their personal preferences.
“It’s impossible” is often used not to literally describe a logically impossible event but instead as an exaggeration. “I can’t possibly fathom why” is also not literal, it means under regular circumstances.
I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer grass that cuts your skin over regular grassmeans for typical people using grass in typical garden/field situations. That could be someone’s person preference but that it’s not typical, it’s unexpected.Just open source it and leave it to the Linux community.
I understand not wanting to support something you don’t use yourself.
He chooses to do direct support over discord vs making people make github issues and wants to whine that this is taxing
G*mers are entitled pieces of shit.
Linux users are arrogant hipster assholes.
It’s a perfect storm for creating just the worst people ever. And that’s before we add the weird belittlement open source devs get.