• socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 day ago

            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

            • deaddigger@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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.

              • mobotsar@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 minutes ago

                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.

          • 9bananas@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            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.

            • VonReposti@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

            • deaddigger@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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.

              • 9bananas@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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

                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.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

      • socsa@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            “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.

      • zonnewin@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Just open source it and leave it to the Linux community.

        I understand not wanting to support something you don’t use yourself.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          He chooses to do direct support over discord vs making people make github issues and wants to whine that this is taxing