He’s upset because people are bothering him for packages that are out of his control. A similar thing happened recently with OBS where a distro was packaging it in a non-standard way, iirc.
They’re not being bothered. They are a sensible asshole. Nothing wrong with that, and they are free to express their truth of how they feel. But there’s no evidence of harassment, if they think bug reports and feature requests is abuse then they are in for a rude experience if someone is stupid enough to actually harass them.
They should just take their project proprietary anyways. The license used is a joke. Duckstation is not open source, the license is so restrictive that it is barely source available. They are not ideologically, or in practice, part of the FOSS community. So they’re free to take their toy home with them. They weren’t playing nice with others anyway.
If you don’t want to see your software packaged in ways outside of your control, is it smart to publish it with a license that allows it to be packaged in ways outside of your control?
Having read a lot of the thread it sounds like that’s sort of what’s going on with the version on the AUR. Sounds like it is the old GPL v3 version and the dev doesn’t wanna put the new CC BY-NC-ND version on the AUR themselves because they don’t want to make an account there (understandable, not saying they should have to).
The whole situation is sort of sad, but ultimately devs working on free (as in money, I now -ND is not libre) software need to do what they need to do to remain sane. If it’s a CC BY-NC-ND emulator without Linux support versus no emulator at all I think we’d all want the first.
I hope this thread can be an eye opener for folks to remember to treat volunteer devs with respect. (Not implying anyone here was part of the problem.)
No, on aur there’s duckstation which is the old GPL3 version (stuck to one year ago) and duckstation-git which downloads that git with latest license and compiles on the end user machine. Both versions respect the dev intentions of “no packages” as it downloads the code and compiles it. The problem that it was about were probably two
Documentation on how to compile is insufficient. It depends on many libraries but doesn’t say which exact version which causes issues at compile. Someone did the guesswork and wrote “instructions” (the pkgbuild file) for everyone but it’s not the main dev and it breaks often
Because it downloads the code from git, it might be an issue if it’s not tagged correctly, users get the latest commit instead of latest release and that’s undesirable (didn’t check for this case, but it was an issue for other emulators where non devs could run buggy code and complain about non-issues)
Oh, that’s weird, you’d think there’d be a way to tell whatever is on air to download a specific tag. Or like one that downloads the other indirectly. I haven’t looked into pkgbuild or aur.
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don’t go on this toxic rant and just say “nah man I can’t afford to maintain this” which is very well accepted.
Yeah but you also don’t get to be upset if someone calls you unpleasant. Both things can be true.
He’s upset because people are bothering him for packages that are out of his control. A similar thing happened recently with OBS where a distro was packaging it in a non-standard way, iirc.
They’re not being bothered. They are a sensible asshole. Nothing wrong with that, and they are free to express their truth of how they feel. But there’s no evidence of harassment, if they think bug reports and feature requests is abuse then they are in for a rude experience if someone is stupid enough to actually harass them.
They should just take their project proprietary anyways. The license used is a joke. Duckstation is not open source, the license is so restrictive that it is barely source available. They are not ideologically, or in practice, part of the FOSS community. So they’re free to take their toy home with them. They weren’t playing nice with others anyway.
If you don’t want to see your software packaged in ways outside of your control, is it smart to publish it with a license that allows it to be packaged in ways outside of your control?
~11 months ago they relicensed from GPL 3 to CC BY-NC-ND.
Oh. Time for a fork. -ND variants are not Free Software / Open Source.
Having read a lot of the thread it sounds like that’s sort of what’s going on with the version on the AUR. Sounds like it is the old GPL v3 version and the dev doesn’t wanna put the new CC BY-NC-ND version on the AUR themselves because they don’t want to make an account there (understandable, not saying they should have to).
The whole situation is sort of sad, but ultimately devs working on free (as in money, I now -ND is not libre) software need to do what they need to do to remain sane. If it’s a CC BY-NC-ND emulator without Linux support versus no emulator at all I think we’d all want the first.
I hope this thread can be an eye opener for folks to remember to treat volunteer devs with respect. (Not implying anyone here was part of the problem.)
No, on aur there’s
duckstationwhich is the old GPL3 version (stuck to one year ago) andduckstation-gitwhich downloads that git with latest license and compiles on the end user machine. Both versions respect the dev intentions of “no packages” as it downloads the code and compiles it. The problem that it was about were probably twoDocumentation on how to compile is insufficient. It depends on many libraries but doesn’t say which exact version which causes issues at compile. Someone did the guesswork and wrote “instructions” (the pkgbuild file) for everyone but it’s not the main dev and it breaks often
Because it downloads the code from git, it might be an issue if it’s not tagged correctly, users get the latest commit instead of latest release and that’s undesirable (didn’t check for this case, but it was an issue for other emulators where non devs could run buggy code and complain about non-issues)
Oh, that’s weird, you’d think there’d be a way to tell whatever is on air to download a specific tag. Or like one that downloads the other indirectly. I haven’t looked into pkgbuild or aur.
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don’t go on this toxic rant and just say “nah man I can’t afford to maintain this” which is very well accepted.