• amorpheus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    Is the issue with the packaging, or that only an outdated version can be packaged?

    He could fix the license, then people would push the up to date version and users wouldn’t report old bugs.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        And now it’s even worse. Great work.

        The solution would be to file trademark and use trademark law to to grant use of the name only to packages that comply with certain mandates. That’s how Mozilla handles it. Source code license is the completely wrong approach for this thing.

        An approach without tantrums would be to ask Linux packagers to handle packaging needs directly upstream at DuckStation and whenever a new release is made with a bit of scripting to file an automated update request for the packages. I would rope in Arch AUR, Debian Sid, a dedicated Ubuntu PPA, Fedora RPMFusion or a Fedora COPR, and Flathub this way.

        • TheNamlessGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, it was a short sighted idea to think the license change would fix anything.

          That being said, he has tried to get the packages removed, but I think they required him to submit what his real name is or something to that effect. Understandably, he didn’t comply.

          And if you have no real interest in maintaining packages, I can’t fault him for not taking the time to look into how you should do it (directly or indirectly).

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      He changed the license in the first place because someone took unpublished code from him and contributed it to another project. He had permission from his other contributors when he did that but people still went on GPL crusades against him.

      Now it’s the issue of people re-packaging his releases for other package managers such as AUR (which is against the license) and doing so incorrectly which leads to support requests from the users of broken packages.

      There’s a whole community of people who have turned hostile to this guy over his decisions but it comes off as a sense of entitlement on their part. This is after all an emulation community which is full of people who simply use these tools to run pirated old games. They don’t understand the hard work that goes into a sophisticated emulator. They just want more, better, faster! Gimme gimme gimme is all they know!

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        What was this “unpublished code”? Something committed to a public git repository where all the code is under GPL? You act as if redistribution of GPLed code was somehow illegal or at least immortal. It’s not. It’s the foundation of the whole idea behind open source.

        If that “unpublished code” was stored only on his hard drive and a hacker obtained it illegally, that would be an entirely different topic but that’s completely outside the scope of upstream source code license. That would be an outright crime. Developers at AMD, for example, write Linux driver code for AMD hardware. Then before that code leaves AMD, AMD lawyers need to clear it before it gets published to the Linux Kernel Mailing List for review. Sometimes code is not cleared, so the developers need to rewrite it. As long as the code is behind closed doors, it’s not published (therefore the GPL does not yet apply) but as soon as it’s posted for review, it’s public GPL code and everybody can to everything to it as far as the GPL permits.

        This is even spelled out in GNU’s official GPL FAQ. Edit: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          The point is that someone posted this guy’s project to the AUR with a badly written PKGBUILD and it was failing to build. This led to him getting tons of support requests which he could not help with since he doesn’t control that AUR build.

          He also couldn’t get it removed from AUR without giving the admins his personal information. Completely understandable given the history of console companies going after emulator developers. The guy has been doxxed and seems close to being run right out of the open source community by a bunch of zealots.