• 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).