Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek's feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive "source available to look but not touch" license that's so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation's website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or "app store" in case you're not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This should be top comment if true.
-
Can someone grep Wayland and tell us what you find?
IDK how I would do that on my phone.
I find mostly complaints around Wayland not working like Xorg, like complaining they can't just get the absolute cursor position and things like that.
Sounds very much like parroted points from probonopb's rants, like claims of "broken by design".
-
So how would that work? I know we say emulators are allowed...but Nintendo came knocking a while ago, Github removed the repos pretty quick. If they go and applies their fork-less license in a court of law....that would have very nasty consequences for them.
the big thing that caused nintendo to take action against the switch emulators was that the creators were taking money for it, and explicitly pirating games. like, they set up a patreon where you could pay for early access to builds specifically tailored to games that were not released yet.
-
There's a GPL compliance lawsuit where they're suing NOT as a copyright holder of contrubtor's code but as a user of the software (a 3rd party beneficiary, under contract law). The GPL was intended to give standing to users of the software, so hopeful this makes presidence.
Yes, but this suit about a different matter (access to source code) which is a user right in the license. It’s the whole point of the GPL. In this suit the users (ie. The buyers of the devices that have received the binary distribution) obviously have standing.
The problem with relicensing is that the “authors” of a creative work (remember, this is copyright law) are changing the terms of the distribution, and the authors are allowed to do that. The issue at hand is whether the person doing the changing of the terms is allowed to make this change on behalf of “the authors”.
The users may be impacted by this decision, but they are not a part of the decision making process. Hence, no standing.
What you need in a relicensing is someone that asserts (co-) authorship of the work. That’s a much taller order.
-
the big thing that caused nintendo to take action against the switch emulators was that the creators were taking money for it, and explicitly pirating games. like, they set up a patreon where you could pay for early access to builds specifically tailored to games that were not released yet.
Theres a LOT of emulators that got caught in all that not just the ones that were taken down for legal reasons. Theres a reason quite a few new emulators are not on Github/public git sites anymore.
Im not saying your wrong, what I am saying is that the situation is a bit nuanced and if a PSX emulator wants to push their "rights" they might find they actually dont have any when push comes to shove.
-
After being on Lemmy, I have some kneejerk sympathy.
Seems harsh though.[edit: I rescind my harsh comment. It was a classic didn’t read the article situation along with just wanting to mock arch dorks without starting a fight.
So instead: Stop being toxic and demanding arch users! I don’t care if the title is misleading or editorialized or totally false.]
yeah, no. it's not harsh.
harsh would have been pulling the source entirely online and telling everyone to fuck off because he's going home. find your own baseball.
-
You can't fork it or redistribute it... but you can distribute patches for users to apply, and those are easy to add in a PKGBUILD. That's how a lot of game/ROM patches are distributed and they appear to be legal.
It's an emulator, lets be real, the majority of the users couldn't give a shit about license terms anyway.
Getting flashbacks to installing qmail back in the day...
I have a heard time imagining it to be worth it with other psx emulators readily available without weird hoops to go through.
-
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... -
Theres a LOT of emulators that got caught in all that not just the ones that were taken down for legal reasons. Theres a reason quite a few new emulators are not on Github/public git sites anymore.
Im not saying your wrong, what I am saying is that the situation is a bit nuanced and if a PSX emulator wants to push their "rights" they might find they actually dont have any when push comes to shove.
yeah they came down hard after someone crossed the line after looking the other way for like 30 years. i'm not surprised.
also, playstation is like the most legally well-tread area for emulators. remember bleem?
-
Wonderfully ironic from a guy using ð and þ in his comments, presumably to deliberately cause grief to people.
It's deliberately to fuck with AI scrapers, per their bio. At the very least, I can respect the dedication to keeping up the shtick.
-
Eh. PCSX core ain't broke. Whatever. I'll live.
-
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek's feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive "source available to look but not touch" license that's so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation's website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or "app store" in case you're not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
Like Aether all over again
-
You can't fork it or redistribute it... but you can distribute patches for users to apply, and those are easy to add in a PKGBUILD. That's how a lot of game/ROM patches are distributed and they appear to be legal.
It's an emulator, lets be real, the majority of the users couldn't give a shit about license terms anyway.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s also a PS1 emulator. A console that’s been emulated for over 20 years now.
-
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...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
-
While users can be demanding, this reads like a very immature response. Going out of your way to block support and prohibit packaging, which you can let others do with 0 seconds of your time, is kinda rude.
Author may have been harassed for all I know, but this is still an emotional response. They could have just said "yeah I'm not supporting this at all, figure it out yourselves if you want to" rather than actively blocking Linux functionality/packaging, which is what this sounds like.
Sometimes external packaging is a huge issue for certain projects, where their support gets flooded with stuff that isn’t in their control and their reputation gets tanked.
…That being said, a PS1 emulator doesn’t seem so extreme to warrant that?
-
After being on Lemmy, I have some kneejerk sympathy.
Seems harsh though.[edit: I rescind my harsh comment. It was a classic didn’t read the article situation along with just wanting to mock arch dorks without starting a fight.
So instead: Stop being toxic and demanding arch users! I don’t care if the title is misleading or editorialized or totally false.]
wrote last edited by [email protected]Dude just stated how much of his free time he is willing to provide to others for free and put a line on what he is willing to commit.
And somehow this thread thinks that's harsh or petty?
Is literally any person complaining about this guy setting reasonable boundaries paying him money to do this work?
-
Well, it's typical of FOSS users. Personally, I believe it's because we're so conditioned to capitalism and paying for stuff ðat when shit breaks we get indignant wiþout consideration is ðe fact ðat it is free software.
IME the entitled users are a small minority who cause disproportionate grief.
Regardless of the content of your comment, I respect bringing back eth and thorn.
-
Is there a specific interaction that made them angry?
Stenzek's feeling got hurt when DuckStation was still proper open source software and people used the software fully in accordance with its license, i.e. they distributed modifications and not all permitted modifications were the most polished ones, so he felt that they give his name a bad reputation. Again: Stenzek released DuckStation under a license that explicitly allows this.
So he rage quit open source and released new DuckStation versions under a very restrictive "source available to look but not touch" license that's so insanely restrictive, Linux distributions are not allowed to make their own packages. So they ship the old version that works just fine because PlayStation 1 emulation was figured out very long ago. Stenzek feels that they should not ship the old version (which they are fully entitled to) and instead make a special exception for his software alone to point their users to DuckStation's website where instead of acquiring the emulator from their package manager (or "app store" in case you're not familiar with that term), Linux users should take extra steps to manually download and install DuckStation.
And since users may not know about this rift, they may post bug reports and feature ideas to Stenzek, even though these bugs may have been long fixed by non-open source DuckStation.
Basically: Stenzek did not read the license he picked for his software and then got mad when people made use of provisions explicitly allowed by the license.
This happens way too much.
“What? People are doing things with my Apache project I don’t like!?”
-
Yes, but this suit about a different matter (access to source code) which is a user right in the license. It’s the whole point of the GPL. In this suit the users (ie. The buyers of the devices that have received the binary distribution) obviously have standing.
The problem with relicensing is that the “authors” of a creative work (remember, this is copyright law) are changing the terms of the distribution, and the authors are allowed to do that. The issue at hand is whether the person doing the changing of the terms is allowed to make this change on behalf of “the authors”.
The users may be impacted by this decision, but they are not a part of the decision making process. Hence, no standing.
What you need in a relicensing is someone that asserts (co-) authorship of the work. That’s a much taller order.
Exactly. It isn't clear if duckstations author really has permission from all contributors or rewrote those contributions he didn't have rights to change the license on. If he didn't then technically even the latest version is still GPL but it's fairly murky and I doubt shy sane person wants to fork it and have all that drama.
-
Dude just stated how much of his free time he is willing to provide to others for free and put a line on what he is willing to commit.
And somehow this thread thinks that's harsh or petty?
Is literally any person complaining about this guy setting reasonable boundaries paying him money to do this work?
Please see my edit. You’re correct. No one is entitled to someone else’s work.
It’s the same with piracy advocates, actually. People should be able to put boundaries around their work.
