Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
-
It looks like the change happened nearly a year ago, and no one's kicked up a fuss, so either it was done properly (i.e. past contributors were contacted and consented to the licence change, and any that didn't had their contributions replaced), or there's a big problem once a past contributor notices.
It doesn't make it any more legal to fork the project without going back to the last GPL3 commit, though, as any contributions after the license change have to be assumed to be covered by the new licence, so the combined work would be under an invalid licence (as the old and new licences aren't compatible) rather than being still covered by the old licence.
Normally, I'd completely dismiss the possibility that a licence change like this could have been done properly, but Stenzek is associated with Dolphin Emulator, which did manage to pull off a switch from GPL2 to GPL3+ by emailing lots of people and replacing a lot of code.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Make a fork that supports Linux as satire since the whole situation is so crazy.
Edit: The joke being you could argue it's fair use.
-
You're right, the license is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (weird choice for a code license, but OK)
It's not an open source license. Even CC warns against it because it isn't a free media license.
-
People just expect open source devs that do this shit in their free time with absolutely no compensation to bend over for them and do everything they please. The good thing about open source development is that you can just help with the development yourself.
Normally you'd be right, but in this case the guy just actually does have a history of being an a****** to everybody. This is very much a case of a developer being the problem.
He has a history of starting s*** being an a****** and then complaining when everyone else is an a****** to him.
That's not even getting into. Basically every problem he is complaining about is of his own making or his own ignorance.
The whole aur problem is because of his own, very likely illegal license change
-
I'd go further, you should help with the development. Seems like some people would rather spend hours hounding a developer to implement their thing, rather than figuring out how to do it themselves...
He changed the license so no one can legally help him. He kind of put himself in this position. And very likely did so illegally
-
Did you read the text? This guy was providing a package because the default one was broken and he's fed up of dealing with complaints. And the solution to that is just flatpak the thing and tell users to use that regardless of dist.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't think we can count the AUR repository as the "default package" because:
- AUR is a community driven project, for users, by users. Repos are not maintained by the Arch team.
- Arch user needs to explicitely get out of their way to access and use AUR, it is not enabled by default
- AUR repos are not even packages (usually). They are build-instructions. There are specific -bin repos that provide packaged binaries, but that was not the case here, because the emulators license doesn't allow that.
The issue here was that stenzek moved the emulator to a source-available license, which does not allow Arch to provide packages in their package repo. So people were using build instructions to build the emulator from source. And when that caused issues because something broke, people came to stenzek for support instead of the person maintaining the build instrucions.
-
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.
-
Were you supporting him before?
Not explicitly, but Duckstation was my emulator of choice for those systems
-
This is so lame for the arch community, like
I use arch btws are supposed to be the most hardcore power users and they bugged a dev that badly! I don't know how many tutorial I saw about compiling arch and building everything yourself into a minimal setup.You can't give me shit for using Manjaro for as long as I did, GLAD I LEFT.
::: spoiler can I say something a little stupid
Thx!So I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with ignoring emails. Emails are a kinda public way for anyone to start a conversation with you. As developers, we include our emails in commits — but we don’t have to. I don’t think GitHub even checks whether the email addresses in commits are valid.
So yeah, if you have a valid reason to reach out to a developer, go ahead. But if that developer disagrees or doesn’t want to respond, that’s just how it is — you can’t make someone email you back.
I’m just being consistent with myself. I always tell my friends and family about the importance of the block button, and I’ll say the same thing here: just ignore it. And in this case someone would have eventually fixed the problem and submitted a PR.
~sry if I was condescending~
:::I submitted a PR and bug report for something I was using recently to better help arch users install it in the future. I encourage other folks to do that. If you ever have trouble installing something, just submit a little PR with tweaks to the README that would've helped you. Oftentimes they'll accept them. It benefits everyone.
-
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...youths
y'all
Reddit
-
He got mad because people kept bugging him to fix problems created by other people which he has no control over. His “tantrums” are his way of re-asserting control over his life.
Open source dev burnout from support requests is a real and widespread phenomenon. When a software developer releases the fruits of their hard work they are doing the wider community a service. When large numbers of people begin to contact the developer for support the effect can be overwhelming even though every individual request may be legitimate and non-malicious.
In the case of packaging errors created by a third party not in contact with (let alone under the control of) the developer, these support requests for dealing with unsolvable and irrelevant (in the developer’s eyes) problems can be absolutely maddening.
I am quite sure the developer would have had no issues with people doing what they did as long as they accepted the responsibility to fix their own issues without contacting him. The fact that they did not do so (and therefore caused him grief) is negligent even if it isn’t malicious.
No he gets mad at users and insults them even when it is his own code. He's a royal asswad. This isn't even the first time he's created a problem due to his own short sightedness then bitches about the results.
This ENTIRE problem is of his own making.
Sure users are annoying, but when you fuck up you don't just insult the confused users due to your own fuck up. While doubling down and making it worse for yourself.
This guy is self defeating.
-
Did you read the text? This guy was providing a package because the default one was broken and he's fed up of dealing with complaints. And the solution to that is just flatpak the thing and tell users to use that regardless of dist.
Providing a package, if he did so, was his choice. No one at the distro asked him to (some users may have, but that has nothing to do with the distro or its other users). If you provide the package of your own volition, you should expect that there will be complaints if it doesn't work as expected. You need a procedure (and a certain amount of saved-up mental fortitude) to deal with them.
If someone complains to you about someone else's buggered-up packaging job, the correct thing to do is have a prewritten reply set up saying, "Nothing to do with me, complain to the other guy." Then close the bugs as WONTFIX and get on with your life. And see if the package host has a removal policy for broken packages, if it is genuinely broken and not just clueless users messing up.
To me, this specific case seems like the dev wasn't prepared for what the open Internet is like, couldn't handle it, and imploded messily. Are the users that got on his nerves at fault? Yes, on one level, but their existence was also entirely predictable. If you know what you're doing, you factor the existence of these people in when you decide whether you're willing to release your software to the public or not and what communication channels you should leave open.
-
For me it is no harder to read, it's more like people sprinkling in Shakespearean English to their normal speech, it just comes off as either being pretentious, or random xd
It just looks like depressed lower case d to me. So de eggs and de chicken. Makes him look like a child from Gaia online trying to be quirky and different which is really rather annoying to read.
If I wanted to hang around minors I would go spend time with my cousins. Not go to social media.
-
Nope not according to the license. Now is the license change legit and allowed? I don't know
It doesn't matter what the license say, because GitHub TOS (that everybody agree on when registering their account) explicitly allows forking any project hosted on GitHub, regardless of the project's license.
-
The developer also had a massive drama with RetroArch because, wait for it... "RetroArch users complain too much!" so that's actually a common sentiment coming from them and it's absolutely not restricted to Linux. He hates Linux users, Android users, RetroArch users... at this point I wonder why even publish this as a public user facing project at all, he clearly hates users.
In his defense, a LOT of emulator maintainers have this sentiment about RetroArch, so I can't fault him too much for that one in particular.
I do get the sense this is more common with emulators in general.
-
Arch probably has more documentation online than any other distro.
Just check out the Arch wiki, it's insane.
So yeah, if you're used to looking up solutions online, Arch might actually be the best distro for you.
barely any context from what I’ve searched fixes for, nice crap comment.
I don't know what this means.
It meant that I didn’t give that much context in my comment and kindly flamed myself before a stranger got the chance to it haha
Thanks for the kind comment.
-
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!
That's not how AUR works, it builds from source using instructions, it's not repackaging at all
-
Oh have some patience my friend
-
Let me add to context:
This developer hates the FOSS spirit & tells users to fuck off when they complain. There, done.
-
Were you supporting him before?
Supporting something just means using something now.
People buy something they want, use it, enjoy it and then think that is support. It is ridiculous.
People knighting themselfs for being leech-consumers.
-
The gnome team is worse then apple and Microsoft.
At least they own the entire OS they force their changes on.
The gnome team just fucks with everyone everywhere and gives zero fucks otherwise.
I used to have this view but I've come around: change can be painful but it's also necessary. It's like a wildfire: it's destructive but it allows for new growth and it's a sign of a healthy, sustainable ecosystem. Suppressing change isn't healthy.
Do I think that every change from Gnome is a winner? Nope but I do think they're doing their best to move in the right direction, as they see it. And for that, I'll keep using Gnome and I wish them good luck.
