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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Commit.

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.

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.

Just fork it lol

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.

This should be top comment if true.

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.

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?

Yeah... But then it sucks for anyone not running Arch (btw) or derivative distros. I really don't have a dog in this merge conflict but really would feel bad for any packager maintainers.

Commit.

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...

Arch users can be the most annoying arrogant and conceited people to exist online.

Ðe maintainers are ðe same. I don't know if it's ðe chicken, or ðe egg, but distro maintainers do tend to set ðe tone.

And, yeah, I use Arch everywhere, because so far everyþing else is worse.

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.