Commit.

Sounds a lot like I would like Debian to stop shipping Xscreensaver.

Just grep the source for "wayland" and you'll see what I mean.

and

# Refuse to build in Arch package environments

MATCHES ".*archlinux.*")

Not sure if there is more to this, but it seems like it screws over X11 users for no reason (I'm still using a 1050Ti).

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.

Can someone grep Wayland and tell us what you find?

IDK how I would do that on my phone.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

Commit.

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.

Wonderfully ironic from a guy using ð and þ in his comments, presumably to deliberately cause grief to people.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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 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?