Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.
Technology
438
Beiträge
192
Kommentatoren
661
Aufrufe
-
There's zero responsibility or liability on open source work. Specifically, this is licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, which has the following clauses:
Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
a. Unless otherwise separately undertaken by the Licensor, to the extent possible, the Licensor offers the Licensed Material as-is and as-available, and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Licensed Material, whether express, implied, statutory, or other. This includes, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence or absence of errors, whether or not known or discoverable. Where disclaimers of warranties are not allowed in full or in part, this disclaimer may not apply to You
b. To the extent possible, in no event will the Licensor be liable to You on any legal theory (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise for any direct, special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, exemplary, or other losses, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of this Public License or use of the Licensed Material, even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such losses, costs, expenses, or damages. Where a limitation of liability is not allowed in full or in part, this limitation may not apply to You.
c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.
Bref, the developer doesn't owe anyone anything beyond what is stated in the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, the GitHub TOS and the local laws where the developer lives.
Dude seems like a troll, just quit feeding it, downvote him and move on. Engaging just makes them more persistently stupid.
-
Dude seems like a troll, just quit feeding it, downvote him and move on. Engaging just makes them more persistently stupid.
Oh, 100% troll, I'm just enjoying watching them dig their own hole and run out of responses.
-
Please explain how it is wrong.
Lol why? You don't give a shit. No one who has commented in this exchange does.
And that's fine as far as it goes, but let's not be disingenuous and pretend we're righteous.
Forget it, Jake. It's the internet.
-
Lol why? You don't give a shit. No one who has commented in this exchange does.
And that's fine as far as it goes, but let's not be disingenuous and pretend we're righteous.
Forget it, Jake. It's the internet.
You've dodged my question. Please explain how what I've stated is wrong.
-
You've dodged my question. Please explain how what I've stated is wrong.
Telling you I'm not going to answer you because I don't believe you care and it's a waste of at least my own time isn't dodging your question. I told you exactly. Waste of time.
I owe you nothing.
-
Telling you I'm not going to answer you because I don't believe you care and it's a waste of at least my own time isn't dodging your question. I told you exactly. Waste of time.
I owe you nothing.
Then I don't know why you're here in the first place.
I suggest you delete your comments if you're going to attack people ad hominem by calling them a "cry baby" instead of clearly stating your opinion and refuse to have a conversation about it. You won't have people replying to you about a conversation you don't want to have.
As you said, it's a waste of your time, and a waste of everyone else's time.
-
Then I don't know why you're here in the first place.
I suggest you delete your comments if you're going to attack people ad hominem by calling them a "cry baby" instead of clearly stating your opinion and refuse to have a conversation about it. You won't have people replying to you about a conversation you don't want to have.
As you said, it's a waste of your time, and a waste of everyone else's time.
No ad hominems here, buddy, even if that does sound fancy.
We are all free to engage or not as we like.
That's freedom, and of no one else's concern. I don't need permission from others to share my opinion, nor to withhold it.
-
Oh yeah, this guy works for free and doesn't like getting reports for things that are beyond his control, this guy is a huge baby, fuck him for working for free!
You're not paying his salary, he doesn't owe you shit. No liability and all that.
People like you are why open source developers quit. They don't get paid for this, and when it's no longer pleasant, they stop doing work.
He could, you know... Ignore reports like that instead of dropping support entirely out of spite.
-
Oh, 100% troll, I'm just enjoying watching them dig their own hole and run out of responses.
lol fantastic. Well as long as you are enjoying it too, by all means
-
He could, you know... Ignore reports like that instead of dropping support entirely out of spite.
Well, yes, but triage is work.
I don't disagree that this could be handled better, but it's his decision if he no longer feels like Linux is worth supporting.
I don't know if he gets harassed for ignoring reports from downstream builds or what, but I know this was a problem for Bottles and OBS where users became very irate and rude in the bug reports because the downstream version was broken.
-
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 understand. Thanks a lot for the info.
-
I use the Duckstation flatpak funny enough
Flatpak is dead, moving to appimage. Finally, an appimage that isn't broken.
-
Assuming newer versions are derived from code that was licensed GPL in the old version, the newer versions (which include new code) are also licensed GPL, whether the person writing the new code likes it or not.
No, this is plainly wrong. A license is a proclamation of the copyrightowner how others can use their material. The copywrite owner does not license their own work to themself, they can do whatever they want with their copyright. If you are not the copyright owner you have to have the license and afe only permitted to use the material after that license.
-
You'll find the copyright owner is Sony.
So the original code wasnt gpl at all then. If this was true i would be pretty sure this repo would already be closed.
-
yes and no:
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can't really revoke a GPL license. that's not really a thing.
and the part about
If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.
seems to me like you are implying that "use under the old license" means "run the program on my own machine", but that's not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn't legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
Thats not completly right at least under german law (and most likely also under us law).
A license is basically a contract between you and the copyright owner.
If the copyright owner changes the distribution of a piece of software to a new license you have a diffrent contract with them. So you have to hold up this new license.
If you already had a license (in this case gpl) you can use this old contract, but you can not download a new copy delete what was added since the copyright change and use that under gpl. You would have to proof that you had the gpl license before or in this case that it got relicensed to you. -
Thats not completly right at least under german law (and most likely also under us law).
A license is basically a contract between you and the copyright owner.
If the copyright owner changes the distribution of a piece of software to a new license you have a diffrent contract with them. So you have to hold up this new license.
If you already had a license (in this case gpl) you can use this old contract, but you can not download a new copy delete what was added since the copyright change and use that under gpl. You would have to proof that you had the gpl license before or in this case that it got relicensed to you.what a ridiculous idea. that's not how anything works:
copyright applies to the intellectual property, not the exact file.
so the code itself is the copyrighted thing, not the file you download.
it doesn't matter whether you download the gpl version, you type out the gpl version by hand, or delete all new code until only gpl code is left.
all you would need to proof is that the code is identical to the gpl code. how you got to that code is completely irrelevant.
you have some fundamental misunderstandings about copyrighted material, intellectual property, and fair use.
most importantly: copyright applies to intellectual property. the idea of a thing, not the physical thing.
so in the case of this emulator, the file and where you got it from is completely irrelevant; only the content of the file, the code, has any meaning. which means any files that contain the same code are identical in the eyes of the law, regardless of how you got them.
copyright is not a contract, but a license. and a license is a manual that explains how intellectual property (the idea of a thing, not the physical thing) is allowed to be used by someone. it's not specific to an individual, which is why contracts have to be signed by both parties. so no, you don't have a contract and no obligation to adhere to the new one at all. you can choose to use the old license, as long as you don't use any of the new code.
unless you want to modify and/or distribute the new code, the license (CC-BY-NC-ND) is irrelevant for the user.
and you can modify your own private copy as much as you want, you just can't distribute it, or modify and use it in a way that is illegal in some other way. but that's about it.
and all of this applies to both US and german law.
and none of this is remotely relevant, because the gpl version is still available for download!
nothing got replaced, so the gpl license is very much still applicable to that version of the software!
"new" does not mean that the old version went anywhere; it's still around. and you can still use, modify, and distribute it under the gpl.
-
I've seen multiple emulator devs frustrated with how demanding the project itself is, but moreso toxic behavior from the lead developer towards emulator devs and users alike. Can't handle any kind of even constructive criticism worth a damn and when people understandably are frustrated by him lashing out he then turns it back around to say they're out to get him.
Ha thank you for your informations. Much apreciated.
