All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
Kinda insane how many people in a nominally open source community are defending this guy for switching to a proprietary license. If DuckStation gets shut down then I say good riddance. It is not the only PS1 emulator in town and I will not miss the endless flow of Stenzek-related drama.
I was wondering - does the enforcement of no-derivation prevent the applying of patches and file substitutions, while building projects in a substitute build farm? As someone who packages for Guix and requires ELF-patching, I would be violating the new license, right?
Yes, that kind of packaging is exactly what he is fighting!
Stenzek gets a ton of abuse from the emulation community that is undeserved. I remember when he made PlayStation 2 emulation on Android possible with AetherSX2 under another username/alias, a massive technological leap, and the community treated him like trash. Moves like this are just in response to the entitlement and poor behaviour that some people directed towards Stenzek. Yes it sucks for the rest of us who behave appropriately online, but none of this would be happening if others treated the guy with respect in the first place.
Soo, how exactly CC solves the issue? I suspect it wouldn't stop those who ignored a much more lax GPL, tbh
Stenzek is Tahlreth?! I had no idea. It's such a shame what happened. AetherSX2 was magic when it dropped. Thought Android PS2 emulation was literally impossible on current or even near future hardware until it just suddenly appeared.
I have no context here, but isn't getting a similar level of pushback from the community under a second alias evidence of some of it being justified? Or did people somehow discover it was the same person and then the abuse started?
That's what I'm wondering.
I haven't heard any reports of or seen any abuse for emulators like Xenia, RPCS3, Dolphin, Citra, etc. I wonder if this is something unique/specific to people finding out it's Stenzek, or if it's more widespread than we realize?
Personally, I do think non-permissive licenses aren't nice, and I do think there should be criticisms, skepticism, and concerns to be voiced about that. At the same time, if it's the owners project, he is free to do with it as he wishes. Then again, if something has a large enough of a community, you could argue that it's no longer just their project. But I understand that if you want to prevent people profiting off of your work (and your contributors work), a no-commercial license does make sense. It's a complex situation.
Emulation community and treating the people who make emulation possible like shit, name a more iconic duo
This is not the emulation community per-se, but what happened to Near was absolutely heartbreaking.
Open source devs are often difficult, single-minded, and poorly socialized, people, but the entitlement from users is enough to make anyone go insane.
You're not wrong, but the underlying traits that make them that way is also what drives them to build FOSS software instead of maximizing their income potential at any and all costs. Meanwhile, most users just suuuuuuuck.
It shouldn't fall on developers, but maybe the community should normalize finding a willing representative willing to listen to all the hot garbage the community throws at devs and have that person monitor various channels then relay only the relevant stuff to the Dev. Cause as it stands, difficult or not, FOSS devs are working for free and dont deserve the hate they get.
Absolutely and I will be the first to offer praise. Honestly, I think the fact that FOSS devs trend weird and neurotic is not because of anything special with Open Source but because the non-neurotic ones are pulling down 300K salaries at Google. If big tech wasn't absorbing all of their employees mental capacity many of them would be doing FOSS for fun.
What's so bad about not permitting commercial uses?
To be fair, there are NC software licenses out there under umbrellas like post-open source, copyfair, & copyfarleft. Creative Commons is wrong for this application—& ND is even more questionable—but choosing to follow these other movements is something you can choose to do or support if the noncommercial clause aligns with your philosophy (but incompatibles with GPL & friends can prove difficult).
Bigger problem is the No Derivatives clause of the CC licence, as compiling or forking the code creates a derivative, so it's now a project nobody is allowed to use (or distribute) in any other form than their exact, precompiled releases.
In fact, as the GitHub terms of service specifically require you to allow forking - as recently demonstrated by the WinAmp project - I wonder if CC ND is even possible to be used in GitHub in the first place.
He changed the license without consulting the other committers. Other that that not much.
He claims to have gotten permission from the contributors... not sure where you heard that they didn't.
He said somewhere that he did ask a top contributor if they care, and they didn't. He also said that he rewrote a bunch of code to be able to change the license.
I can't verify this, but it doesn't seem like he infringend on someones copyright. Small changes (e.g. a few lines) don't even (necessarily) qualify for copyright (just like the few sentences I wrote here likely don't).