▲ 135 ▼ DuckStation dev dropping support for Linux (github.com) submitted 1 year ago by Internet@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/steamdeck@sopuli.xyz 55 comments fedilink hide all child comments The post says AUR builds are being blocked and soon Linux support will be dropped entirely.
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (3 children) Homie doesnt let you fork the shit to maintain it yourself. He made the problem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Matty_r@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Doesn't change how people treat developers. I gather this guy isn't that great, but people should just move elsewhere instead of being hostile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago That happens so often with non-corporation FOSS. Some dude makes something cool and shares it for free, and in turn they get a butload of entitled support requests of idiots who think that "customer is king" applies for stuff they didn't pay for too, and who think that the developer owes them something for using his software. A similar thing happened with M66B. He got so fed up that he pulled all his apps. Luckily people managed to talk him out of it, but it's really understandable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago Then it's not FOSS. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Just do it anyways, fuck what he wants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children) Forking against the license wouldn't solve the problem of not being included in distributions though. No sane distribution would include the fork. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) You could if you want fork from when it was GPLv3: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] oplkill@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway? Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives permalink fedilink source parent [–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Again, look at how distros handled DeCSS back when that was an issue. There were just "unofficial" 3rd party repos hosted in places that didn't care about US crypto laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Matty_r@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Doesn't change how people treat developers. I gather this guy isn't that great, but people should just move elsewhere instead of being hostile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago That happens so often with non-corporation FOSS. Some dude makes something cool and shares it for free, and in turn they get a butload of entitled support requests of idiots who think that "customer is king" applies for stuff they didn't pay for too, and who think that the developer owes them something for using his software. A similar thing happened with M66B. He got so fed up that he pulled all his apps. Luckily people managed to talk him out of it, but it's really understandable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago That happens so often with non-corporation FOSS. Some dude makes something cool and shares it for free, and in turn they get a butload of entitled support requests of idiots who think that "customer is king" applies for stuff they didn't pay for too, and who think that the developer owes them something for using his software. A similar thing happened with M66B. He got so fed up that he pulled all his apps. Luckily people managed to talk him out of it, but it's really understandable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago Then it's not FOSS. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Just do it anyways, fuck what he wants. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children) Forking against the license wouldn't solve the problem of not being included in distributions though. No sane distribution would include the fork. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) You could if you want fork from when it was GPLv3: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] oplkill@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway? Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives permalink fedilink source parent [–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Again, look at how distros handled DeCSS back when that was an issue. There were just "unofficial" 3rd party repos hosted in places that didn't care about US crypto laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children) Forking against the license wouldn't solve the problem of not being included in distributions though. No sane distribution would include the fork. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) You could if you want fork from when it was GPLv3: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] oplkill@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway? Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives permalink fedilink source parent [–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Again, look at how distros handled DeCSS back when that was an issue. There were just "unofficial" 3rd party repos hosted in places that didn't care about US crypto laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) You could if you want fork from when it was GPLv3: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] oplkill@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway? Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives permalink fedilink source parent
[–] oplkill@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway? Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Again, look at how distros handled DeCSS back when that was an issue. There were just "unofficial" 3rd party repos hosted in places that didn't care about US crypto laws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna. permalink fedilink source parent