There's been a bit of a furore in the emulation community lately centred around the PlayStation 1 emulator DuckStation, which has now seen two license changes recently.
Apparently some companies were modifying and packaging Duckstation in commercial products without contributing their changes back into the project which seems to be what ticked him off this time
That’s kinda the point of FOSS - that free to use means free to use.
That being said, the only times I see the downsides of this policy is when downstream messes with software on a permissive license, then doesn’t support users when the stuff they messed with fucks up - Usually Linux distros rebuilding software to use fucked up dependencies.
Duckstation was licensed under GPLv3, which requires that not only downstream changes are shared upon request, but everything used to build that source too.
If I was maintaining a project the size of Duckstation I’d consider this my last straw too. He’s cleared the license change with all contributors so it’s his call to make.
Ultimately if the license is a sticking point the community can fork from the last known GPLv3 commit and continue work from there. Using Swanstation is also an option as that was forked a while ago.
Emulators come and go all the time, this is no different.
Yeah I get the frustration the GPL can make, especially how it doesn’t require downstream to provide source in a coherent format. The GPL is a pain in the ass to manage, even if I’m a fan of it ideologically
just license everything under GPLv3 and call it a day, gosh. any other license is just liberalism (unless someone knows a better one)
No commercial use can be pretty valid. You might not want some big company using your software.
(Not that that applies so much to a PS1 emulator.)
Apparently some companies were modifying and packaging Duckstation in commercial products without contributing their changes back into the project which seems to be what ticked him off this time
That’s kinda the point of FOSS - that free to use means free to use.
That being said, the only times I see the downsides of this policy is when downstream messes with software on a permissive license, then doesn’t support users when the stuff they messed with fucks up - Usually Linux distros rebuilding software to use fucked up dependencies.
Duckstation was licensed under GPLv3, which requires that not only downstream changes are shared upon request, but everything used to build that source too.
Arcade1UP refused to share changes they made to support some Simpsons arcade cabinet they were selling. They eventually shared the changes after being pressured, but even then the sources they shared weren’t in any decent or buildable state. Some additional context: https://old.reddit.com/r/Arcade1Up/comments/10osxo0/john_d_states_arcade1up_is_not_in_violation_of/
If I was maintaining a project the size of Duckstation I’d consider this my last straw too. He’s cleared the license change with all contributors so it’s his call to make.
Ultimately if the license is a sticking point the community can fork from the last known GPLv3 commit and continue work from there. Using Swanstation is also an option as that was forked a while ago.
Emulators come and go all the time, this is no different.
Thanks for the context
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Yeah I get the frustration the GPL can make, especially how it doesn’t require downstream to provide source in a coherent format. The GPL is a pain in the ass to manage, even if I’m a fan of it ideologically