The creator of the popular PlayStation 1 emulator DuckStation, known as stenzek, has made significant changes to the project's licensing, causing controversy in the emulation community. Originally open-source under the General Public License, DuckStation's license was changed first to PolyFormStrict License and then to CC-BY-NC-ND. These changes prohibit commercial use and derivatives of the emulator, including packaging it for distribution.Stenzek explained that the license changes were made to deter parties who had violated the previous license by not attributing the work and stripping copyright information. He also mentioned that preventing packagers from distributing modified versions was a 'beneficial side-effect' due
  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    818·
    3 个月前

    Someone should fork the last GPL version and pull it into libretro

    Can’t really see how it’s worth anyone else contributing to this version of the project anymore with such a hostile-to-open-source owner

    • Luci@lemmy.caEnglish
      194·
      3 个月前

      This is FUD

      The libretro/retroarch devs are the problem and why the license was changed.

      Open source != owned by everyone

      • potentiallynotfelix@lemdro.idEnglish
        42·
        3 个月前

        Exactly my thoughts. The project is going to remain open source, but not free. I hate when people fail to recognize the difference between free software and open source software.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          6·
          3 个月前

          According to the definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open source” also requires free redistribution. See the first point (emphasis mine).

          1. Free Redistribution

          The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

          It also requires freedom to distribute modifications:

          1. Derived Works

          The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

          CC-BY-NC-ND is not “open source” (both due to the NC and the ND), it’s more of a “source available” type of license (when applied to source code). The difference between “free software” and “open source” is more ideological than anything else, they both define the same freedoms, just with different ideological objectives / goals.

          • toastal@lemmy.ml
            2·
            3 个月前

            And there is nothing wrong with folks choosing such licences—especially if trying to get paid or not exploited.

            • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
              4·
              3 个月前

              No, these licenses are problematic. Fundamentally, it is proprietary software, and restricts me from full ownership and control over my computer.

              No derivatives prevents me from modifying the program and maintaining the control I am owed to have over my device. Every bit of proprietary code is a percentage of my computer that is no longer truly mine.

              No commercial usage is a continium fallacy. Is my blog commercial, because I advertise my resume on it? Is retroarch* commercial, because they have a patreon and get paid? Are “nonprofits” not commercial, since they claim to not want to make a profit? Or are only registered businesses commercial?

              The correct solution to maintain softare freedom is for governments to extract money from the entities that profit the most off of free software, and use those taxes to fund free software. Germany is kind of doing this with their sovreign tech fund.

              *Fuck the retroarch devs btw. Did a little digging, they seem to have been very problematic, and ran multiple harassment campaigns.

              • toastal@lemmy.ml
                2·
                3 个月前

                Some of these license are very clear about what is commericial. Some leave it to be ambiguous for the sake of allowing a case by case determination. The goal is often to help workers & the commons—say you as an individual are free to use it for, or others for places where folks have equal pay or say, or less than 10 seats. To say that since a software license says Amazon can’t use this but you can means it’s all proprietary means you are either Amazon or a goober to think these are equivalent. Something something baby out with the water fallacy [^1].

                I am not sure reliance on the state is the best way, but it would be interesting to see the results.

                What’s wild is the banshees here rarely acknowledge how AGPL works similar to these now adding restrictions instead of laying out what you can do, but daddy OSI approved it so it must be good.

                1: Wikipedia

                • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
                  2·
                  3 个月前

                  Some of these license are very clear about what is commericial

                  The license chosen in this article is the Creative Commons license, which is not a code license, but instead one intended for art. On their own page, they acknowledge the difficulty with categorizing commercial vs non-commercial usecases:

                  In CC’s experience, it is usually relatively easy to determine whether a use is permitted, and known conflicts are relatively few considering the popularity of the NC licenses. However, there will always be uses that are challenging to categorize as commercial or noncommercial. CC cannot advise you on what is and is not commercial use. If you are unsure, you should either contact the rights holder for clarification, or search for works that permit commercial uses.

                  What’s wild is the banshees here rarely acknowledge how AGPL works similar to these now adding restrictions instead of laying out what you can do, but daddy OSI approved it so it must be good.

                  1. “You must share source code of this service with your users” is not really an actual restriction on who can use the software and who can use it.

                  2. Fuck the OSI. They’ve done more harm to free software than any other organization. In the recent controversy with redis and SSPL, they refused to acknowledge the actual problem of the SSPL license, that it was unusable due to requiring all “software used to deploy this software” being open source. Does that mean that people who deploy software on Windows have to cough up the source code for Windows? What about Intel Management Engine, the proprietary bit of code in every single Intel CPU. Redis moved to a dual license with that a proprietary license. An unusable license… and a proprietary license = proprietary software. But instead, the OSI whined that the problems with the SSPL was that it would “restrict usage” because people have to share more source code. The OSI, and open source, have always been corporate entities that unsurp free software. Just look at their sponsors page and see who supports them: Amazon, Google, Intel, Microsoft…

                  The goal is often to help workers & the commons—say you as an individual are free to use it for, or others for places where folks have equal pay or say, or less than 10 seats. To say that since a software license says Amazon can’t use this but you can means it’s all proprietary means you are either Amazon or a goober to think these are equivalent. Something something baby out with the water fallacy

                  You are moving the goalposts. I argued against a license that restricts derivatives and commercial use. You are now defending licenses that target specific entities and seek to remain open to workers and the commons. A license that restricts derivatives is not this.

                  To be blunt, I would be okay with a license that specifically restricts retroarch devs from making derivatives, and I would find it funny af. I think that was what the Duckstation dev was going for with the noncommercial and no derivatives (since retroarch maintains forks of software in order to add it as cores), but I’m frustrated at what is essentially a shift to a proprietary license instead.

                  Although such a hypothetical license that targets the retroarch developers would not be approved by the OSI or the Free Software institutions, I don’t really care. Racists don’t get rights.

                  • toastal@lemmy.ml
                    2·
                    3 个月前

                    Why are you talking about Creative Commons? Everyone knows this isn’t for code (hence Fedora kicking out CC0 code) & everyone knows NC has a loose definition (& good intentions). There are plenty of options in licenses in the post-open source, copyfair, copyfarleft, & such that work for software that are not considered “free” or “open” (where open is more corporate than free, which free is obviously the better one) but still allow users to modify read & usually modify the source. These have their flaws—specifically the incompatibility with free software—but the heart is in the right place in trying to address the exploitation; I encourage the research & development of licenses in these spaces to help the commons. I, as a non-corporation, wish to defend not shame developers from choosing non-‘free’ licenses in these & similar categories for their software. This defense of alternative licensing isn’t moving a goalpost & always was the primary premise.

                  • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
                    1·
                    3 个月前

                    Fuck the OSI. They’ve done more harm to free software than any other organization. In the recent controversy with redis and SSPL, they refused to acknowledge the actual problem of the SSPL license, that it was unusable due to requiring all “software used to deploy this software” being open source. Does that mean that people who deploy software on Windows have to cough up the source code for Windows? What about Intel Management Engine, the proprietary bit of code in every single Intel CPU. Redis moved to a dual license with that a proprietary license. An unusable license… and a proprietary license = proprietary software. But instead, the OSI whined that the problems with the SSPL was that it would “restrict usage” because people have to share more source code. The OSI, and open source, have always been corporate entities that unsurp free software. Just look at their sponsors page and see who supports them: Amazon, Google, Intel, Microsoft…

                    I’d disagree with you there somewhat. It was all discussed in the mailing list. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/thread.html#3603

                    I’ve dug through this and the discussion for SSPLv2 a bit because I used to disagree with their decision. The criticism is that it accomplishes the alleged goal of discrimination against SaaS providers specifically by doing what you’re saying.

                    I’ll check my notes some more, I could’ve sworn I had a link to an email specifically saying as much but I can’t find it right now. I’ll poke around and see if I can find it.

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              3·
              3 个月前

              I guess it’s better than not providing any source code. What’s wrong is calling it “open source” when it isn’t.

              VVVVVV and Anodyne are some examples of “source available” games.

              • toastal@lemmy.ml
                2·
                3 个月前

                Not what I am arguing, but we do have two issues: 1) naming/branding for these types of licenses 2) FOSS banshees acting like these licenses aren’t acceptable & the whole idea is binary good or evil

                • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
                  2·
                  3 个月前

                  As long as we don’t call them free, libre, or open source I don’t care. We shouldn’t make the terminology any more confusing for those.

                  • toastal@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    3 个月前

                    There’s limited vocab to choose from & source available isn’t an appealing one

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              3·
              3 个月前

              That discussion concluded essentially the same thing I said: that both the OSI and the FSF have essentially the same conditions and that “merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source” (sic).

              Don’t police perfectly innocent and common use of language please.

              Using “open source” for all kinds of source, regardless of how restrictive its license is, is definitely not a common use of the term.

              People aren’t gonna start using “open source” like that just because a few people find it more convenient for the marketing of their projects. To me it sounds like they are the ones policing to push for a particular language standard against what people commonly use, which is what makes language prescriptive, instead of descriptive.

            • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              3 个月前

              Didn’t realize you were the same user, I would’ve used different words so it didn’t feel like I was trying to reopen an argument or something. My mistake, friend. ❤️ I mean that genuinely. I hope you don’t view me as some thread hopping flame lord about this topic.

              Edit: Wait, I wasn’t replying to you lol. My point still applies though.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                1·
                3 个月前

                heh, it’s alright. in this case I suppose I come off as the thread-hopper :P

    • Auster@lemm.ee
      2·
      3 个月前

      Libretro folks are going to take the code of any maintained emulators anyways, so people don’t really need to port it. Also didn’t follow any news from Libretro’s side, but considering Libretro’s founder’s past interactions in license changes of emulators the project benefited from, I can’t help but wonder if he/she threw a hissing fit at the Duckstation folks as well.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      2·
      3 个月前

      I think that was already done a while ago with Swanstation libretro core.