this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
705 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
73534 readers
2451 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
itt: a bunch of entitled Linux youths that don't understand burnout or QOL.
dude has set a limit to what he wants or is willing to do. still gets called a bitch for defining the line and is still called an asshole.
some of y'all even bring up multiple cases of other foss devs doing/saying the same thing, continue to call them assholes.
๐ค There's a pattern here...but I'm just too blinded by the brilliancy of my distro to see it...
I just cannot wrap my head around an emulator dev who isn't daily driving Linux...
Damn people are really misunderstanding this comment. Legitimately just don't know anyone who is involved in FOSS projects who doesn't primarily use Linux. Not really passing judgement here, just making an observation.
I'm all for jerking around on Windows folks to use Linux in jest and fun, but to purposely shit on a major contributor of any foss for not using Linux makes my blood boil.
honestly, I hope the dev reads this and takes my advice.
as a Linux guy, run dude. fuck these assholes. they don't deserve your time, your talent, or your efforts. gank your shit, rewrite the license, and block any Linux use. and make sure you call out the distro(s) responsible. sometimes assholes have to be put in their place to learn anything. even then, if history tells us anything they're just going to go poison some other poor dev and forget about you.
The original code was GPL which he illegally re-licensed to creative commons.
If you are the copyright owner you can relicense any way you want learn some copyright law.
right but unless you sign a contributor licensing agreement when you contribute then the copyright owner can't relicense code you contributed.
so if you contribute to a GPL codebase it's pretty legally perilous to try to unilaterally relicense code that isn't "yours".
this is pretty nebulous territory anyways, but I'd argue it's pretty unethical to relicense to a more restrictive license essentially "taking" the GPL code from contributors
This is true, but it's also true that the older gpl versions can't be revoked.
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. 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. Thats absolutly possible to do. Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
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 you can!
...for new versions. not for already released ones.
at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.
edit: assuming a solo project. see below.
Only if you are the sole contributor or get a written consent from all contributors. GPL doesn't hand over the copyright to the maintainer.
Dolphin is the poster child example of changing licences properly. It was a painful job just getting in touch with all the long inactive devs.
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. 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. Thats absolutly possible to do.
Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.
Edit: A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.
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
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:
(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.
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.
fair enough, but that doesn't mean he has to do everything anyone asks him. he's still within his rights to close the source down and obliterate it from the internet. others will come and pick up the torch.
And likewise, that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to give him shit for doing it.