Just because it’s open source
It’s not open source. The maintainer relicensed the project from GPL to the current source-available license last year.
[deleted]
crestwave@lemmy.world 8 months ago
mobotsar@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
[deleted]moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 8 months ago
No, the duckstation dev obtained the consent of contributors and/or rewrote all GPL code.
gamingonlinux.com/…/playstation-1-emulator-duckst…
I have the approval of prior contributors, and if I did somehow miss you, then please advise me so I can rewrite that code. I didn’t spend several weekends rewriting various parts for no reason. I do not have, nor want a CLA, because I do not agree with taking away contributor’s copyright.
JordanZ@lemmy.world 8 months ago
[deleted]IzzyJ@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Seems like just repackaging it would solve the problem a lot easier than alienating a userbase- even if small
nialv7@lemmy.world 8 months ago
So this is more like source available rather than open source…
zonnewin@feddit.nl 8 months ago
Open but not free.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 8 months ago
There exists pkgbuilds for arch and previously packages of the older GPL builds.
A pkgbuild is just a recipe for each users computer do do the stuff needed to fetch and or build publicly available software. It is copyright the writer of the recipe not the owner of the software thus fetched. That is to say the owner of foobar can’t copyright the functional equivalent of a bash script which does git clone and make install foobar.
The older versions thereof are still available under the GPL and aren’t subject to being removed.
Neither of these are actually subject to the authors whims. He doesn’t own the pkgbuild and if he chooses to offer the file to users they can download it either by manually git cloning it or having a script do it.
So no they didn’t “do it anyway”