Comment on Duckstation(one of the most popular PS1 Emulators) dev plans on eventually dropping Linux support due to Linux users, especially Arch Linux users.

• deaddigger@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If you are the copyright owner you can relicense any way you want learn some copyright law.

  source

  • cole@lemdro.id ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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

    source
  • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    This is true, but it’s also true that the older gpl versions can’t be revoked.

    source

    • deaddigger@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • mobotsar@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    yes you can!

    …for new versions. not for already released ones.

    at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.

    source

    • VonReposti@feddit.dk ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • BurgerBaron@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source
      • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        yes, correct, assuming a solo project!

        thank you for the correction.

        source
    • deaddigger@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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

        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.

        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:

        The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.

        (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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You’ll find the copyright owner is Sony.

    source

    • deaddigger@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      So the original code wasnt gpl at all then

      source
• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And likewise, that doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to give him shit for doing it.

    source