Support us on Patreon
PayPalThere'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. As far as I'm aware, DuckStation is the most popular emulator for Sony's classic PS1 console, due to it being fast and accurate.
Up until recently it was open source under the GPL, then on September 1st it changed over to the PolyForm Strict License, and then again on September 13th it was changed over to the CC-BY-NC-ND license. This places a number of restrictions on the project like no commercial use and no derivatives allowed. That means, according to the creator, that no one else is allowed to package it up either as their change mentioned "Packaging is still **not** permitted, since it is effectively a modified/derived work".
Replying to a user unhappy about it on the GitHub, the creator said this:
I am well aware of how licenses work. That's why I changed, to make it very clear and a deterrent due to certain parties violating the old license, by not attributing and stripping my copyright. Packagers being collateral damage was a beneficial side-effect, considering they don't clearly mark their versions as modified (also a GPL requirement), break functionality, and expect upstream to provide support.
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.
Also, I don't appreciate the threats. If you are not a copyright holder, then you are not in a position to make any demands. I find it especially ironic, considering when the GPL was actually violated on multiple occasions, even as recently as a few months ago, nobody ever takes issue with that.
I've restricted the repository to prior contributors, and if they have any concerns, they are more than welcome to do so here. If this turns into harassment, then I'll just shut the whole thing down, because I'm way too busy with my actual job to be dealing with unsubstantiated drama from a hobby that is supposed to be fun. Please consider how the community would benefit from that.
With that in mind, this means DuckStation as of the latest changes is no longer open source. You could say it's "source available", or whatever your chosen way is to describe code you can view but has restrictions on it.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
With the heat surrounding emulation lately it's understandable that the devs would want to cover themselves.
1 Likes, Who?
BloodScourge Sep 16
I'm pretty sure people who didn't respect the old license will respect the new one... 
10 Likes, Who?
So this means no more swanstation on retroarch? :(
I tend to use standalone now anyway tbf now it supports shaders directly iirc
I tend to use standalone now anyway tbf now it supports shaders directly iirc
0 Likes
What a bullshit, for me DuckStation is pretty dead.
Am I right, is this guy's avatar was a "gray bucket"? If yes, then I'm not surprised at all...
Am I right, is this guy's avatar was a "gray bucket"? If yes, then I'm not surprised at all...
0 Likes
Once again this is very unfortunate. I completely sympathize with the difficulties of maintaining such a high profile project, especially one like an emulator which usually has a large influx of low-knowledge users spamming stuff. However, I think this is (once again) completely the wrong move by Stenzek. In effect, this is only making things harder for legitimate users (99% of the user base), and won't change anything for those not complying.
I use NixOS, where we repackage all applications by default, so we will no longer be able to use any DuckStation version from this point on without violating the license.
Personally, I so not use any non-FOSS emulators myself (my own choice, not the developer's concern), so I guess I'm not using it anymore anyway. Back to Beetle PSX it is. (Great emulator btw, it's tied to RA which some people don't like)
I use NixOS, where we repackage all applications by default, so we will no longer be able to use any DuckStation version from this point on without violating the license.
Personally, I so not use any non-FOSS emulators myself (my own choice, not the developer's concern), so I guess I'm not using it anymore anyway. Back to Beetle PSX it is. (Great emulator btw, it's tied to RA which some people don't like)
5 Likes, Who?
OK, after reading the license and going over things in detail...
Disclamer: As I understand it.
Did the dev only do this because he doesn't want to deal with people?
As in he sees anyone doing a distribution of his work (or a derivative one) as completely undesirable as he sees it that they probably using a version that's been built wrong and therefore he can't do anything about it. So if someone logs an issue he is completely powerless to help the people and said people are just wasting his time?
But then he allows PR's... Because a licence that doesn't allow derivative works (aka forks, required to do a PR) and disallows any other license overriding it, then gets overriden by a general-level Github assumed right.
The only way I can see this license to work is to require a CLA, but he says no CLA is required? I'm honestly confused.
Ah well, not like I ever played a single PS1 game in my life. I don't have any skin in the game.
Disclamer: As I understand it.
Did the dev only do this because he doesn't want to deal with people?
As in he sees anyone doing a distribution of his work (or a derivative one) as completely undesirable as he sees it that they probably using a version that's been built wrong and therefore he can't do anything about it. So if someone logs an issue he is completely powerless to help the people and said people are just wasting his time?
But then he allows PR's... Because a licence that doesn't allow derivative works (aka forks, required to do a PR) and disallows any other license overriding it, then gets overriden by a general-level Github assumed right.
The only way I can see this license to work is to require a CLA, but he says no CLA is required? I'm honestly confused.
Ah well, not like I ever played a single PS1 game in my life. I don't have any skin in the game.
4 Likes, Who?
With the heat surrounding emulation lately it's understandable that the devs would want to cover themselves.
Sure, but I don't see how this offers any protections whatsoever, and it's also not necessary because the DuckStation approach is reliably legal, and Sony hasn't sued anyone since Bleem.
3 Likes, Who?
Strange situation gets stranger still. I'll stick with Mednafen, thanks.
1 Likes, Who?
Would that mean Duckstation would no longer be able to use the open-source version of QT though?
6 Likes, Who?
This seems key "Packagers being collateral damage was a beneficial side-effect, considering they don't clearly mark their versions as modified (also a GPL requirement), break functionality, and expect upstream to provide support."
Which is extremely fair, IMHO. A lot of entitled people out there love to bark up the wrong tree.
Could be drama like Stenzik has had with Retroarch in the past (which is not surprising, can't speak for all contributors of that project but some of them are extremely entitled people), could just be mounting frustration over time with distro packaging and entitled users, who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all of the above.
Which is extremely fair, IMHO. A lot of entitled people out there love to bark up the wrong tree.
Could be drama like Stenzik has had with Retroarch in the past (which is not surprising, can't speak for all contributors of that project but some of them are extremely entitled people), could just be mounting frustration over time with distro packaging and entitled users, who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all of the above.
2 Likes, Who?
CyborgZeta Sep 16
While DuckStation was my first experience with PS1 emulation, and was what got me fully into emulation in general back in 2020, I've been using the Beetle PSX core in RetroArch for the past couple years. The only complaint I have with it, as well as the Beetle Saturn core, is that it's demanding on the CPU. For my Steam Deck, I use the SwanStation core, and I hope that is able to keep going despite this license change.
1 Likes, Who?
mr-victory Sep 16
Sony hasn't sued anyone since Bleem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America%2C_Inc._v._Hotz
4 Likes, Who?
This is the ReDream mistake all over again but worse for the project (Flycast has pretty much replaced ReDream as the top Dreamcast Emulator). Duckstation already has a hard fork which probably has more users called Swanstation that will remain under the GPL. So why contribute bug reports and code to Duckstation when more people are using Swanstation anyway? I'll stick to Swanstation and Mednafen, thank you very much.
This developer is far too prone to flying off the handle to put much faith in, especially with the most locked down CC license there is.
Last edited by Desum on 16 September 2024 at 4:47 pm UTC
This developer is far too prone to flying off the handle to put much faith in, especially with the most locked down CC license there is.
Last edited by Desum on 16 September 2024 at 4:47 pm UTC
7 Likes, Who?
This is the ReDream mistake all over again but worse for the project (Flycast has pretty much replaced ReDream as the top Dreamcast Emulator). Duckstation already has a hard fork which probably has more users called Swanstation that will remain under the GPL. So why contribute bug reports and code to Duckstation when more people are using Swanstation anyway? I'll stick to Swanstation and Mednafen, thank you very much.
This developer is far too prone to flying off the handle to put much faith in, especially with the most locked down CC license there is.
You know, Swanstation was actually the related drama-with-Retroarch in the past I was referring to. Frankly, SwanStation were "the bad guys" from that situation, not the good guys.
Honestly, the current situation sounds a LOT like that situation, almost identical really. I would not be surprised if it's still the same situation resurfaced. Last time he almost closed his own project/quit, or did rather, before coming back and resuming development. This time it sounds like he's taking a different drastic approach that doesn't involve him closing his passion project.
Really if nothing else, this shows the pitfalls of open source as opposed to the virtues.
I don't think it's fair to say the guy is too prone to flying off the handle. He was driven to flying off the handle, and the aggressors were never in the right. Could he have handled it better? Sure. Should he have been in that situation? No.
I will continue to use DuckStation, personally.
2 Likes, Who?
Rather than calling anyone the "bad guy", would you be able to describe what the issue with SwanStation was?
I am entirely unfamiliar with either situation, but at least with SwanStation you can fork it AGAIN if you dislike their managment.
I am entirely unfamiliar with either situation, but at least with SwanStation you can fork it AGAIN if you dislike their managment.
6 Likes, Who?
Rather than calling anyone the "bad guy", would you be able to describe what the issue with SwanStation was?
I am entirely unfamiliar with either situation, but at least with SwanStation you can fork it AGAIN if you dislike their managment.
Well, in this case, I would actually use those words. But it's fair to want to make your own opinion. Essentially the Swanstation fork was created by someone for a commercial project, they also raised a lot of money to do so via Kickstarter. Retroarch also weighed in with their opinions, and while they didn't necessarily side with either side directly, they did make a point to point out that the license technically allows it -- and cue Futurama "Technically correct is the best kind of correct". You can dig up the drama without too much effort from that occasion, although this video summarizes it fairly well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-iRW7BAoOU
3 Likes, Who?
The Creative Commons licenses (except, arguably, CC0) are a terrible, terrible choice for software. They simple were not designed for software and they make no distinction between the source and binaries. One issue that results from that is the inability to package the software, and at least they acknowledge that that is a consequence.
That also means no inclusion in Linux distributions, and even *with* custom agreements that will be difficult, since this license is just completely incompatible with basically every distribution's terms.
In fact, this choice of license also means no further contributors unless every single one can get the approval of every single other contributor. This is a complete nightmare to walk into as a developer.
This is a completely baffling choice.
That also means no inclusion in Linux distributions, and even *with* custom agreements that will be difficult, since this license is just completely incompatible with basically every distribution's terms.
In fact, this choice of license also means no further contributors unless every single one can get the approval of every single other contributor. This is a complete nightmare to walk into as a developer.
This is a completely baffling choice.
9 Likes, Who?
Sounds like with the SwanStation debacle, Stenzek was unaware of what the GPL is, and believed that even with that license he has domain over what happens with the project. While the closed source ports are obviously disallowed, SwanStation is and was morally fine, even if money was being made. When you sign a license that says “people can make money off your code”, you can’t be upset when people make money off your code.
Now, after learning from that, he’s realized his own beliefs are incompatible with the open source nature of emulation and has made his project closed source, which is a shame.
Now, after learning from that, he’s realized his own beliefs are incompatible with the open source nature of emulation and has made his project closed source, which is a shame.
3 Likes, Who?
This is the ReDream mistake all over again but worse for the project (Flycast has pretty much replaced ReDream as the top Dreamcast Emulator). Duckstation already has a hard fork which probably has more users called Swanstation that will remain under the GPL. So why contribute bug reports and code to Duckstation when more people are using Swanstation anyway? I'll stick to Swanstation and Mednafen, thank you very much.
This developer is far too prone to flying off the handle to put much faith in, especially with the most locked down CC license there is.
You know, Swanstation was actually the related drama-with-Retroarch in the past I was referring to. Frankly, SwanStation were "the bad guys" from that situation, not the good guys.
Honestly, the current situation sounds a LOT like that situation, almost identical really. I would not be surprised if it's still the same situation resurfaced. Last time he almost closed his own project/quit, or did rather, before coming back and resuming development. This time it sounds like he's taking a different drastic approach that doesn't involve him closing his passion project.
Really if nothing else, this shows the pitfalls of open source as opposed to the virtues.
I don't think it's fair to say the guy is too prone to flying off the handle. He was driven to flying off the handle, and the aggressors were never in the right. Could he have handled it better? Sure. Should he have been in that situation? No.
I will continue to use DuckStation, personally.
The maintainers Swanstation are the good guys now. The developer of Duckstation has basically done a bait and switch on every single user. As it stands, why would I submit bug reports to Duckstation and not Swanstation?
Last edited by Desum on 16 September 2024 at 11:59 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Many of you are getting this wrong...
Swanstation was a port of the libretro-core that was maintained by RetroArch without Stenzek's permission after he and the head developer of RetroArch had a falling out over Stenzek teying to push code updates to the tree and the RetroArch dev reversing the changes because "he didn't like them".
Duckstation was meant to be distributed as-is either in flatpak, self extracting executables, or the unmodified source code for distributions of Linux/BSD to do their own localized and self-maintained ports with. The exe and flatpak versions would be supported officially by stenzek where as the source code ports would be distribution maintained.
He changed the license because he doesn't want people to clone Duckstation and then steal his work, and have people blaming him for a forked project's faults like Swanstation did.
I don't blame him. The GPL is a very flawed license when it comes to allowing a developer to have absolute control over him/her project. For some projects its fine, but for others it's a total headache.
This is why many developers in the past have used BSDL, MIT, and other more restricive licenses to maintain control and prevent unauthorized forking. This saves Stenzek the time and trouble of dealing with unofficial ports, packages, and projects. He's not saying you can't fork the project, but what he is say is, if you fork, all changes have to be submitted back forst in private, and approved before you publish your changes go public in your fork so the entire project is on the same page.
Swanstation was a port of the libretro-core that was maintained by RetroArch without Stenzek's permission after he and the head developer of RetroArch had a falling out over Stenzek teying to push code updates to the tree and the RetroArch dev reversing the changes because "he didn't like them".
Duckstation was meant to be distributed as-is either in flatpak, self extracting executables, or the unmodified source code for distributions of Linux/BSD to do their own localized and self-maintained ports with. The exe and flatpak versions would be supported officially by stenzek where as the source code ports would be distribution maintained.
He changed the license because he doesn't want people to clone Duckstation and then steal his work, and have people blaming him for a forked project's faults like Swanstation did.
I don't blame him. The GPL is a very flawed license when it comes to allowing a developer to have absolute control over him/her project. For some projects its fine, but for others it's a total headache.
This is why many developers in the past have used BSDL, MIT, and other more restricive licenses to maintain control and prevent unauthorized forking. This saves Stenzek the time and trouble of dealing with unofficial ports, packages, and projects. He's not saying you can't fork the project, but what he is say is, if you fork, all changes have to be submitted back forst in private, and approved before you publish your changes go public in your fork so the entire project is on the same page.
2 Likes, Who?
See more from me