Explanation: https://lemmy.world/comment/18532107
tl;dr dude is a bit of a control freak
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
135 points (98.6% liked)
Steam Deck
18890 readers
90 users here now
A place to discuss and support all things Steam Deck.
Replacement for r/steamdeck_linux.
As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title
The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.
Some more Steam Deck specific flairs:
[Boot Screen] - Custom boot screens/videos.
[Selling] - If you are selling your deck.
These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.
Rules:
- Follow the rules of Sopuli
- Posts must be related to the Steam Deck in an obvious way.
- No piracy, there are other communities for that.
- Discussion of emulators are allowed, but no discussion on how to illegally acquire ROMs.
- This is a place of civil discussion, no trolling.
- Have fun.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
From the linked comment it sounds like there was a license change in the projects history. I'm surprised the various distro packagers didn't just collaborate on a renamed fork, unless there are more actively developed emulators still under a FLOSS licence?
Edit yep it was GPLv3 about 11 months ago: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928
I believe there is a fork from the last GPLv3 version called SwanStation.
Someone raised the point you can't change from GPLv3 if someone else touched the code and they don't approve the change (unless you rewrite everything yourself). I'm not an expert but considering v3 is to avoid proprietary software more than v2, I would be very amused if this guy gets forced to admit it's always been GPLv3 and he wasn't allowed to set a restrictive license.
Dev doesn't allow packages of his open source project, people keep creating packages, dev stops support for the OS entirely.
jwz & Igara Studio S.A. had the exact same issue with distros maintainers, that they were forced to disallow QA testing and logging for distro related situations that really isn't their focus.
Distro makers need to dogfood their own packages, their own support system, and their testing, separate of the original software maker.
Analogy for commoners:
This is like asking a bidet seat maker to fix your entire toilet/bathroom.
Like no, get plumbers, workers, and a designer to make your dream toilet. Leave the seat maker alone.
spoiler
You still got to clean the toilet every week.
Seat makers are not janitors.
My take on a better analogy:
The bidet maker is pissed because people complain to him that their bidet is leaking or has cracks. He's annoyed at a distribution/installation company because they fumbled, so he'll handle installation himself but only to the houses he approves.
Oh, and the bidets are free and nobody gets paid a cent.
Sure I'll accept this analogy irt stenzek’s justified reaction. But this part is particularly wrong:
so he’ll handle installation himself but only to the houses he approves.
He doesn't 1) install, 2) approves any bowl, 3) or should he. He can refuse to make bidet seats any time, but prefers wașiki seats instead.
bidets are free and nobody gets paid a cent.
This is the damn crux🎯. GAMERS, PLEASE DONATE AS IF IT WAS REAL SOFTWARE YOU'RE BUYING. You don't know how easily you can solve this by having paid workers fixing all this.
He doesn't 1) install, 2) approves any bowl, 3) or should he. He can refuse to make bidet seats any time, but prefers wașiki seats instead.
He directly provides releases for Windows x64/ARM64, Linux x86_64/ARM32/ARM64 (in AppImage format), and macOS. He also explicitly forbids modifications, and since he considers "pre-configured settings" to be modifications, and this is basically barring any other distribution.
So while ultimately you're right in that he doesn't install it himself, he provides a super-simple "do it yourself" kit for people who live in apartments, while making anyone else who lives in a house have to assemble it from a million separate pieces themselves.
Note that I'm sympathetic, and I don't know what the solution here is, but hopefully everyone figures it out...
Ok, then I’m wrong. The seat maker prefers wașiki, bidets, and flachspüler seats, but bidet users are at most risk of losing support, because Arch bidets stop dogfooding their bidet hinges correctly.
Agreed on the last 2 paragraphs.
make free open source software
people repackage for their distros
get mad when you receive support requests for outdated packages
change license to prevent further repackages
Linux users continue using old version to avoid restrictive license change
Continue to receive support requests for old packages before license change
crash out
Am I doing this right?
Yes but be sure to be condescending through it all
The entitlement is strong. But not with the person who creates an open source emulator in their spare time and gives it away for free, but for those who demand free support.
It's a quite common issue with open source stuff.
- Dude makes a thing.
- Dude thinks maybe others could benefit from it, so he gives it away for free
- Entitled morons think customer is king also applies for stuff they didn't pay for and demand free support
- Dude gets overwhelmed and frustrated by having to play free customer support hotline for his free product and after a while pulls back
- Entitled morons get up in arms and call dude condescending and worse for not doing free customer support for the free thing, somehow believing that dude owes them something.
Completely agree, and entitled gamers are some of the worst. Though I don’t think that should completely excuse our dev here from handling it poorly. They made their product worse and then was surprised when things got worse. Ultimately it’s their prerogative for which systems they choose to develop. Fortunately there are alternatives.
Why did they have to provide support? That is the part that is confusing. You could say they can't get anything done due to bug requests and can't seperate the spam from the ham, but nobody makes anyone do support.
And you can't even fork it
From the looks of it the version most people use (the one that comes in package managers) was already forked awhile ago from the version the dev did allow to be forked, and the official version hasn't been used in package managers for awhile, because the second version was under a read only license and distros therefore couldn't package it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Two things can be true at the same time:
- I am grateful you are using your time to develop free and open source software without gaining anything in return.
- Being pissed at people asking for support for something you didn't make, do not give you a free pass on being an asshole by changing your license
it is okay for a FOSS project to start with one person.
but if it is growing and there is still only one persons doing most commits, that is a yellow flag. sign to look at alternatives.
i am speaking as both user and maintainer.
He even rewrote parts of the code that weren't by him in order to remove the GPL license.
I think I've been using pcsxr for too long to care.
Is there anything that makes duckstation worth using over the other psx emulators?
Apparently it's really good. I think I have it on my steam deck. But I recently just dusted off a ps3 (which has a ps1 built in) made it network ready and viola.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Retroarch keeping the core anyway, probably not the best ps1 core even if it dissappear.
I prefer Beetle PSX (the non-hw version). Very accurate emulation, even compared to Duckstation. Not as great for enhancements, though.
Sucks that people are so shitty about problems that crop up in FOSS. Just be nice about things and it wouldn't be a problem, the developer owes you nothing.
Homie doesnt let you fork the shit to maintain it yourself. He made the problem.
Doesn't change how people treat developers. I gather this guy isn't that great, but people should just move elsewhere instead of being hostile.
That happens so often with non-corporation FOSS. Some dude makes something cool and shares it for free, and in turn they get a butload of entitled support requests of idiots who think that "customer is king" applies for stuff they didn't pay for too, and who think that the developer owes them something for using his software.
A similar thing happened with M66B. He got so fed up that he pulled all his apps. Luckily people managed to talk him out of it, but it's really understandable.
Then it's not FOSS.
Just do it anyways, fuck what he wants.
Forking against the license wouldn't solve the problem of not being included in distributions though. No sane distribution would include the fork.
You could if you want fork from when it was GPLv3: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/7f4e5d55dbdef5a50e0aa4994f667fb03d854928
But how did he changed from copyleft licence to stricter? Isn't it already vialenced copyleft licence?
The dev did develop most things himself so they have the copyright and can relicense freely. Also, they've asked other major contributors whether they agree with him relicensing their code, which they were seemingly okay with. Small contributions aren't copyrightable anyway, and/or the dev likely has rewritten them already.
Yes, making a fork from the newest version that allows it would be the way to go. I am quite unfamiliat with PS1 emulation but perhaps there are others anyway?
Open source freedom means that the author can have crazy license, and we can just not use it or look for alternatives
Again, look at how distros handled DeCSS back when that was an issue. There were just "unofficial" 3rd party repos hosted in places that didn't care about US crypto laws.
Crypto laws aren't copyright. Protesting an unjust law via civil disobedience is entirely different from hypocritically breaking a law you yourself rely on just because you wanna.
The dev forbids packaging his emulator via licence. I'm pleading that they're the asshole here.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Stenzek seems to have a history of being the problem... I don't know if their words should be taken at face value, or that they're arguing in good faith at all
view more: next ›