|
Top-level
 @LorenzoAncora To be clear: the "ND" (non-deriv) creative commons licenses are non-free. CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/CC-0 libre. I believe the author should put the license back to GPLv3; retroactively force-push recent commits of the last few weeks, to expunge any such licensing changes, before the source is tainted. It's uncertain as to whether DuckStation contains derived works, regardless of if if it stays free - changing from GPLv3 to another free license may still be bad. Better just stick to GPLv3. 4 comments
@becomethewaifu @LorenzoAncora You can grep for copyright names other than the author's, also: git shortlog -sne This gives you a list of authors and how many commits they pushed. Then for example you can do: git whatchanged --author="author's name" You can then replace "whatchanged" with "show" in each instance: git show COMMITID This shows the diff. Then run: git blame file "file" is the file that changed. Find the lines created by that diff. Find names other than the lead maintainer. @becomethewaifu @LorenzoAncora Note that, even if all parts not belonging to stenzek were removed, anything deriving from those parts must also be removed, even if belonging to stenzek. That is, unless stenzek gets permission from those authors for such relicensing. See, this is why people may use the MIT license instead. If they want to later be able to make proprietary versions of the software, they can; they cannot do this if it's under GPL unless the copyright is fully theirs, on all code. @becomethewaifu@tech.lgbt I don't think they had to go as far as relicensing to non-free if the concerns is about distros breaking things. They could've gone the Mozilla way and required those distributing modified versions to not use the same name and branding as Duckstation. GNU thinks this is acceptable since you're modifying the software already anyway; might as well do the branding too while at it |
Gregory's Server
@libreleah @LorenzoAncora Smells to me like they got tired of distros breaking things with haphazard packaging, and instead of clarifying that you go to the distro first for support, they just decided to pull the legally-dubious option of "switch to a license that disallows packaging" to attempt to force distro maintainers to stop packaging it.
And since they accepted lots of outside contributions, presumably without a CLA, including some that are almost certainly eligible for copyright protection if they were to be used elsewhere, I'm not sure they can re-license it from GPLv3+...
@libreleah @LorenzoAncora Smells to me like they got tired of distros breaking things with haphazard packaging, and instead of clarifying that you go to the distro first for support, they just decided to pull the legally-dubious option of "switch to a license that disallows packaging" to attempt to force distro maintainers to stop packaging it.