I don't get licenses.
>Ctrl + F>eula>1+ results found>close tabEasy as
>>102430004Changed from 'Just do whatever with the code as long as you don't use it commercially without attributing us' to 'You can look at the code, download, compile and run it for personal uses'
>>102430039he's making videogames now?
>>102430004that is the point of licenses
>>102430004I didn't know you could revoke GPL. In theory could everyone revoke GPL from their code and sue all the companies that still use their code? Or does this just apply to newly written code after changing the license?
>>102430055>compile itNo, he explicitly says that you can't do that. Of course, there's no way a court will uphold that, but still.
>>102431057you can do whatever the fuck you want with the code you ownwhether he can do it via "if you disagree say so and i will rewrite your contributions :^)" is questionable though, but as long as the owner of that code doesn't raise concerns in practice he can get away with it anyway
>>102431057It applies to all of the software it's packaged with. Earlier versions that were released GPL are still GPL, but all of the code from the repo currently is CC-BY-NC-ND.
>>102431057>Or does this just apply to newly written code after changing the license?You can't easily change a license retroactively, especially without a CLA. >>102431116You can tho. Packaging is not the same as compiling. You simply can't share the compiled binaries. I'm unsure if 'restricting the repository to prior contributors' means that only they see the source code from now on but considering the later paragraph calls it source available should mean it's still available.
>>102431057>this license applies to any documents distributed along this licenseand if you dealing with something retarded like>Intel holds the right to modify this license at any time with no prior noticethen the court will take care of it.
>>102431057>I didn't know you could revoke GPL. In theory could everyone revoke GPL from their code and sue all the companies that still use their code? You can't. >Or does this just apply to newly written code after changing the license?Only new code.
use xebra.
>fork>change licenseapparently its taht easy
stenzek is basically just a drooling retard when it comes to copyright stuff. He added an automated cover downloader to PCSX2/Duckstation that allows you to search for and grab images off of a server somewhere. But he refuses to add an option to remember the last-used URL because downloading cover images might be considered piracy (maybe, in theory) and it's supposed to be used exclusively with a self-hosted server instead of the cover image repo on github that literally everybody uses, and that means that if he doesn't make you type in the URL manually every single time you use it then Sony's lawyers will kick down his door (???)Honestly I'm just not surprised at this point.
>>102430004Neither does the duckstation dude
>>102431057You can fork the last GPL version and distribute freely.
what does this mean? Retroarch cannot use it anymore?
>>102430004Just use Beetle PSX. "Non-commercial" seething faggots can suck my cock.
>duckstationwho? everyone uses mednafen psx in retroarch nowadays
>>102435125Duckstation has been the most popular PS1 emulator in the past 5 years.
Some people seemingly enjoy changing licences and watching others flip shit
I don't get why people give away code and then go noooooo, not like thaaaaat
open source licenses are only as useful as your ability to enforce them in court
>>102435105the only way RA could use the current duckstation is if they distributed a program that automated the downloading, patching and compiling of the source code locally on your machine to make the core. that way the "ND" part of the license is not violated because nobody is actually re-distributing binary code.
>>102431057You can't revoke the GPL. Only fake lawyers like MikeeUSA say otherwise.https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
>>102438887nobody revoked it, OP is just a retard who didn't read the message where he said he got permission from all the contributors.
>>102432484So he's lazy, stupid, arrogant and just plain old not a cool dude.
