I'll be that guy: Mission accomplished. The goal of the GPL isn't 'maximum code reuse'. The whole point is that the user, not some arbitrary other developer, will always have access to the source....
Most emulators are licensed under the GPL. But our stance on it is that the infectious nature of it prevents a lot of legitimate reuse of the source code.
I'll be that guy: Mission accomplished.
The goal of the GPL isn't 'maximum code reuse'. The whole point is that the user, not some arbitrary other developer, will always have access to the source.
Its objective is the utter destruction of closed-source software. A sophisticated weapon against the anti-consumer nature of closed software.
As GPL software gets better, eventually the correct answer will be to embrace the GPL for your own software instead of spending effort trying to work around it.
This might be true in a few specialized fields like game emulators, but it can go the other way. For infrastructure that’s of significant commercial interest, often it gets rewritten with more...
This might be true in a few specialized fields like game emulators, but it can go the other way. For infrastructure that’s of significant commercial interest, often it gets rewritten with more permissive license eventually.
An example of that is gcc, which Apple and many other companies used to rely on, but they eventually funded the LLVM project, which is both a more modular architecture and is released under the Apache 2.0 license. And a good thing too, because that allowed projects like Julia, Rust, and Zig to be built on it.
Modern programming languages have large package repositories where developers share common libraries, and this code is typically distributed using permissive open source licenses. So in this sense, history seems against the idea that copyleft code will become more essential to more developers. It becomes easier all the time to avoid it.
Yes, corporations which hate copyleft will toss infinite resources at working around copyleft software. All the more reason to break up the giants. The only gripe I ever see against the GPL is...
Yes, corporations which hate copyleft will toss infinite resources at working around copyleft software. All the more reason to break up the giants.
The only gripe I ever see against the GPL is "you can't use it in closed software," and to almost everyone who releases GPL code, this is a feature.
It's hardly limited to emulators. There are plenty of best-in-show end-user software packages that are A/L/GPL. And frankly, that's where it matters most.
What makes me uneasy about GPL is that there's two of them that are mutually incompatible. I know the Linux audio landscape was set back decades with GPLv3, as the ecosystem was split in half with...
What makes me uneasy about GPL is that there's two of them that are mutually incompatible. I know the Linux audio landscape was set back decades with GPLv3, as the ecosystem was split in half with a GPLv2 foundation that was entirely incompatible with any new GPLv3 plugin development not for ideological or technical reasons but really silly "these two numbers don't match" legal ones. Both are still in use and being used for new projects today, so it's an ongoing thing.
Unfortunately the fix that justified creating GPLv3 wasn't going to ever be fully compatible with v2. The 'or any future version' clause the FSF reccomends for GPL gives that compatibility via a...
Unfortunately the fix that justified creating GPLv3 wasn't going to ever be fully compatible with v2.
The 'or any future version' clause the FSF reccomends for GPL gives that compatibility via a forward-only dual license. While imperfect, it resolves a lot of those headaches.
I agree that there's a difference between apps and libraries. As a developer, I'm not really looking for apps to copy code from; I'm typically looking for libraries written in the language I want...
I agree that there's a difference between apps and libraries. As a developer, I'm not really looking for apps to copy code from; I'm typically looking for libraries written in the language I want to use, since they are already designed and packaged for reuse, without having to do a lot of work.
For example, Audacity is distributed under the GPL, but I don't really care, since I'm not going to go digging in the code for something to copy. All open source licenses let you use the software, but libraries are where the license matters to me.
That's the thing though... as an end user the GPL serves me well. So having quality, best-of-show GPL libriaries, if they cause even 1 more program to be GPL that otherwise wouldn't be, it's a...
That's the thing though... as an end user the GPL serves me well.
So having quality, best-of-show GPL libriaries, if they cause even 1 more program to be GPL that otherwise wouldn't be, it's a massive win. My main interest is for porting to other operating systems or architectures.
We can see what an open source OS without the GPL looks like... it's the BSDs. They've been around just as long, if not longer than Linux. They're quality OSes, to be sure. But they don't have quite the same level of massive adoption, and a good part of that is due to the lack of positive feedback loop from the GPL. The best improvements from the BSDs often don't make it back to baseline, they become a competitive advantage for whomever wrote it.
The Steam Deck is basically the Wii U gamepad, so Cemu will be perfect for it. I'm wondering if it will actually end up being able to support separate screens while docked like the Wii U did? As...
The Steam Deck is basically the Wii U gamepad, so Cemu will be perfect for it. I'm wondering if it will actually end up being able to support separate screens while docked like the Wii U did?
As one of the 12 or so people who actually had a Wii U, I'm excited for the Linux build to mature so that I can revisit a few of the great games exclusive to the system that didn't get Switch ports (which at this point might actually just be Nintendo Land?).
I legitimately chuckled. 😆 I was a big fan of Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, so when Sonic Boom was announced I was cautiously optimistic. As it led up to release there were lots of warning signs that it...
I legitimately chuckled. 😆
I was a big fan of Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, so when Sonic Boom was announced I was cautiously optimistic. As it led up to release there were lots of warning signs that it wasn’t going to be good, but I remember they almost got me on the hook because it went on steep discount before it even released. I think it was as much as 50% off?
I fully realized that was a signal that it was going to be bad and they were trying to cut their losses, but I had to actively battle the part of my brain that likes deals and the other part of my brain that is always hoping that this new 3D Sonic will capture some of Adventure’s magic.
Luckily I opted not to buy it, and after it released my decision was thoroughly validated. It’s one of the only games I know of off-hand that is recommended by 0% of game critics.
The game is kind of sad actually. It was not originally intended to be a Wii U exclusive. Early on, the target platforms were next-gen consoles and PC. Sega pulled the rug out from under the...
The game is kind of sad actually. It was not originally intended to be a Wii U exclusive. Early on, the target platforms were next-gen consoles and PC. Sega pulled the rug out from under the developers when they signed an exclusivity agreement with Nintendo, and the time that normally would have been spent polishing and finishing the game was instead put towards shoehorning CryEngine 3 onto the Wii U.
There's also a slightly prettier ports of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess! Star Fox Zero hasn't been ported either. But that game has such a poor reputation that I bought...
There's also a slightly prettier ports of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess!
Star Fox Zero hasn't been ported either. But that game has such a poor reputation that I bought it on sale for $15 and still haven't bothered to actually play it.
I'll be that guy: Mission accomplished.
The goal of the GPL isn't 'maximum code reuse'. The whole point is that the user, not some arbitrary other developer, will always have access to the source.
Its objective is the utter destruction of closed-source software. A sophisticated weapon against the anti-consumer nature of closed software.
As GPL software gets better, eventually the correct answer will be to embrace the GPL for your own software instead of spending effort trying to work around it.
This might be true in a few specialized fields like game emulators, but it can go the other way. For infrastructure that’s of significant commercial interest, often it gets rewritten with more permissive license eventually.
An example of that is gcc, which Apple and many other companies used to rely on, but they eventually funded the LLVM project, which is both a more modular architecture and is released under the Apache 2.0 license. And a good thing too, because that allowed projects like Julia, Rust, and Zig to be built on it.
Modern programming languages have large package repositories where developers share common libraries, and this code is typically distributed using permissive open source licenses. So in this sense, history seems against the idea that copyleft code will become more essential to more developers. It becomes easier all the time to avoid it.
Yes, corporations which hate copyleft will toss infinite resources at working around copyleft software. All the more reason to break up the giants.
The only gripe I ever see against the GPL is "you can't use it in closed software," and to almost everyone who releases GPL code, this is a feature.
It's hardly limited to emulators. There are plenty of best-in-show end-user software packages that are A/L/GPL. And frankly, that's where it matters most.
What makes me uneasy about GPL is that there's two of them that are mutually incompatible. I know the Linux audio landscape was set back decades with GPLv3, as the ecosystem was split in half with a GPLv2 foundation that was entirely incompatible with any new GPLv3 plugin development not for ideological or technical reasons but really silly "these two numbers don't match" legal ones. Both are still in use and being used for new projects today, so it's an ongoing thing.
Unfortunately the fix that justified creating GPLv3 wasn't going to ever be fully compatible with v2.
The 'or any future version' clause the FSF reccomends for GPL gives that compatibility via a forward-only dual license. While imperfect, it resolves a lot of those headaches.
I agree that there's a difference between apps and libraries. As a developer, I'm not really looking for apps to copy code from; I'm typically looking for libraries written in the language I want to use, since they are already designed and packaged for reuse, without having to do a lot of work.
For example, Audacity is distributed under the GPL, but I don't really care, since I'm not going to go digging in the code for something to copy. All open source licenses let you use the software, but libraries are where the license matters to me.
That's the thing though... as an end user the GPL serves me well.
So having quality, best-of-show GPL libriaries, if they cause even 1 more program to be GPL that otherwise wouldn't be, it's a massive win. My main interest is for porting to other operating systems or architectures.
We can see what an open source OS without the GPL looks like... it's the BSDs. They've been around just as long, if not longer than Linux. They're quality OSes, to be sure. But they don't have quite the same level of massive adoption, and a good part of that is due to the lack of positive feedback loop from the GPL. The best improvements from the BSDs often don't make it back to baseline, they become a competitive advantage for whomever wrote it.
The Steam Deck is basically the Wii U gamepad, so Cemu will be perfect for it. I'm wondering if it will actually end up being able to support separate screens while docked like the Wii U did?
As one of the 12 or so people who actually had a Wii U, I'm excited for the Linux build to mature so that I can revisit a few of the great games exclusive to the system that didn't get Switch ports (which at this point might actually just be Nintendo Land?).
You seem to be forgetting the Wii U exclusive masterpiece Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric.
I legitimately chuckled. 😆
I was a big fan of Sonic Adventure 1 & 2, so when Sonic Boom was announced I was cautiously optimistic. As it led up to release there were lots of warning signs that it wasn’t going to be good, but I remember they almost got me on the hook because it went on steep discount before it even released. I think it was as much as 50% off?
I fully realized that was a signal that it was going to be bad and they were trying to cut their losses, but I had to actively battle the part of my brain that likes deals and the other part of my brain that is always hoping that this new 3D Sonic will capture some of Adventure’s magic.
Luckily I opted not to buy it, and after it released my decision was thoroughly validated. It’s one of the only games I know of off-hand that is recommended by 0% of game critics.
The game is kind of sad actually. It was not originally intended to be a Wii U exclusive. Early on, the target platforms were next-gen consoles and PC. Sega pulled the rug out from under the developers when they signed an exclusivity agreement with Nintendo, and the time that normally would have been spent polishing and finishing the game was instead put towards shoehorning CryEngine 3 onto the Wii U.
There's also a slightly prettier ports of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess!
Star Fox Zero hasn't been ported either. But that game has such a poor reputation that I bought it on sale for $15 and still haven't bothered to actually play it.