The creator of the popular PlayStation 1 emulator DuckStation, known as stenzek, has made significant changes to the project’s licensing, causing controversy in the emulation community. Originally open-source under the General Public License, DuckStation‘s license was changed first to PolyFormStrict License and then to CC-BY-NC-ND. These changes prohibit commercial use and derivatives of the emulator, including packaging it for distribution.
Stenzek explained that the license changes were made to deter parties who had violated the previous license by not attributing the work and stripping copyright information. He also mentioned that preventing packagers from distributing modified versions was a “beneficial side-effect” due to issues with improper attribution and broken functionality in some packaged versions.
The move has upset many in the emulation community, particularly because DuckStation has evolved with contributions from numerous individuals. Stenzek claims to have approval from prior contributors for the license change and has offered to rewrite any code if he missed getting approval from any contributor.
In response to criticism and what he perceives as threats, stenzek has restricted the repository to prior contributors only. He warned that if the situation escalates to harassment, he might “shut the whole thing down,” citing his busy schedule with his actual job and the desire to keep his hobby enjoyable.
This situation highlights the complexities of open-source project management and the tensions that can arise between developers and the wider community. It also raises questions about the future of DuckStation and its impact on the PlayStation 1 emulation scene.
In a statement released on GitHub, stenzek provides an explanation for the rationale behind the change:
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.
