So the beef is that they kept using the code as they were before the license change, which is their right under the original GPL3 license.
If anything is legally questionable here it is the duckstation re-licensing to CC because the author of duckstation is not the author of PRs made before the change to CC, thus they might not have the legal right to change the license to those parts of the code without the assent of the individual PR authors (in most jurisdictions I’m aware of at least). I didn’t see any Contributor License Agreement in the repo, which would be the usual way to acquire this assent.
Edit: Context somebody posted upthread. They rewrote parts of the code and got some contributors to agree to the license change. Remains unclear if that covers everything even to the author apparently, but fair enough I guess.
The question is not just the license, it’s the copyright notice at the top of each file that has information on who authored the file and when, retroarch removed the information and replaced with their own, you are not allowed to do this under gpl
Again the git history does not seem to agree with this. If you compare the history of analog_controller.cpp for example in duckstation and swanstation you will find that the in-file license header was added 3 years ago while the latest common change between the files is from 4 years ago. In other words swanstation is using a version of the source code from before the license change, not removing the license change.
If you have any source for these accusations please post it, because as you have relayed them so far they seem to be untrue.
That’s simply untrue, duckstation changed license from GPL3 to CC on September 1st 2024, while swanstation retains the original GPL3 license from September 11th 2019.
So the beef is that they kept using the code as they were before the license change, which is their right under the original GPL3 license.
If anything is legally questionable here it is the duckstation re-licensing to CC because the author of duckstation is not the author of PRs made before the change to CC, thus they might not have the legal right to change the license to those parts of the code without the assent of the individual PR authors (in most jurisdictions I’m aware of at least). I didn’t see any Contributor License Agreement in the repo, which would be the usual way to acquire this assent.Edit: Context somebody posted upthread. They rewrote parts of the code and got some contributors to agree to the license change. Remains unclear if that covers everything even to the author apparently, but fair enough I guess.
The question is not just the license, it’s the copyright notice at the top of each file that has information on who authored the file and when, retroarch removed the information and replaced with their own, you are not allowed to do this under gpl
Again the git history does not seem to agree with this. If you compare the history of analog_controller.cpp for example in duckstation and swanstation you will find that the in-file license header was added 3 years ago while the latest common change between the files is from 4 years ago. In other words swanstation is using a version of the source code from before the license change, not removing the license change.
If you have any source for these accusations please post it, because as you have relayed them so far they seem to be untrue.