Developer of PlayStation 1 emulator DuckStation threatens "removing Linux support entirely" but not yet

The issue that someone makes a package for a project that isn't theirs and then the "upstream" gets an influx of people requesting stuff from that unofficial source is unfortunately not a new one - tons of projects suffer from that, really.

And having to deal with that, especially from a source you personally couldn't care less about, is highly frustrating.

So, really, I get the guy.

That is really the big downside of everyone and their mum being able to provide packages instead of requiring official affiliation.
Even if somehow the current packages are taken down, others are likely to just appear.

My personal solution: Mednafen.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 1 Aug 2025 at 11:38 am UTC

I have the feeling that this trend of packagers throwing upstreamers under the bus is not going to end well.

This sort of thing is unfortunately rather common. And not just Linux. IIRC, this is similar to the beef that OBS had with StreamElements building a modified version with the same name that caused support request going to the wrong project.

@TheSHEEEP

My personal solution: Mednafen.

I am curious, what's the TLDR?


Last edited by kellerkindt on 1 Aug 2025 at 1:17 pm UTC

Just package it as a Flatpak. Problem solved.

As much antipathy as I have for the DS dev, I will say that users must learn to file issues with packages with the provider of the package. Only file an issue upstream if you've built the package from source.

That guy is just an horrible person imho... For me it just shows/proves that being a highly technically capable person doesn't mean being a good person, absolutely not. It's awful to see what happened to this project, it's pretty sad.
And his comment in the commit:

# Refuse to build in Arch package environments. My license does not allow for packages, and I'm sick of
# dealing with people complaining about things broken by packagers. This is why we can't have nice things.

My god... facepalm

As for the license, DrMcCoy have already demonstrated in the precedent news how bad (stupid) it was.
I don't see this move as any better.

@AsciiWolf They already provides Flatpak but they don't recommend it but recommend AppImage instead.

I'm curious to know what kind of modifications Arch (AUR) packagers did and what kind of issues it caused.

He shouldn't put so much effort in trying to fix this problem. If packagers want to create a turd, let them.

Just put a sticky in the issues list with a link to the packagers website and be done with it.

I disagree with "What a messy situation this emulator has been.", while it has been a source of strong opinions in the past, I can't get behind that view this time.

I've seen variations of this exact problem kill projects in the past, and unfortunately the loudest people rarely side with the project/often-single-person otherwise trying to mind their own business. Either they just one day suddenly close a project, or sometimes they'll lash out first with the predictable retribution (since lashing out is RARELY well thought out, and you can never "undo" what you say on the internet, no matter how fair it is).

Add a rule to filter out messages/mails/discussions with AUR/Arch. Problem solved.

Ok, that's the nuclear option. But People putting their time and effort in a project should not be responsible for other actions. It might not be the best way, but both the license and the discussions make it sounds like the main point is "don't bother me with your custom stuff", which sounds reasonable to me.

If the dev doesn’t want annoying reports about packages they don’t maintain, it’s up to them to set rules and especially strict submission forms, as a lot of projects do.
What’s absurd is demanding that the entire linux community "be reasonable" while threatening to withdraw support for everyone because of the PKGBUILDs of a couple of users.

So this is step one. Next step will be removing Linux support entirely, because I'm sick of the headaches and hacks for an operating system that only compromises 2% of the userbase, and I don't even use myself.

Since people seem to be spreading misinformation (yay), let's make some things clear:

Linux support is not being removed from DuckStation, I have no immediate plans to do that.,

Not sure how he got to play the "spreading misinformation (yay)"-card, when he was the one releasing the statement...

Speaking of, with regards to his fuming about "not allowing packaging", any license masters out there? From my reading of the license:

a. License grant.

1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License,
the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to
exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or
in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and

b. produce and reproduce, but not Share, Adapted Material
for NonCommercial purposes only.

This should explicitly allow what an AUR package is, right? It isn't a derived work, it's just a non-commercial recipie for getting the material. Am I missing something?

And a thing to keep in mind, both sides in an argument can be at fault at the same time for different reasons.

It is wrong for people to vehemently demand support from the developer for the AUR package (or any other downstream package) causing issues.

But his handling of this and the licensing last year, as well as the whole Swanstation-debacle, it's not exactly mature behaviour.

I am curious, what's the TLDR?

About Mednafen?

tl;dr: Works fine for me. Not with all the bells and whistles of Duckstation, but works great on my Steam Deck retro station.

Well, if things go downhill, somebody can still take the last GPL-licensed release and fork the project from there. *shrug*

@Cloversheen As I said, DrMcCoy pretty answered that I think, there:
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2024/09/playstation-1-emulator-duckstation-changes-license-for-no-commercial-use-and-no-derivatives/page=1/#r269177

The Creative Commons licenses (except, arguably, CC0) are a terrible, terrible choice for software. They simple were not designed for software and they make no distinction between the source and binaries. One issue that results from that is the inability to package the software, and at least they acknowledge that that is a consequence.

That also means no inclusion in Linux distributions, and even *with* custom agreements that will be difficult, since this license is just completely incompatible with basically every distribution's terms.

In fact, this choice of license also means no further contributors unless every single one can get the approval of every single other contributor. This is a complete nightmare to walk into as a developer.

This is a completely baffling choice.

and there:
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2024/09/playstation-1-emulator-duckstation-changes-license-for-no-commercial-use-and-no-derivatives/?comment_id=269221

This is not, this is a violation of GPL license if the contributor did not explicitly give him permission to relicense their work.

And the main dev stenzek claims he has permission by everyone.

Btw, can CC-BY-ND even be compiled ?

CC doesn't make any distinction between source and binary, so compiling creates a derivative work you're not allowed to redistribute.

EDITED to merge a double-post after somebody deleted their own post:

You, on your own, can compile it. As long as it's just you and nobody knows about it, you can do anything. You can compile it, you can change it to say "stenzek is a doodoo head" at startup, knock yourself out.

Distributing such a changed version, including just a compiled binary of the unchanged sources (because for the CC, both are the same, a derivative work), that's what's not legal. No uploading it to the internet, no giving it to your friends, probably not even letting other people use it on your own system.

@Kimyrielle Yeap, Leah Rowe did that last year, see:
https://codeberg.org/vimuser/duckstation

@Cyril you are absolutely right, I completely overlooked that part of your post, my bad. DrMcCoy did indeed answer my question. Thank you McCoy!

My personal solution: Mednafen.

Sounds like an antidepressant medication. Which would work, kind of: "The problem still exists, but I don't care any more!"

I understand not wanting to maintain a build for a distro, heck, even Linux as a platform. The part about not needing to care when you aren't being paid, I'm totally behind them on.

But Stenzek appeared quite hostile to allowing anyone else to support Linux. Kind of an "I don't want to support it, and I don't want anyone else to support it either!" type mindset based on the Creative Commons license that DuckStation uses, and the hostility to disallow building on a specific distro (Arch Linux, in this case).

Unofficial packages exist, and they are not upstream's problem. I don't understand why they want to be so hostile here. Users can complain, but as a maintainer, you don't need to care. Heck, you don't even need to tell users where to go to get support. I fully understand the frustration of dealing with end-users. But just focus on developing and supporting what you own. If a user gets a package from a third party they are not your problem, especially if they can't even tell whether they got it from you or not.

For those discussing issue templates: Stenzek has issues disabled on the GitHub repository. It appears to me that bug reports are primarily brought in through some form of Discord Server (where information goes to die, I might add).

Stenzek's prior behaviour has left a poor taste in my mouth with using DuckStation, and this has, too. It is absolutely trying my ability to separate the software from the creator.