How are core inclusion decisions made?
-
I wanted to discuss this semi-privately with @dankcushions for clarity about a related thread that was rather unceremoniously closed, but I have a legitimate question about decisions made on core inclusion.
As of today, the now-cancelled Duckstation emulator core has also been removed from RetroPie, not at the request of the author but by a RetroPie developer who decided it was in the best interests of the project not to incorporate content against the upstream developer's wishes.
So be it, except hasn't MAMEdev been openly hostile of, critical to, and specifically desirous of removal of the MAME2003-Plus core for years? Why is one actionable and the other not? I'm genuinely trying to understand the thought process/model, because it seems rather disturbingly arbitrary.
I'm hoping this can lead to some productive discussion versus mud-slinging, so please, everyone, let's leave the politics out of this one.
-
As of today, the now-cancelled Duckstation emulator core has also been removed from RetroPie, not at the request of the author but by a RetroPie developer who decided it was in the best interests of the project not to incorporate content against the upstream developer's wishes.
@rhester72 to be clear it’s not my decision. my reasoning in this situation is my own. also the author removed their libretro core binaries from the duckstation website, whilst the standalone binaries remain, so the author has effectively “removed” it from retropie as the script that used said binaries is now broken and redundant.
as for mame2003-plus, mamedev isn’t a one man operation but a codebase that goes back decades and 100s of contributors, so it’s not clear to me what their consensus is or whether there even can be consensus. anyway i have no involvement in MAME stuff anymore so have no strong views either way.
-
@rhester72 said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
So be it, except hasn't MAMEdev been openly hostile of, critical to, and specifically desirous of removal of the MAME2003-Plus core for years?
Well, i have seen haze saying he was against emulation existing on low-end devices (it's not limited to mame), because their low price makes them a perfect device for marketed copyright-breaking mini-consoles. However i have also seen another mamedev (can't remember which one) giving instructions on building mame standalone on rpi3. So i don't think the opinion among mamedevs is monolithic.
-
Since the topic is relevant and since the other one is locked I want to ask a question. Because i am still have lr-duckstation core on my setup, is it possible, a future update, to cause this core to not work? Thanks.
My English isn't at a good level.
-
@dankcushions said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
As of today, the now-cancelled Duckstation emulator core has also been removed from RetroPie, not at the request of the author but by a RetroPie developer who decided it was in the best interests of the project not to incorporate content against the upstream developer's wishes.
@rhester72 to be clear it’s not my decision. my reasoning in this situation is my own. also the author removed their libretro core binaries from the duckstation website, whilst the standalone binaries remain, so the author has effectively “removed” it from retropie as the script that used said binaries is now broken and redundant.
As a purely technical matter, then, would you be amenable to keepng the retropie scripts as-is but simply modifying the download target location? The duckstation github README states quite clearly the binaries are covered under BY-NC-ND 4.0 Creative Commons licensing and can be distributed without issue for non-commercial purposes.
Similarly, as the non-hostile fork of Duckstation (which is now defunct) known as Swanstation is part of the libretro distribution and actively maintained as such, will you entertain (in the longer term) replacing the Duckstation core with the Swanstation one, in much the same way that PCSX begat PCSX-Reloaded begat PCSX-ReARMed?
-
As a purely technical matter, then, would you be amenable to keepng the retropie scripts as-is but simply modifying the download target location? The duckstation github README states quite clearly the binaries are covered under BY-NC-ND 4.0 Creative Commons licensing and can be distributed without issue for non-commercial purposes.
i originally suggested this but after seeing that the author had removed the libretro binaries but not the rest then it seemed their intentions were clear. so that's not something i personally would be lobbying for, no.
Similarly, as the non-hostile fork of Duckstation (which is now defunct) known as Swanstation is part of the libretro distribution and actively maintained as such, will you entertain (in the longer term) replacing the Duckstation core with the Swanstation one, in much the same way that PCSX begat PCSX-Reloaded begat PCSX-ReARMed?
in the longer term i could see it. i would want to see how the story shakes out. duckstation's author was open to someone else taking over maintenance so who knows what the future holds.
(again just my personal views, not of the project)
-
@dankcushions said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
i originally suggested this but after seeing that the author had removed the libretro binaries but not the rest then it seemed their intentions were clear. so that's not something i personally would be lobbying for, no.
But they weren't his binaries in the first place, by his own admission, he was merely hosting them. If the original creator, who actually holds the Creative Commons license he attributed to them, is amenable, is that an issue? It doesn't conflict with GPL or CC, and to be honest I'm a bit concerned if RetroPie's position will be that their support of their user base is subject to the random whims of the author of a now-defunct emulator.
-
But they weren't his binaries in the first place, by his own admission, he was merely hosting them. If the original creator, who actually holds the Creative Commons license he attributed to them, is amenable, is that an issue?
the author of the code/binaries and the host/author of the website are the same person.
It doesn't conflict with GPL or CC, and to be honest I'm a bit concerned if RetroPie's position will be that their support of their user base is subject to the random whims of the author of a now-defunct emulator.
again you're talking with me, not "RetroPie", but my view is that is a scene built on the generosity of others. one doesn't have to immediately hit the GPL button the moment things don't go one's way. i understand the other point of view and have shared it at times, but i have followed this situation closely and this is where i'm at.
let's see what happens...
-
@windg said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
Since the topic is relevant and since the other one is locked I want to ask a question. Because i am still have lr-duckstation core on my setup, is it possible, a future update, to cause this core to not work? Thanks.
i think unless you deleted the core and your /psx/emulators.cfg it would stay regardless of updates.
-
@dankcushions said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
But they weren't his binaries in the first place, by his own admission, he was merely hosting them. If the original creator, who actually holds the Creative Commons license he attributed to them, is amenable, is that an issue?
the author of the code/binaries and the host/author of the website are the same person.
Absolutely not true. From his own github:
The core is maintained by a third party, and is not provided as part of the GitHub release.
-
@rhester72 said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
@dankcushions said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
But they weren't his binaries in the first place, by his own admission, he was merely hosting them. If the original creator, who actually holds the Creative Commons license he attributed to them, is amenable, is that an issue?
the author of the code/binaries and the host/author of the website are the same person.
Absolutely not true. From his own github:
The core is maintained by a third party, and is not provided as part of the GitHub release.
fair, i didn't know about that. i think previously the main author was maintaining the libretro core at one point as they added things at my request. so yeah, hypothetically if said third party re-hosted the binaries then the situation could change, but i wouldn't have thought that is likely right now...
-
Not sure how much of this is true but it sounds terrible
-
@refazeshot1 said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
Not sure how much of this is true but it sounds terrible
There's two sides to every story. His issues with libretro predate Duckstation. It's a LOT more nuanced than that thread would have you believe...remove all the crowd-sopping "f--k Retroarch!" posts and there's precious little real information there. I shared my thoughts yesterday on the same Reddit post and stand behind them 100%.
-
H hawkes_84 referenced this topic on
-
@rhester72 I agree with you 100%. Starting to read through more threads now....
-
@refazeshot1 said in How are core inclusion decisions made?:
Not sure how much of this is true but it sounds terrible
Imho, not much, last year (or maybe late 2020) stenzek unilaterally started to insult TA on reddit, some bullshit about PS3 SDK code illegally copied to retroarch, it turned out the code was actually gcc code and perfectly legal to copy. I went to duckstation discord myself to try to calm things down with stenzek because there was actually no issue, what i found out was that he was weaponizing his users, the result of this being that TA's postal address was shared on that discord and people were talking about hurting him physically, when i asked stenzek if he thought it was right to leave that stuff on his discord, people on his discord started insulting me. I left that discord and avoided duckstation after that. Afterward i just know TA made up with him and agreed to all his whims. I don't recommend trusting anything he has to say.
-
@barbudreadmon Thats terrible!! I can't believe they posted his address.
-
@dankcushions Nobody from libretro is claiming to have done that build. If the author does surface, I'll advise.
-
I am shocked how political the emulation scene goes sometimes.
And how tragic. Byuu (bsnes and other projects) killed himself because of cybermobbing, Aaron Giles also was attacked until he quit and now we have this duckstation/retroarch disaster.
Gosh, i always think: c'mon guys- it is just about old videogames!!! -
@sirhenrythe5th That's interesting...Aaron never said anything to me about abuse, just that it was increasingly difficult to split his time between shepherding MAME and work obligations.
-
D dankcushions referenced this topic on
Contributions to the project are always appreciated, so if you would like to support us with a donation you can do so here.
Hosting provided by Mythic-Beasts. See the Hosting Information page for more information.