The real deal y0

  • 0 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • DacoTaco@lemmy.worldtoOpen Source@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Their source code repo contains a copy of libogc for wii/gc builds because they were annoyed at us. And i do mean a copy. Not a reference, or a sub-module, a full on copy that they build before building the wii/gc executable.

    Their own issue, as long as we dont get reports of their broken shit…

    Then there are the multiple times they cloned emu repos and butchered them into cores. Or the fact they force the core interface on emulators making them bad.

    Retroarch is a nice project from a far, but the closer you look, the more you see huge ass cracks in the project, held down with duct-tape






  • Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
    Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
    Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

    Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
    .net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode



  • Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
    And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
    Remember, always read your employment agreements!



  • And not every team is allowed to do that.
    Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
    A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
    I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it


  • I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
    This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.

    Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.