pollymc-unwrapped: init at 8.0 #325889
pollymc-unwrapped: init at 8.0 #325889
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
8.has: maintainer-list (update)
|
i'm really sorry for being such a dumb person but this is like my second time working with git not for creating dots or smth like this.. thanks y'all for patience! |
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
|
Result of 1 package built:
|
|
Result of 1 package built:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is largely going to be a copy and paste of my comment in #313011, which itself is based on pollymc
According to the README, one of the main features of pollymc is that
Offline mode doesn't require an account.
Per Mojang's EULA:
When you buy our games, that means you can download, install, and play them. For the server version of Minecraft: Java Edition, you can install it on a server and host online play.
However, you must not distribute anything we've made unless we specifically agree to it. By "distribute anything we've made" what we mean is:
- give copies of our game software or content to anyone else;
- make commercial use of anything we've made;
- try to make money from anything we've made; or
- let other people get access to anything we've made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable.
And so that we are crystal clear, "the game" or "what we have made" includes, but is not limited to, the Services, plus any other games we might publish in the future. It also includes updates, patches, downloadable or Marketplace content, add-ons, or modified versions of a game, part of those things, merchandise, audio-visual content, or anything else we've made.
I feel giving access to the game itself with no verification of ownership most definitely falls under letting others get access to it "in a way that is unfair or unreasonable." It seems this is this project's specific intention as well given the description of it being a "DRM-free Prism Launcher fork", along with it including not-so-subtle references to what is being done here
IANAL, nor am i trying to endorse taking this project down or anything like that; however, the possibility of violating local laws here and the clear violation of mojang's EULA (which applies regardless of jurisdiction and is the responsibility of the launcher in this case) leads me to highly recommend against this being merged
At best, this launcher (and distributing it on cache.nixos.org) is in a legal grey area. At worst, this launcher and it's inclusion would be enabler for those wishing to pirate Minecraft. This could be quite a risk for nixpkgs that i don't think is worth the benefits given upstream has a flake
Lastly - and aside from everything previously discussed - this launcher is unmaintained. As of today, it's last commit was 8 months ago and since then projects like the aforementioned Fjord have stepped up as a replacement. I don't see much point in adding a package that's in this state
|
so.. what do i need to do? |
|
There are Discord clients like I am all for changing the license to Minecraft launchers in nixpkgs to |
you just came and save me, thank you sooo much. :D |
This is what i recommend. I am by no means an arbiter in this, though
Did I ever say that wasn't also a legal grey area and isn't a risk to nixpkgs?
Let's call a spade a spade: this isn't a "modded" version of a popular application, this is a cracked version. The main reason it exists is to remove DRM inline with Mojang's EULA and allow for online play with no ownership of an account via alternative auth servers. I'm not sure why we're trying to act as if it's anything different Regardless, how does something being hosted on GitHub mean it's ok? ..I don't understand your point here
They could at any point, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Why should we wait for this and risk an incident with them? I'd also be concerned by setting this as a precedent. Following the logic here and above: should we just start packaging any code off GitHub? What if the code is stolen? Leaked from a proprietary company? I don't think basing these decisions off companies not taking down repositories yet is at all viable long-term.
This wouldn't make much sense -- plenty of launchers are FOSS and do not include unfree assets, including this one. The actual issue with this package and why it shouldn't be built is not because it's "unfree", but because it would make nixpkgs complacent in breaking a third party's EULA and it may be illegal in some users' areas. Conflating unfree software with this is a misuse of the license attribute I would also like to reiterate: this is unmaintained software. It is out of date by almost a year and has been forked by a common contributor. Even if you can look aside the many legal issues with this package, I would highly advise against merging this as it will be dead on arrival. As an alternative I would recommend waiting on (or making) the follow up PR to #313011, where Fjord - the aforementioned fork of this project - was packaged. It no longer has many (any?) of the legal issues mentioned here as it re-added DRM, but still keeps the more legal features of pollymc such as support for FTB modpacks and alternative auth servers |
let's ignore DRM part and focus on this. |
I don't think we should really ignore it considering it's implications...but sure, for the sake of this reply
Some things work. Many things also don't. From it's last release based on Prism, polly has not received fixes/updates required for
This is just a handful of changes from the last few minor releases (keep in mind a major release of Prism is also soon) of Prism upstream and doesn't include any bugs that may be unique to polly. These issues will also continue compounding long into the future with how rapid the pace of the modding community is pollymc in this PR specifically also isn't in a great state, as only having an unwrapped variant basically restricts this to more advanced users who know how to override Prism's wrapper
*without owning the game
As I said in my previous response, this has already happened. Once again:
Considering it could break end user configurations, I wouldn't say it's much easier at the very least; I don't see how this matters though. Requesting to add a package you already plan on possibly removing just a few months later (which may or may not be before the branch off into 24.11) isn't a very good practice, and imo the discussion of it is another good sign this shouldn't be merged |
|
the ONLY reason to close i agree with, from this point, is => i won't close it. i'll start search for suitable alternatives, and consider that deleting package isn't as smooth as i thought - i insist on merge. |
wegank
added
the
12.approvals: 1
|
All the EULA/licensing concerns aside, as @getchoo already mentioned multiple times, this is unmaintained software and as such should not be packaged if there are maintained alternatives. |
|
Playing devil's advocate a bit here — we have launchers that offer offline mode like HMCL in Nixpkgs already. If we were to follow the EULA completely, we have to remove those launchers too, or render them unfree. However, I agree that an unmaintained fork of an existing launcher should not be accepted here — having a maintained fork would be a much more welcome alternative |
i've already found solution for unmaintained situation, i just need test this solution and make sure that solution will be maintained. :) |
i just need to clarify, if i drop PR with working, maintained fork that still do not follow the Mojang's EULA - that's will be OK? |
Description of changes
added
s0me1newithhand7sintomaintainers-list.nix.added new package
pollymc-unwrappedintonixpkgs/pkgs/by-name/po/pollymc-unwrapped.Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.