This package should be taken down ASAP.

[K4LCIFER]

Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, nor a legal professional.

---

Yuzu has lost their court case against Nintendo (source). The court case cites §1201(a)(2)(A) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
      (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
      (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
      (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

I am concerned that continuing to offer Yuzu on Flathub puts Flathub at risk of being sued under this section.

[dylanmtaylor]

They settled. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like any specific code in this project was found to be in infringement because it wasn't actually tested in court.

[K4LCIFER]

They settled. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like any specific code in this project was found to be in infringement because it wasn't actually tested in court.

(2) No person shall [...] offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

I suppose one could potentially argue that the software itself isn't being provided, just links/references to it.

[dylanmtaylor]

They settled. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like any specific code in this project was found to be in infringement because it wasn't actually tested in court.

(2) No person shall [...] offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

Wouldn't the same justification mean that every video game console emulator in existence is infringing? Should all of them be removed?

[K4LCIFER]

See my edit. But, even still, I don't think the risk is worth it.

[RobotoSkunk]

I'm not a lawyer too, but if Yuzu is taking down anything about Yuzu, this should be taken down too because Flathub is still hosting an emulator that has been sued by Nintendo.

Regardless of what code was used or not, I don't think Nintendo will be friendly to Flathub when they find out it's still hosting Yuzu.

[Faeranne]

Just to add a potentially positive suggestion here, the case against Yuzu was never actually taken to any form of trial. Yuzu settled, and agreed to pay the fine and hand over all code. A test of GPL would be required to make removing any other copies mandatory. The codebase itself was never found to be in violation of DCMA.

Based on that, removal would not be mandatory. Choosing to remove it would, by that logic, be purely based on the concern of Nintendo threatening Flathub. Granted, if the fear is that Nintendo will attack other copies, it should also be taken into consideration that other system emulation software is on Flathub, and would need to be removed.

I personally would be very appreciative of this repo remaining up, especially if it does not contain any actual yuzu code, but that is my opinion.