Print

[heinrich]

OK, just to clear a few things up... (in public)
I never expected xecuter to release their code, in fact, I talked to another "established member" of the scene early this morning, before Ubergeek replied to the GPL question, and he said that it would end up that xecuter more wrote their own code than copied the existing code; this is of course not what was said the whole time by xecuter, so my apologizies to team xecuter if I came off as accusing of wrong doing more than being inquisitive; I can only go off what is told.

I am fully aware that this is the "xbox scene" and that there are far more legal concerns than using each others code, esp. in the area of kernels.

I stand by that it would be nice if team xecuter released more info and code (not only for the kernel, but apps such as flashx, which could then be used by others), but again, as I said before, everyone has the "its my code, shoo" feeling.  I am sure many people will agree with this.  Will it ever happen?  I doubt it.  Just as, the evox sources will never be released (as Ubergeek mentioned).

[Heet]

Glad to see that post.  I know the intentions were right but I dont like to see the guys that are giving me (us) great free stuff harrassed and pointed at with extended fingers.  I think Xecuter has shown to be responsible and a pretty standup group.  I know because of my lack of knowledge of coding that I can't begin to comprehend the amount of work these guys do for "us" but I'm sure they have sat up with bloodshot eyes trying to solve problems that made them wanna just say "awe to hell with it".  I wouldn't want to do all of that, release it, then be punished for it.  I know that wasn't the intentions of the higher member's inquiries but it sure sounded like it.  Hope there are no hard feelings round here.

[Ubergeek]

no apologies needed. The nfo should have been worded better.

And flashX we did give the source to all the dashboard teams for them to use as they saw fit.

[heinrich]

[theultimatechuff]

+2 Funny

All went a bit slashdot in here tbh, thanks for the update.

[krawhitham]

QUOTE

Reguardless of whether you converted the code to C or not, you're still using the code and as such you have to release all your source using it to comply with the GPL. Read the terms of the GPL real closely, cm4n has a very valid point. But then we all know you'll never comply to the terms of the GPL, fact you used code licensed under it wont matter to you. But then i knew this as soon as cm4n asked the original question though i didnt expect your reply to be as childish as it was. Oh well

I see all you have to do is change your story a few times untill it is something everyone will buy, and move on with life.

Now you say you did not convert the code as stated in the nfo and on this board.  Just come up with a BS story that will get the pressure off you from the GPL issue, because you had not intension of following the GPL anyway.

[heinrich]

krawhitham: i dont see it as "dick sucking", I see it as "getting real and dropping it"; for myself, I feel the point was made, a response was given, and no matter how much it goes back and forth, they arent going to release the code.  Of course, by all means, continue as much as you would like.

[Ubergeek]

QUOTE (krawhitham @ Nov 17 2003, 06:00 PM)

I see everyone is back on the dick sucking train again this message hit the nail on the head QUOTE Reguardless of whether you converted the code to C or not, you're still using the code and as such you have to release all your source using it to comply with the GPL. Read the terms of the GPL real closely, cm4n has a very valid point. But then we all know you'll never comply to the terms of the GPL, fact you used code licensed under it wont matter to you. But then i knew this as soon as cm4n asked the original question though i didnt expect your reply to be as childish as it was. Oh well I see all you have to do is change your story a few times untill it is something everyone will buy, and move on with life. Now you say you did not convert the code as stated in the nfo and on this board.  Just come up with a BS story that will get the pressure off you from the GPL issue, because you had not intension of following the GPL anyway.

its guys like you who make me puke

im a pirate. I hack shit. this bios is illegal and to be honest i couldnt give a fuck about GPL (if I cared about copying someones shit then you really think i'd be fucking with the xbox ?) - even though the ONE time we've used GPL code we've released the sources, just to make preachers like you happy.

the nfo was worded wrong. we did completely convert his asm to c for development purposes. That code wasn't used in the final release. We coded our own as we use source not asm patching. I really couldnt care less if anyone agrees with this or not - im busy playing SSX3 which is a copy on my hacked xbox (oh my god should i be worried about it being illegal ?).

now get of your soapbox and print this message - roll it and smoke it.

[moistness]

(edit: looks like Ubergeek beat me to it and said it far better than i did )

[Ubergeek]

QUOTE (NghtShd @ Nov 17 2003, 05:26 PM)

Ok, the thread got split mid-reply, so I'll reply here, too. QUOTE I should also point out he gave us the code long before it was final and before it was ever released to the public under GPL. Just for the record: Paul sent me his lba48 code as soon as he had it working. Whether I got it before anyone else, I don't know for certain (though I suspect I did, since Paul wanted it to be standardized rather than have every BIOS hacking team release incompatible versions), but I'm sure the code I got was at least as early as what anyone else did. That code clearly contained the GPL notices. No. Paul hadn't made it public yet, but I don't think that's the issue. Also, I'm sorry to hear that Paul's partition table in block 0 scheme was dumped. Kind of defeat's what I believe was an important purpose in Paul's getting LBA48 implemented in as many BIOS's as possible: standardization. In light of the issues with >= 300GB drives (apparently a FATX problem), being able to write a custom partition table could be a big thing.

i have one source.asm and 3 patch.c files from paul

its pure code - no gpl notice at all and had some bugs which are documented in an email that Paul has asked me not to share. To be honest I didnt even know it was under GPL until this useless debate started today.

the hack works perfect the way it is - its completely compatible - we just dumped some of the stuff he did as what we coded works better as source in our kernel

his "PATCH" remains standard but thats not relevant in this bios version as it doesn't need to be patched. People can still patch all the patchable bios's out there - so the standardization remains. We already told him if we could make any specific improvements we would pass on those changes which we have no problem with whatsoever.

now stop reading this drivel nghtshd and go make a new xbtool

[Ubergeek]

you want me to respect retards like this bashing me like i was some chump after working my ass off on a cool ass release ?

this bios uses nothing GPL

the source code I was given weeks before it was final was not GPL with no GPL notice in the .asm files or the 3 .c files

period. end of conversation.

[Heet]

[Ubergeek]

QUOTE (cm4n @ Nov 17 2003, 06:56 PM)

honestly, i just wanted to see the code.  i dont give a shit about fancy rules (ie, gpl), but i figured the code had to be badass and i wanted to have myself a look.  i imagine ubergeek understands this. of course, i understand how uber must feel, with a lot of people knocking on his door for code; code that a lot of pain was invested into, im sure.  i can see how he might not want to release it. i imagine some of the hostility was not hostility at all, and was simple joking around (as clarified in an earlier thread).  i suppose it was just a matter of miscommunication, similar to with the info in the nfo.  my apologies for pouncing on what i felt was uber being rude.

I sent you a PM - perhaps this will clarify things better for you

[heinrich]

Well, I have now seen the 'original' code that xecuter was given, and while I dont understand it all, I can see what is being done.  Its nothing huge really, more of a 'doh why didnt I think of that' and then the time to write out all of the code.  The way I see, think of Paul's work as a research paper, and xecuter's being based off that.  IMO, as long as Paul is cool with it, whatever.....

Of course, as I said above, it would be cool if xecuter released their code, but it ain't gunna happen.

[NghtShd]

QUOTE

I see all you have to do is change your story a few times untill it is something everyone will buy, and move on with life.

So true.

I know I'll be classified as an anal Ubergeek basher for saying this, but sobeit.

How do you go from the statement that Paul's code was not modified at all, just converted to to C, and therefore unchanged....

QUOTE

"no as we made no changes to the hack - we simply converted it to C"

QUOTE

"however its besides the point - nothing was changed if you want it get the assembly - its all you guys would use anyway for your dev"

to

QUOTE

we wrote our own c code based on his assembly work none of ozpaulb's original work exists in the bios

QUOTE

we didnt use his code. We wrote our own on the principals he applied.

And now the revisionist NFO file. Sorry to have say it, but it all just looks like a major ass covering operation.

Why not just say, "Fuck GPL, I'll do what I want!" It would look a lot less weasely.

On the other hand, if you want to give back to the community then my question is, why not release all of your own code? Not the MS stuff, of course, just your stuff--the focus encoder, the LBA48, IGR and anything else you've developed. You may not think it's useful, but others may. Why keep it secret?

Anyway, call me names. Scoff at and belittle my opinions. I'm obviously mental for thinking this looks like a clear GPL violation and a major ass covering, but I'm just calling it like I see it.