Print

[Xustu]

~yea,  still like ham.

[CyRUS64]

double post.

[CyRUS64]

Pete: Yeah, I don't know what gpu plugin they used, but its yet another xbox warez release and hence only the binary is available through dodgy irc channels. You might like to try mailing xport or whoever..

[PeteBernert]

Since PCSX is protected by the GPL, the sources of the port have to get released.

If that port is using the P.E.Op.S. gpu and spu sources, which are protected by the GPL, that sources have to get released as well.

If this port is violating the GPL in any way, than I have zero respect for 'xport'.

The nice little statement "Many thanks go out to the authors of the above emulators for making them open-source" on the xport homepage would be like spitting into the faces of all that authors.

CyRUS64, I didn't find any real 'xport' mail address, but I will try to send 'xport' a mail through this messageboard.

[MissSplitch]

Ouch, harshness.

I agree completely, though I don't know whether or not the code is available (I assume it is) I must say if it's not that's not very kosher.

Then again, I'm sure Xport would be a better person than that, and has the code readily available. I can't see doing a port of something, having everyone know its a port, doing it for free, and then trying to keep the code to yourself as though you had something to lose by releasing it.

Here's to further work from Xport.

-Splitch

[Banacek]

QUOTE (PeteBernert @ May 12 2003, 05:15 AM)

>and has the code readily available sorry, but that's not good enough. If he releases a port of a GPL protected software, he has either to bundle the complete source codes with the binaries, or he has to point out to the public where to get this sources. GPL'd Open Source software is not _free to use for whatever comes into your mind_. There are several rules behind it, and either you follow them, or you break them illegaly. And if 'xport' is breaking them, than I don't care if the xbox scene is hailing him as Jesus reborn, and legal actions could be taken.

Kind of judging him before he even gets a chance to defend himself.

From the GPL:

QUOTE

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

And according to LumbraX: (who's post can be found here)

QUOTE

(At a Friends House) For those who were wondering what happen to our port, we were stuck on something (forgot what it was) so we asked XPort for help, XPort replied back in 3 days saying that he had taken over the project and ported pcsx himself, so we kept that to ourself until he released it today. You may even find some games working in the pcsx port XPort did, when our team started the port we got support from the original Author and he gave us a source code for pcsx that hadnt been released yet. (And I sent that source to XPort through PM, not sure if he used it but it looked like he did)..... Awsome work though XPort, C Everyone when I get back in like 6 days...

So am I missing something here?

[CyRUS64]

Well I can't see any sources for his ports on his site so hopefully someone can request them from him, but pretty much all the emulators he has ported are gpl'd also so they should have src available too.

[CyRUS64]

You might find this interesting interview with him interesting Pete:
http://homebrew.dcem...evo/xport.shtml

Specifically:

QUOTE

When I decide for certain that I don't want to do any more updates, I'll just dump the source and people can do whatever they want with it. It will most likely be dumped at http://xport.xb-power.com Don't ask for the source on the message boards there. Be happy with what you have. As an aside (since I'm thinking of it and since I'm on the soapbox), let me just say that I simply cannot fathom the arrogance and ingratitude of the individuals pestering the XBox Media Player authors to release source under the duress of their interpretation of the GPL. Amazing...the community gains a useful product and the authors gain nothing (except perhaps a little fame). One would think that the normal response to such an act would be to thank them. Never underestimate the power of greed. Gimme, gimme gimme.

Hrm, I don't see how wanting someone to conform to a gpl license is greed

[MissSplitch]

So I'm going to venture a guess that PeteBernert is someone somehow involved with the original source that feels his rights to it were violated?

I'm not seeing who's at a loss here.  If the original author gave out the source to someone,
and they used it with his/her permission, who's to say who "should" get what in what way? This isn't a Rachellian question, so much as someone wanting something just for the sake of having it open.

As for "legal actions," I'm sure the question of whoever's intellectual property rights will go over real well when in order to exercise those rights you had to step on the intellectual property rights of another (the emulator won't even run unless you've either changed the xbox's bios to run unsigned code and hence, infringed upon the manufacturer/developer's rights, or changed the box to use a different bios, and thus questionably did the same thing, as your ability to do so could be linked intrinsically to others' infringement-based research.)

Once again a question of the slippery slope arises. There's a reason we don't know what Mengele found out.

-Splitch

[MissSplitch]

It's a good thing someone sees what I'm talking about.

-Splitch

[MissSplitch]

A GPL-based release structure is great for advancing the project fast, and encouraging competition and such; however when put into an unstructured compilation and execution environment such as this one, having to keep track of who's version everyone is using and troubleshooting the various problems inherent therein without being able to directly point at software to support the tired masses is just foolish.

The "scene" (I use quotes nonpatronizingly, as I just don't like using that word) benefits more from not having to deal with myriad different versions of the same product at this moment more than the benefits of rapid advancement would aid the cause.

Not to harp too much on my Mengele analogy; but the same ideal is case-in-point here:
if advancement comes at too large a cost it's no longer advancement. We'd be winning $20 on the nickel slots after blowing our whole paycheck.

It's irrelevant that the point of the GPL is to make better software and the point of MS' license is to make money. Altruism is subjective; to the Nazi's Mengele was doing the right thing by experimenting on Jews in the hopes of gaining knowledge that would aid the Nazi's cause. Now that that knowledge is obtained, what is worse; using it knowing that the ends would justify the means, and thus allow for anyone who happened to be on top at the time to do anything they saw fit to those they felt were inferior, or to have all of the people who were tortured, maimed and killed to gain that knowledge die without it being used?

The source isn't the issue, it's everyone feeling as though this apparent violation has somehow violated their inalienable right to possess shit to dick around with.  Let's be honest, even if the source code to this thing never gets released the GPL's basis won't have suffered at all.

I fI might add another obscure analogy to my pile;

if you died tomorrow, how many people would cry?

-Splitch

[linuzappz]

hi, this release shouldn't be supported, i did sent him the lastest sources for PCSX, but i didn't lend him permission to release the binarys, and of course i haven't lend him permisssion to distribute them with a real bios as i saw he did, so this release is illegal.

   linuzappz

[MissSplitch]

I didn't even think of that. Is this Pete as in Pete's HLE Wrapper? If it is, that was the only graphics plugin that would run Tenchu on my old machine, and I can see why you would be angry that your stuff was being used in violation of its spirit.

However I would appeal to people more on the level of "hey, I'm the programmer of those wrappers, why not release the source for the thing like we agreed upon when we made it GPL" rather than "I won't state who I am, but I will come onto a forum and threaten legal action as part of my 3rd post."

Then again the 2 games I worked on never got released thanks to the company, so I guess I've got a bit of a different attitude as to who gets what in the way of source.

-Splitch

[luma]

i'd separate the argument here on the issues of compiled binaries and source availability.  the xbox media player serves as a good example of how a GPL'd open source project can work on the xbox.  their cvs will let anybody grab the source (and contribute diff's too), but to get compiled binaries you either have to

a) compile them yourself using your own licensed copy of the xdk
b) compile them yourself using your p1r4te copy of the xdk
c) download the compiled binaries from somebody else

anything outside of option a is illegal, and as such the xbox media player developers do not make compiled binaries available (not that you have to look to hard to find daily cvs builds).

now, xport hasn't really made the compiled binaries available any moreso than the xbox media player developers have.  you can get the binaries, but you're running through questionable channels to do so, so you'd have to assume some of the risk here.

however, pcsx is licensed under the gpl, which clearly states any derivative software must come with published source, or directions on how to get the source.  i think it's offensive to the original authors that somebody would use their work on an open source and gpl protected project as a foundation for their own work without releasing the source as required by the terms of the license under which the source was released.  i really think xport should step up to the plate and comply with the terms that he agreed to by using the GPLd sources.

on the other hand, he may not care a whit about the legality involved, and would just rather dump working emulators on the scene and hide behind his handle while pissing off the original authors of the emulators that he's using.  while a part of me appreciates this desire, i think it's counter productive in the long run.  the original authors can provide a lot of support for future porting efforts if they have trust in xport (and whomever else) complying with the terms of the source license.  xport has done a tremendous job porting these emulators, but i somehow don't believe that he's an emulator author himself.  as such, his continued access to current and future emulators to port to the xbox relies on the good faith of the original authors.  if he continues pissing in this pot, i think the whole emulation scene (on all platforms) may suffer by destroying the good faith that exists within the emulator community.

edited to remove the damn smiles

[ruffles_x]

QUOTE

Yes, I know - I need to truly update the webpage. In the meantime, some important things: Right click here and select "Save as..." to download the PCSX source changes for XBox. Rename the JPG file to a ZIP file. Right click here and select "Save as..." to download the Peops GPU source changes for XBox. Rename the JPG file to a ZIP file. Right click here and select "Save as..." to download the Peops SPU source changes for XBox. Rename the JPG file to a ZIP file. I wish to express apologies to Peter Bernert because I completely forgot to mention that I used his plugins in the XBox port of PCSX. At the very least I should have mentioned that in the NFO file. If anyone feels they have been wronged by previous unavailability of the above source code, then I apologize for that, too. In response to the flurry of message activity - I simply don't have the time to address the insanity on the forums right now. I'm listening, but that's all I'm doing for the moment.

From the Xport Webpage

There you have it, the guy finally apologised, now everybody be happy