Print

[Iriez]

QUOTE (jse @ May 13 2003, 01:40 PM)

yeah but iriez can we wait untill after the n64 emu contest is over so devs attentions are on one thing

It will most likely be over before the openxdk starts. If not, its not like a billion dev's are working on the N64 contest.
Besides, its a much larger project and will have a long term goal.

QUOTE

dunno...hypotheticaly speaking here...what happens if haikaru completes his daedalus port up to the standards mentioned by the contest before anybody else does?

Then i will speak with him, and ask him if he would like to claim the prize. If he does not, then life goes on. Everyones happy.

What happens with the money you say? The obvious conclusion would be for them to have their money refunded, unless of course they wanted their donation to go to StrmnNrmn (original daedalus author http://daedalus.boob.co.uk ) which i think would be a great idea, seeing that hikaru is using his code to port.

But, hypothetical thoughts on this subject are useless. The current dev that is doing the pj64 port is waaaay ahead of hikaru, and working on it daily.

[Iriez]

Oh yea, also, forgot to mention SiRioKD.

He's the author of SC3K , a SEGA SC-3000 emulator, and KOLEKO a collecovision emulator. He ported both of his works to the xbox.

He also did KASTER-X , which was a Sega Master System emulator, exclusivly for the xbox.

http://www.siriokds.emuita.it/

[SSSSSmokey]

You know, I don't really know what the big deal is about this contest.  People will pay for what they want to pay for.  It's that simple.  Just because I bought an Xbox doesn't mean I should donate to Magnavox, does it?  Without them, Xbox may never have been thought of at all.  Maybe I should donate to Xerox for using Windows?  But I won't, because I don't use what ever GUI Xerox made, and I have never owned an Odyssey.  I am not dissing the original authors, but what we are paying for is an emulator for Xbox.  Maybe the original authors should port it, I'm sure their knowledge of the program is MUCH higher than anyone else.

[AlphaWolf]

QUOTE (SSSSSmokey @ May 13 2003, 09:46 PM)

Maybe the original authors should port it, I'm sure their knowledge of the program is MUCH higher than anyone else.

Most of the authors that have shown any interest at all in porting to xbox have said that they will not port simply because there is no legal SDK.

[CyRUS64]

Mage: We believe xdk usage to be wrong too actually.
But compared to violating an individual authors' gpl license its the lesser of two wrongs and one that is *easily* rectifiable.

[Mage]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 13 2003, 10:45 PM)

Mage: We believe xdk usage to be wrong too actually. But compared to violating an individual authors' gpl license its the lesser of two wrongs and one that is *easily* rectifiable.

If you do think it is wrong, you shouldn't bitch about either of them.
Which would you rather have, said emulators on xbox, or only things the OpenXDK can currently support?

GPL is nice in theory, however I've said this before, it becomes flawed when you actually want to force someone to release source.
In the end it only protects you against corporations using the source to make profit without releasing it, and even then it might not really help you. (Money = Lawyer power)

Why is it a lesser of two wrongs?  Because Mlcrosoft is a corporation?
That is beyond silly logic.

No the reason you people think it is the lesser of two wrongs is all these emulators cannot exist without the XDK.  It's fine to infringe copyrights as long as you benefit from it it appears.

However when someone uses a gpl codebase for something the real developers won't wish to deal with, nor legally be allowed to put in their CVS, you're going to scream about GPL violations?  

Usage of the XDK is a far more serious offense than violating the GPL.
Free sourecode is worth nothing.  IP of one of the largest companies in the world, however, is.

[CyRUS64]

QUOTE

Which would you rather have, said emulators on xbox, or only things the OpenXDK can currently support?

Exactly - thats precisely how you handle a console scene - you communally develop a devkit to attain the means for your individual projects.

QUOTE

Usage of the XDK is a far more serious offense than violating the GPL. Free sourecode is worth nothing. IP of one of the largest companies in the world, however, is.

Yes, but morally, taking someone else's gpl'd code and using it to then not release source is very low. I'm not saying this is what xport is like since he has made some effort with the pcsxbox code although there's still a way to go.
And you may say the free sourcecode is worth nothing, but you wouldn't have all your ports without it in the first place... as stated many a time, neither demo/calb or pete are going to release the sources required for a hw rendering plugin for your beloved psx emu port thanks to these recent 'scandals'.

[Mage]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 14 2003, 12:11 AM)

QUOTE Which would you rather have, said emulators on xbox, or only things the OpenXDK can currently support? Exactly - thats precisely how you handle a console scene - you communally develop a devkit to attain the means for your individual projects.

Ok, you seriously think the OpenXDK anytime in the next few years is going to hack the protocols required to directly talk to the GPU?

You didn't respond to the rest of my post, however...

EDIT: Regards to his changed post.

QUOTE

Yes, but morally, taking someone else's gpl'd code and using it to then not release source is very low. I'm not saying this is what xport is like since he has made some effort with the pcsxbox code although there's still a way to go. And you may say the free sourcecode is worth nothing, but you wouldn't have all your ports without it in the first place... as stated many a time, neither demo/calb or pete are going to release the sources required for a hw rendering plugin for your beloved psx emu port thanks to these recent 'scandals'.

Wow, were they going to really release them?  Why hadn't they before?  As if xbox matters alone are the sole reason they aren't releasing.  Yeah right...they've had those plugins for years and never released the source, so it appears they already don't care to give it to the community to use.
As for the psx, I don't need that emulator, I have a ps2 sitting right next to my xbox, so I doubt you should call it my beloved psx emu port.

Your moral double standard is still quite funny.  It's alright to take MS IP and not have it be low, but GPLed code is low?  What makes the GPL so special?  Did Jesus give us the GPL and say enforce it as if it were the words of God?

[CyRUS64]

QUOTE

However when someone uses a gpl codebase for something the real developers won't wish to deal with, nor legally be allowed to put in their CVS, you're going to scream about GPL violations?

They just setup their own cvs with the exact sources required for any individual to compile an xbox binary for themselves. Its been shown and stated by Iriez that the xdk srcs are okay, and although the original teams probably wont want anything to do with them, sourceforge are still happy to host xbmp and so xport is totally free to provide src d/ls should he wish and is of course technically required to do.

QUOTE

Ok, you seriously think the OpenXDK anytime in the next few years is going to hack the protocols required to directly talk to the GPU?

Heh, why not
We can hack the ps2,dreamcast so I'm pretty sure the xbox is a damn site easier. You just need to attract the true console hackers, very few of whom would dare go near the xbox scene in its current state.
At the worst all you need to do is reverse xdk binaries and figure it out that way.. I've reversed most of the dreamcast myself, so its really very doable.

[CyRUS64]

QUOTE

It's alright to take MS IP and not have it be low, but GPLed code is low? What makes the GPL so special? Did Jesus give us the GPL and say enforce it as if it were the words of God?

Of course its not okay, but as I said releasing source is far more short-termly renderable.

[Mage]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 14 2003, 12:18 AM)

QUOTE However when someone uses a gpl codebase for something the real developers won't wish to deal with, nor legally be allowed to put in their CVS, you're going to scream about GPL violations? They just setup their own cvs with the exact sources required for any individual to compile an xbox binary for themselves. Its been shown and stated by Iriez that the xdk srcs are okay, and although the original teams probably wont want anything to do with them, sourceforge are still happy to host xbmp and so xport is totally free to provide src d/ls should he wish and is of course technically required to do. QUOTE Ok, you seriously think the OpenXDK anytime in the next few years is going to hack the protocols required to directly talk to the GPU? Heh, why not We can hack the ps2,dreamcast so I'm pretty sure the xbox is a damn site easier. You just need to attract the true console hackers, very few of whom would dare go near the xbox scene in its current state. At the worst all you need to do is reverse xdk binaries and figure it out that way.. I've reversed most of the dreamcast myself, so its really very doable.

That's all fine and dandy until they recieve and injunction notice anyways.
If Irez thinks MS cannot take the site owners to court to try to protect their IP, then he needs to wakeup.
Instead people are playing the odds, and the PR game, that MS won't attack the hackers due to the negitive public view of them for it.

I don't think ANY reputable developers would take such chances.

With regards to ps2 dev.  Sony ended up being forced to give out their compilers, which made it easy for people to start doing more serious ps2 work...that is what happens when a corp uses GPLed software.
There are also docs that describe the low level information needed to write software for the ps2.  Such docs aren't accessible to xbox developers.
XDK doesn't tell you about bus communications and DMAs required to directly talk to the GPU, nor the format it should be in.
You're given a high level interface, so learning the low level isn't going to be very easy.

As for dreamcast, the GPU was a PowerVR, which low level docs do exist.  Find docs telling you the information needed to write a driver to talk to an nvidia card...that's highly prized IP of nvidia.

On the surface it appears the xbox should be easier, but in reality that is far from the truth.

[CyRUS64]

Nope, admittedly ps2 is doc'd well,  but dreamcast is near totally undocumented. All the sdks are completely abstract and there are by no means lowlevel powervr2 docs for accessing it.. there are general tile-acceleration theory docs and such but lowlevel access has been reversed by hand.
However hard it may seem, its totally doable since the MS binaries themselves do it.

[deusprogrammer]

Go buy a book on DirectX 8.0 and start reading it.  Then get the XDK from somewhere...(cough...eDonkey...cough).

Now to comment on the legality issue...most of the stuff on this site we talk about is somehow illegal.  So really arguing over what is more wrong or illegal is really pointless.  So let's end this arguement now.  While Cyrus didn't need to bitch at people, he is right.  And also, mad props to XPort for doing some excellent porting.  But one last point...XPort may be great, but he is not truely doing something spectacular until he writes something of his own from scratch.  I believe he has the right stuff to do it.

[stiGGy]

QUOTE (deusprogrammer @ May 14 2003, 09:46 AM)

I really do see Cyrus's point.  I have been jacking around with the XDK a couple days now.  I used to program in Direct X for a simple 2D RPG I was making.  And as I was looking around at how it works...I realized...it's the same god damned thing.  Then I went and looked at the source code of a couple of the things XPort has ported (StepmaniaX and PSCx)...guess what they are written in?  Direct X.  All one has to do is make simple modifications to the code...such as the main code segment, the input classes, and some minor graphics tweaking which are easy because of C++'s object oriented approach to programming.  So these open sources can easily be built on so they will function on the XBox. I am not de-faming XPort, because he is doing us all a huge favor.  Without him I would have had to sit down and fiddle with it until I got it to work.  But the people who are kissing his ass so much and offering him donations should do us all a favor and either: A) Donate money to the original authors since they did all the hard work (standing on the shoulders of giants they say). OR Go buy a book on DirectX 8.0 and start reading it.  Then get the XDK from somewhere...(cough...eDonkey...cough). Now to comment on the legality issue...most of the stuff on this site we talk about is somehow illegal.  So really arguing over what is more wrong or illegal is really pointless.  So let's end this arguement now.  While Cyrus didn't need to bitch at people, he is right.  And also, mad props to XPort for doing some excellent porting.  But one last point...XPort may be great, but he is not truely doing something spectacular until he writes something of his own from scratch.  I believe he has the right stuff to do it.

well said.

[CyRUS64]

In fact looking through the partial released sources there are literally very few changes required to have been made by xport