Print

[SSSSSmokey]

Just my 2 more cents, I don't think it should be a legality issue to release source with the GPL.  I just can't understand why any self respecting programmer would disobey such a rule.  Like I said before, honor among theives is what this is.  Just because of the XDK we can't ignore other rules.

[Iriez]

QUOTE (MGSnake19 @ May 14 2003, 10:59 PM)

@Iriez can you updates us with some more PIctures of the n64 emu , and some info ??

First of all, this is the wrong thread to ask in.

Second of all, you obviously did not read the big DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING section, so im going to ignore your request, and hope that a moderator deletes your post.

Read my thread again, and dont beg me for shit.

MOD EDIT: Split MGSnake19's post off into its own thread. -Xeero

[ector]

Mage, Iriez, the view that not giving out source code of ports of GPL:ed programs is "OK" is one of the reasons the xbox scene won't get for example Pete's HW DirectX plugin.

If the xbox scene wants to see more emulators, it has to start respecting the original authors. The proper way to do that is by giving out full source to xbox ports of GPL programs. Are you listening XPort? Who knows, maybe Pete would agree to give out sources to the DirectX plugin if you respected him. Obviously you don't.

(in this post i'm disregarding XDK legality issues but of course they're a problem too)

[CyRUS64]

He's saying it is easily fixable, which it is and should be done so asap. Especially since it affects the individual authors who provides the emus to be ported in the first place.

[Dante_Ali]

QUOTE (ector @ May 15 2003, 07:57 AM)

Mage, Iriez, the view that not giving out source code of ports of GPL:ed programs is "OK" is one of the reasons the xbox scene won't get for example Pete's HW DirectX plugin. If the xbox scene wants to see more emulators, it has to start respecting the original authors. The proper way to do that is by giving out full source to xbox ports of GPL programs. Are you listening XPort? Who knows, maybe Pete would agree to give out sources to the DirectX plugin if you respected him. Obviously you don't. (in this post i'm disregarding XDK legality issues but of course they're a problem too)

What would be far worse is if Sony or MS is going to take legal action against the PCSX team because of this. That's what we really should be worried about - it happened before with MAME-X (not in the sense that MS took legal action against opcode - with only an Internet handle there's not much to sue)  but in that case the binaries were available from a website - whereas the PCSXbox binaries are only available from IRC.

PCSXbox gives them plenty to complain about - an PSX emulator that can be played on the Xbox, which has been compiled using an illegally obtained Xbox development kit, which is shipped with an illegally obtained BIOS. Sony takes this stuff VERY seriously.

I truly hope that Sony will not bother to take this to court like they did with Bleem, Connectix' VGS and all the other PSX emus before it. Then again, those were commercial ventures and this is not. The fact that Xport and PCSX' site are down doesn't bode well, however.

[Iriez]

QUOTE (ector @ May 15 2003, 12:57 AM)

Mage, Iriez, the view that not giving out source code of ports of GPL:ed programs is "OK" is one of the reasons the xbox scene won't get for example Pete's HW DirectX plugin. Are you listening XPort? Who knows, maybe Pete would agree to give out sources to the DirectX plugin if you respected him. Obviously you don't.

Are you listening to me? Obviously you havnt read all my posts. I think your directing your hater post to the wrong person.

[Iriez]

QUOTE (Dante_Ali @ May 15 2003, 01:08 AM)

What would be far worse is if Sony or MS is going to take legal action against the PCSX team because of this. That's what we really should be worried about - it happened before with MAME-X (not in the sense that MS took legal action against opcode - with only an Internet handle there's not much to sue)  but in that case the binaries were available from a website - whereas the PCSXbox binaries are only available from IRC.

Apparently you dont understand the legal process.

Just because Walmart sells guns, doesnt make them responsible when some pyscho buys one and kills 50 people.

You cannot blame the author of a perfectly legitimate and 100% legal program from releasing his sources, and then having someone else do something illegal with it. Its just simply preposturous, and to even suggest such a thing is very very very dense.

No, this is 100% nothing we have to worry about, period.

MS sent opcode a cease email because he posted XDK compiled binaries. THATS IT.

QUOTE

I truly hope that Sony will not bother to take this to court like they did with Bleem, Connectix' VGS and all the other PSX emus before it. Then again, those were commercial ventures and this is not.

You just answered your own argument. I think the point you are trying to specify is that, BLEEM was trying to market a product for $$$, based off emulating sony's hardware. You cannot compare this to a 100% free and legal emulator.

Seriously guys, dont waste peoples time and bandwith with crap posts that make no sense. THINK about it before you try to state such ridiculous things.

QUOTE

He's saying it is easily fixable, which it is and should be done so asap.

Who were you referring too? You didnt quote anybody so im unsure what you were responding too. Are you talking about pete and XPort? If so the situation is already satisfied.

[CyRUS64]

QUOTE

Who were you referring too? You didnt quote anybody so im unsure what you were responding too. Are you talking about pete and XPort? If so the situation is already satisfied.

Firstly, Ector, xport has made a diff. source release for pcsxbox. However there are still 2 problems. Firstly there needs to be a full compilable source release so we can make our own binaries - I know this means he must release his gui code but come on it can't be that hard a thing to do. Secondly Pete/linuzappz are far from happy that the pcsxbox release has been packaged with a psx bios, so xport should really work with them to address this issue. Specifically he'd be better off putting up a sf page up with the emu sources, and then let others compile/package them together according to 'readme.txt' instructions and distrib. them through the normal xdk binary channels.

Also Iriez has actually been understanding about the gpl and its mainly others who have shrugged it off as being 'a pointless issue since the xdk makes everything illegal anyhow'.

Anyhow Iriez,  xport has also made many other emu ports, many of which are also under the gpl license and so they need source release too. Due to my exams I've only been able to speak to one author Zeograd, who has said that he would like to see source releases. Its really up to xport to have spoken to each author, and got their express permission and state it on his site that they have allowed the gpl to be relicensed for his releases. However some of the emus have used other gpl code such as mp*libs / cpu cores so he needs to get permission from each and every contributor to the emus - at the end of the day its easier to just comply to the gpl

-CyRUS

[Iriez]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 15 2003, 02:34 AM)

Firstly, Ector, xport has made a diff. source release for pcsxbox. However there are still 2 problems. Firstly there needs to be a full compilable source release so we can make our own binaries - I know this means he must release his gui code but come on it can't be that hard a thing to do.

First off, its XPorts choice whether he wants to release his GUI or not. C'mon bro, your a developer, you should know this stuff, its common sense. He doesnt have to release shit. If you want a GUI so badly code your own. He provided the neccesary sources to fulfill the license agreement and thats all he has to do.

There is no if and's or buts about this.

QUOTE

Secondly Pete/linuzappz are far from happy that the pcsxbox release has been packaged with a psx bios, so xport should really work with them to address this issue.

You know what, im sorry, but i hardly see the relevence with this. What does XPort packaging his xdk compiled emu with a bios have to do with pete? Yes, he included a bios in it. Yes, it was compiled with the xdk. Yes, he provided the psxc sources he worked on, along with whatever plugin stuff he altered.

Pete, and linuzappz ends have been satisfied (from a legal standpoint).

If i make a pipe bomb with PVC piping i bought from Home Depot, is home depot to blame when i blow up a church full of children? No, of course not. I think anyone who takes that standpoint needs to take a couple classes on common sense and logic.

Seriously, you people act like XPort is holding a gun to pete's head, saying that he has to host his xbox port, with a pre packaged bios file, on their webservers. Im just seriously failing to see what this even has to do with pete or linuzappz, or why they should even care in the first place.

Its not them that gets the heat from a anonmous persons actions. Its the people who host it that do. They have nothing to worry about, I do. If anyone has a right to bitch, its me.

About the other GPL stuff, Im sure if the author simply emailed him requesting the sources that he would comply. If there is no demand and no need for the sources, no ones hurt.

[evilnick]

QUOTE

...Pete or some other currently closed-source hw accel plugin author would respect him, and maybe make source code available for porting. It's a shame it won't happen as XPort & c:o don't show respect to the real emulation scene.

Sounds like a fairly desirable situation to me  

[Iriez]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 15 2003, 03:56 AM)

Iriez to  say exactly what you've said to me, have you even read the gpl license?

Yes, but apparently not good enough eh?  

QUOTE

Most importantly: QUOTE The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. That is why xport is obligated to release full source including gui to me or anyone else who asks for it as we have done

*sticks foot in mouth*

Well, you sure as hell proved me wrong on that one = ) I apologize, i was incorrect. I suppose he would atleast have to include a interface, along with the sources setup and ready for compilation.

QUOTE

Pete / Linuzappz are the ones who have written the code that has been used in pcsxbox and it is their right to request it is not distributed with bios files. Period.

Its also my right to request that you do the chicken dance. Both have about the same amount of connection. Im not saying he shouldnt respect it, im just saying that they have no more say in the matter than i do.

But, if pete/linuzappz really did request that he not package it with the bios, dont you think thats just a bit hypocritical? So now its ok to compile their ported sources with a illegally contained XDK, but its NOT ok to compile it with a copyrighted bios? lol ..am i missing something?

QUOTE

The fact is that the original authors do not need to request sources.. you're looking at it the wrong way around. At the very  least xport is obligated to state that *anyone* can request the complete sources with his binary distributions  and on that request he must comply!

Like i said, if there is no demand, then there is no hurt done. The instant a developer wants to work on his SMSplus port, and asks him, if he doesnt comply that is hurting this scene, and denying the GPL its rights. Until someone does so, as i have pointed out thrice, there is no harm done. Remember that you dont have a xbox and you couldnt care less about developing for one, so you dont count = ) Im not saying he shouldnt, im just saying that there was no harm done, so theres no reason to make a huge issue out of it.

[Mage]

QUOTE (CyRUS64 @ May 15 2003, 02:56 AM)

Most importantly: QUOTE The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. That is why xport is obligated to release full source including gui to me or anyone else who asks for it as we have done

That clause in the GPL is one of the easiest to get around.
You define an absract interface with indirect calls and then load the interface simply as some datafile in runtime.
Then you just give them a stub version of it.  The interface datafile itself can be an independant work with its own copyright, like say a good 'ol BSD copyright.

Oh yeah, I don't care about what purists think about tainted GPL projects.  The idea that a gpl project should have to always load GPL code when it is running isn't stated in the license, nor could it really be controlled since they have no rights over the data made with the program, just the copyright for the source code itself.  All code can be data, all data can be code.
But when you do something like that, it is to just tell people how flawed the GPL is...

They put all this work into it and yet you can always get around it, legally.

Course most of you would rather have nvidia drivers on your linux system than have an untainted system right?

[lucas]

QUOTE (Iriez @ May 15 2003, 08:40 PM)

If i make a pipe bomb with PVC piping i bought from Home Depot, is home depot to blame when i blow up a church full of children? No, of course not.

no, you're right. but i doubt Home Depot is going to approve of your actions, and in the future you would probably be refused the right to buy such products again. abuse something and be prepared to have it taken away

[CyRUS64]

QUOTE

Well, you sure as hell proved me wrong on that one = ) I apologize, i was incorrect. I suppose he would atleast have to include a interface, along with the sources setup and ready for compilation.

Thanks Iriez for even replying when you realise you made a mistake. Anyhow, at least now we all realise the exact situation and why technically those source diffs. were far from sufficient. I'll leave it now and get on with my study, and hope that xport either reads this and/or releases his sources as  per required.

Later..

[Jse]

yeah the sources of ps emus dont containd the bios the compleatly illegal version found through irc does whats the quarrle its still illigal with or without the bios so stop bitchin