Post by: CrazyPale on April 16, 2004, 10:20:00 PM
Post by: heinrich on April 17, 2004, 08:04:00 AM
And you'll notice that Ubergeek went back and edited all of his posts, although most of them were quoted by others.
Post by: CrazyPale on April 17, 2004, 04:21:00 PM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 02:55:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 03:15:00 AM
The original code was released under the GPL, so even if the code was used verbatim, xecuter would still be required to release its software under the GPL, would it not?
I fail to see the "usefullness" meaning anything.
EDIT: now that you have edited your post, my last line might not make such sense to others, but so be it.
And I fail to see what is "gay" about a question.
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 03:45:00 AM
though i didnt expect your reply to be as childish as it was.Oh well
Post by: tblake on November 17, 2003, 05:09:00 AM
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
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. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:12:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:15:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:17:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: theultimatechuff on November 17, 2003, 05:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 12:55 PM) |
| no as we made no changes to the hack - we simply converted it to C credits were given - if you want the lba48 source its out there and available to use for yourselves |
I don't think that is enough. From my understanding the updated sources should remain under the GPL and thus be distributed. Any news on this?
I won't quote from the GPL as a basic link to the license was met with hostility.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:19:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:20:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 09:15 AM) | ||
its all wrapped up in none GPL stuff i.e. MS code i could easily rls the bios with no lba48 - you patch it with xbtool and youll get the same result so this conversation really is pointless |
But which did you do?
Write your own LBA48 code, or use oz_paulb's?
| QUOTE |
| perhaps you should be shouting at the guys making custom cromwell codes and not releasing the sources. |
that is not what is being asked about
Post by: tblake on November 17, 2003, 05:21:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:23:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:24:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 09:19 AM) | ||
right now i couldnt give a fuck - and everyone using this bios aint gonna give a fuck either you're being anal thats all there is to it. |
to be honest, I dont see what the big deal is, as you said, the code serves the same purpose, what bad things could come from you releasing a few lines of code? Someone will 'rip off' your work and create a newer (better?) bios? I dont see what the problem is there as long as they, in turn, release their code. Only good can from releasing as much of the code as possible; it says something about the groups character and respect for the scene/community when you tell someone who asks about it to "fuck off"
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:27:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: tblake on November 17, 2003, 05:29:00 AM
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 09:27 AM) |
| why not bust evox's balls for the source to their dash too ? |
just as was said about the code based on cromwell, that is not the issue at hand, I'm not really sure why you are trying to shift attention to other things; it seems more and more like you are trying to hide something
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:29:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:30:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: cm4n on November 17, 2003, 05:32:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| we made no changes to the hack - we simply converted it to C |
you made it sound like it was a direct conversion...
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:32:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (heinrich @ Nov 17 2003, 02:39 AM) | ||
Any chance that some of your findings/code will be shared with xbox-linux? Seems kind of silly to do all the work twice. |
I take it that this is out of the question, correct?
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 05:36:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:36:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:37:00 AM
| QUOTE (Morglum @ Nov 17 2003, 03:36 PM) |
| Hmm, i maybe wrong with this ubergeek, but i seem to recall you stated somewhere on this forum (maybe someone else recalls this too and can find a link) that the X2 BIOS didnt use any MS code and it was all original, but on the page back i think it was you said it uses MS code. Whats up with that? |
wrong
i said we dont patch the original ms bios. We use source code.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:38:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 05:39:00 AM
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 05:40:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 03:38 PM) |
| whats to share ? |
I think he's reffering to the focus chip code.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:41:00 AM
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:43:00 AM
| QUOTE (heinrich @ Nov 17 2003, 09:25 AM) | ||||
to be honest, I dont see what the big deal is, as you said, the code serves the same purpose, what bad things could come from you releasing a few lines of code? Someone will 'rip off' your work and create a newer (better?) bios? I dont see what the problem is there as long as they, in turn, release their code. Only good can from releasing as much of the code as possible; it says something about the groups character and respect for the scene/community when you tell someone who asks about it to "fuck off" |
to expand on this, even if your lba48 code was BRAND NEW, all original, why not just release it?
Dont get me wrong, I bust on xodus all the time for their lack of 'giving' to the scene, and you all do a hell of a lot more, and one of the most respected groups out there. And anyone who has ever written a program has the feeling of "its my code, shoo", which explains your hostitily at first, we are all human. But to be honest, unless you are afraid of DOMINION-X making a return, whats the deal?
The GPL issue is a valid one in my book as well.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:50:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 05:51:00 AM
But if that is now the story, that is what we will go with. (Or at least, I will)
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 05:55:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 06:00:00 AM
But you think its possible you could code into a new release of the BIOS the ability to block outgoing connections to the ports/servers xbox live uses? So when you're hacked BIOS is loaded and you try to connect to live obviously you cant as the BIOS is blocking outbound connections to those addresses.
I think this is a really good idea and would save heaps of people from being banned, i dont see a reason why it wouldnt be possible to do, but obviously you'd know more about this than me.
So do you think you could do it?
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 06:03:00 AM
| QUOTE (Morglum @ Nov 17 2003, 10:00 AM) |
| While you're here and talking ubergeek i got a quick question, you've maybe been asked it a few times, i even saw it posted the other day, not sure if you answered though... But you think its possible you could code into a new release of the BIOS the ability to block outgoing connections to the ports/servers xbox live uses? So when you're hacked BIOS is loaded and you try to connect to live obviously you cant as the BIOS is blocking outbound connections to those addresses. I think this is a really good idea and would save heaps of people from being banned, i dont see a reason why it wouldnt be possible to do, but obviously you'd know more about this than me. So do you think you could do it? |
AFAIK, the tcp/ip stack is not in the kernel, but rather in the code for each game (or app), so this would be impossible to do as you describe it.
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 06:06:00 AM
And if it is in the xbe of each game etc..., couldnt something like the media flag patching feature in the BIOS be cooked up but it would change the ports/addresses to some invalid crap, making connection to live impossible?
After all, the live address and ports are unlikely to ever change, so it would be the same string for each game.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 06:07:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 06:14:00 AM
| CODE |
> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned |
Post by: Morglum on November 17, 2003, 06:15:00 AM
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 06:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (nonzero @ Nov 17 2003, 10:15 AM) |
| Hey, why all the bitching? It's free, its cool, it works on Focus machines with all the usual X2 goodness.....what more do you people want? Ubergeek gets two thumbs up in my book  Cheers |
Its not really bitching, we were told at first that xecuter directly converted the code, and as such, had the responsibilty of following the GPL. It turns out that such is not the case, so it is not an issue. Please follow along, or dont comment.
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 06:32:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Hey, why all the bitching? It's free, its cool, it works on Focus machines with all the usual X2 goodness.....what more do you people want? |
It was asked if the work done on the focus chip would be released, a reply was given response, good enough in my book. The last I has checked, support had not been added to cromwell, this is why I asked, turns out I was wrong, so be it.
Post by: Heet on November 17, 2003, 06:45:00 AM
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 06:49:00 AM
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).
Post by: Heet on November 17, 2003, 07:01:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 07:02:00 AM
And flashX we did give the source to all the dashboard teams for them to use as they saw fit.
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 07:28:00 AM
Post by: theultimatechuff on November 17, 2003, 07:31:00 AM
All went a bit slashdot in here tbh, thanks for the update.
Post by: krawhitham on November 17, 2003, 08:00:00 AM
| 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.
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 08:13:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 08:18:00 AM
| 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
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.
Post by: moistness on November 17, 2003, 08:19:00 AM
(edit: looks like Ubergeek beat me to it and said it far better than i did
)
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 08:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (NghtShd @ Nov 17 2003, 05:26 PM) | ||
Ok, the thread got split mid-reply, so I'll reply here, too.
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
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 08:54:00 AM
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.
Post by: Heet on November 17, 2003, 08:58:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 09:05:00 AM
| 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
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 09:18:00 AM
Of course, as I said above, it would be cool if xecuter released their code, but it ain't gunna happen.
Post by: NghtShd on November 17, 2003, 09:51:00 AM
| 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.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 17, 2003, 10:04:00 AM
| CODE |
db 'Copyright (c) 2003 - Released under GNU Public License',13,10 |
So I guess that should have been spotted but it wasn't. If I'd known it was GPL in the first place i'd have taken care to say that none of the code was used directly as I know how "nintendo" the GPL crowd can be.
The above sentance did not mean we would have lied - it meant we would have ben more specific in what we actually did - tbh we didnt think anyone gives a shit about that they juist wanted it working - oh how wrong we were
Post by: krawhitham on November 17, 2003, 01:54:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 08:04 PM) | ||
| edit after finding the old sources i did find a GNU statement on line 82 of patch.asm
So I guess that should have been spotted but it wasn't. If I'd known it was GPL in the first place i'd have taken care to say that none of the code was used directly as I know how "nintendo" the GPL crowd can be. Now fuck this topic - i have some other posts to answer from ppl who need help. l8r |
so what you are saying is, if you would had noticed it was GPL, you would have lied from that start.
That sure is how you just made it sound.
| QUOTE |
| If I'd known it was GPL in the first place i'd have taken care to say that none of the code was used directly as I know how "nintendo" the GPL crowd can be. |
converted, used a reference, whatever just come out and say fuck the GPL rules.
I do not completly agrees with all the GPL crap, that is not a big deal, what chaps my ass is the fact the story keeps getting changed
Post by: oneeye258 on November 17, 2003, 07:08:00 PM
Keep up the good work team xecuter
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 09:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (heinrich @ Nov 17 2003, 09:33 AM) | ||||
I take it that this is out of the question, correct? |
Ok, it seems clear that code will not be shared where it will be made public...
what about working with undead and team assembly in making the tatx bios compatible on version 1.4/1.5 xbox's ?
| QUOTE (Ubergeek @ Nov 17 2003, 09:15 AM) | ||
its all wrapped up in none GPL stuff i.e. MS code i could easily rls the bios with no lba48 - you patch it with xbtool and youll get the same result so this conversation really is pointless |
As NghtShd said above, since this isnt the same work as what paul's patch did, is there any chance that you will release the bios without any lba48 code so that it can be patched with pauls work, and remain standard for all kernels?
Post by: heinrich on November 17, 2003, 11:42:00 PM
Also, about the TATX bios, what about getting it working with lba48? I know its not a main project for team xecuter, and I dont know how busy undead has been, but it would be nice a sign to show that you are sharing what you know with others for the benefit of others. Of course, its all upto you, no one is forcing you, so feel free to give a big F U.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 18, 2003, 12:50:00 AM
If anyone wants to talk about GPL - why not make threads about the clear GPL violations going on with the many cromwell releases available ?
Now im gonna search for the thread entitled "X2 BIOS - Using MS Code ????"
Post by: NghtShd on November 18, 2003, 09:32:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| X3 bios will work on all mods - there is just one cool feature that is X3 hardware only as its nothing to do with a flash rom. Its backwards compatible. The other teams make mods but they dont code shit. X2 mod could easily just use the evox bios - but we actually enjoy doing this believe it or not. |
That's good. I was wrongly under the impression that X3 BIOS's would require X3 hardware. Also, I agree that many other mod makers do little or nothing but make money from hardware which would be useless if someone wasn't hacking kernels. Of course, just about everyone making money has used work given freely by others in their commercial enterprises, be it by using a BIOS, wmilk, cromwell, etc.
And then there's work not given freely by others, such as MS code.
None of you big mod makers (the ones raking in the lions share of the money) can complain about be being leeched from. That's like a thief crying foul when his stolen property gets stolen.
| QUOTE |
| Nghtshd: This patch is available to our bios's whether or not we include it bro - by using your tool. We simply made the original kernel source work correctly without doing anything low level - this is the optimum and correct way to code as you know. You talk about us being better off with this - what about the fact we cracked the LPC bus first and showed everyone how to do it - has that not benefitted EVERYONE in this scene ? I could also say your tool has benefitted from out bios's too. I will say we've benefitted from your tool - easy as shit to use and useful as hell |
The only disappointment I have about your inclusion of the LBA48 code is the fact that you don't support a partition table on the hard drive. I fully expected it to become integrated into future kernels, as it should be. Like I said, the partition table issue moot for now and may always be. If a partioner becomes available, maybe you can release an update. Frankly, I'd rather see LBA48 built-in, as finding all those kernel routines to patch into is tedious.
I don't know if XBtool has benefited, but I have. I generally use your BIOS's in my homebrew. I don't mean to imply that they aren't appreciated. It's a two way street. You guys get a lot of exposure, but users of all mod types benefit. I know it wasn't done out of altruism. Nonetheless, you have my gratitude.
I try not to push when I'm looking for info. I may post on a forum that I would like to do something, but I need more info (as I did many times about your packing method for the embedded xbe, because people kept asking for 4978.03 options), or I'll ask once and not press the issue if I don't get an answer. I can't recall anyone on behalf of team x-ecuter ever offering anything, but to be honest, I can't always keep up with who's working with who. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.
For example, when I mentioned to someone that you guys had cracked the focus encoder he asked me to see if you might share some code. I told him I'd ask, but that I would be shocked if you gave up anything. I was right. Your answer was that it was C code and so not of any use to anyone. That's a pretty condescending attitude, to say the least--why not just share the code and let people decide for themselves if it is useful. You weren't really trying to be condescending, you just didn't want to give anyone your code. I didn't push the issue, though, because there was no point. I knew you wouldn't share it before I asked. I knew because that's the the general vibe I've gotten from you for some time now. I started out with a very positive feeling, but as time went on I saw that I was being naive.
I'm not pointing the finger only at you guys, by the way. I see entirely too much secrecy and anti-cooperation on other fronts. I'd like to see better cooperation among all hardware and software hackers, but now I'm being naive again.
Post by: Ubergeek on November 18, 2003, 12:52:00 PM
we fix problems and offer sources ALL the time to other groups - we're just not going to give out our kernel sources.
the reason we didnt give you any nfo on the embedded xbe was becuase it was alpha. a proof of concept really.
be assured you will be involved with X3.
Post by: oz_paulb on November 18, 2003, 07:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (oneeye258 @ Nov 18 2003, 05:08 AM) |
| who cares.... everything we do here is illegal anyway |
For the record: I believe everything I've contributed (LBA48/etc) is 'legal' (I'm not a lawyer, but my code is 100% written by me, and doesn't contain any copyright/security circumvention mechanisms).
I believe that it is possible to make legal contributions to the scene...
- Paulb
Post by: Ubergeek on November 19, 2003, 04:38:00 AM
Post by: Ubergeek on November 19, 2003, 04:40:00 AM
the hook is already implemented, partitioning is already implemented.. partition is just not read from hdd since we dont have any configuration option yet therefore we always use standard partitioning plus F and G. It's there just not used.
Post by: the joker on November 24, 2003, 02:17:00 AM
That means, we had to remove SMB support, which I loved - it was just awesome in the filehandler. I had to remove MOD/XM support since SDL is GPL. We removed every line og GPL code, making it quite boring.
I respect GPL, and I take out GPL'ed code if someone makes me aware of it. But do people know where that puts developement of free software ?
Doesn't people see that crying over things like this is strangling the scene and it's potentials ? Just imagine where we could be if we used the tools that was given, and wasn't demanded for anything. After all, developers work really hard to make free programs. Funny how that makes some people belive that the devs owe them anything.
my 2 cent, I get ticked off every time I see this kind of stuff
Post by: heinrich on November 24, 2003, 02:25:00 AM
Post by: Large Dopant white on November 24, 2003, 04:25:00 AM
Now, to this scene. Sharing code is taboo here; it's considered perfectly mature to not share code and, approched on the subject, to call all reproachers "fucking faggots". While not sharing code is acceptable (at least, if it's not under licence), saying, in effect, "fuck you" every time someone asks is just a touch adolescent.
I thank the lucky stars that guys like BenJeremy, Xport, and the XBMP/C team had such maturity (when Xport wasn't sharing the source, at least he didn't respond with an insult every time someone made a topic about it) to share the code. Hell, without derived sourcecode from XBMP, alot of coders would be banging their heads against a wall trying to implement features that were otherwise easily thrown in.
Not to sound ungrateful, Ubergeek, but your team isn't a monolith. There's still plenty of time for another group to come along and throw you off the top of the heap. Remember how you threw EvoX off the top of that same heap? You had an edge (you updated your shit more). Another group may come along and have an edge of your own group (maybe they'll release source, maybe they'll actually assist other groups instead of prattle on about it, whatever). As I've said before, no group or individual is truely indespensible, except for maybe Andrew "Bunny" Huang (sorry if I spelled his name wrong). I still remember when your team used to start flamewars daily. If it wasn't for your skilled hacking (you want to prove you know the BIOS? Code one from scratch. That, or quit dogging on Cromwell), there would be no respect for you. This thread has made me lose a little more respect for your group. As I suggested in the past, you shouldn't be the voice of Xecuter if you're going to be so damn hostile towards mostly innocent questions.
Post by: trotos on November 24, 2003, 06:29:00 AM
if i may say anything about this thread, i could say that bottom line, i've been reading all the msges, what people whant is to get the best bios - dashboard for their xbox-modchip-exploit, right?
So, if the original author of the code has no problem with anything that a group does to provide the best think can be done for their property, what's the fuss for?
I also comprehend the point of an open source bios. These will be super only if there was a new bios M$ free and created from users for users, with the ability to be customised.
And what realy, i belive lucks from this scene is a little bit of organisation and contribution to each other, i think.
sorry for my english
Post by: daviefresh1775 on November 24, 2003, 09:14:00 AM
| QUOTE (Large Dopant white @ Nov 24 2003, 02:25 PM) |
| I find it extreamly displeasing that the most promenent groups in the scene (that people look up to, no less) skirt around sharing code (even under pressure of a licence) by simply saying, "It's all illegal, fuck it". You know, guys, this is why the scene stagnates and "freezes" for such long periods of time between the "major" shit. Yeah, I know, alot of stuff has been pioneered on the XBox by either Team EvoX or Xecuter (the latter more recently). However, if you look at, say, the DC scene, almost *every* major hack, developmental milestone, and whatnot was made very, very early, documented well, and sources released. Within less than a year, the homebrew devkit almost surpassed the commercial one, for Christ's sake. Why? Because everyone had the maturity to share their work. Now, to this scene. Sharing code is taboo here; it's considered perfectly mature to not share code and, approched on the subject, to call all reproachers "fucking faggots". While not sharing code is acceptable (at least, if it's not under licence), saying, in effect, "fuck you" every time someone asks is just a touch adolescent. I thank the lucky stars that guys like BenJeremy, Xport, and the XBMP/C team had such maturity (when Xport wasn't sharing the source, at least he didn't respond with an insult every time someone made a topic about it) to share the code. Hell, without derived sourcecode from XBMP, alot of coders would be banging their heads against a wall trying to implement features that were otherwise easily thrown in. Not to sound ungrateful, Ubergeek, but your team isn't a monolith. There's still plenty of time for another group to come along and throw you off the top of the heap. Remember how you threw EvoX off the top of that same heap? You had an edge (you updated your shit more). Another group may come along and have an edge of your own group (maybe they'll release source, maybe they'll actually assist other groups instead of prattle on about it, whatever). As I've said before, no group or individual is truely indespensible, except for maybe Andrew "Bunny" Huang (sorry if I spelled his name wrong). I still remember when your team used to start flamewars daily. If it wasn't for your skilled hacking (you want to prove you know the BIOS? Code one from scratch. That, or quit dogging on Cromwell), there would be no respect for you. This thread has made me lose a little more respect for your group. As I suggested in the past, you shouldn't be the voice of Xecuter if you're going to be so damn hostile towards mostly innocent questions. |
//cosign that
Post by: lantus on November 24, 2003, 04:15:00 PM
Post by: oz_paulb on November 24, 2003, 05:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (lantus @ Nov 25 2003, 02:15 AM) |
| SDL actually uses LGPL which relaxes some of the restrictions on source code a bit. i.e i think you are allowed to distirbute binaries without source..i could be wrong of course, im not interested in reading some 10 page terms and conditions spiel. |
I believe LGPL means that you must release source code for any changes you make to LGPL'd code - but you are not required to release source code to your entire application. It's a much nicer license from the standpoint of a developer wanting to pull-in some free code - they can pull that code in "as is", and won't need to give up any rights to their own code. If they actually make changes to the LGPL'd code that they pull-in, then that modified code must be released (as source) with the changes.
GPL is quite restrictive - especially for commercial applications. As a commercial app developer, you don't want to be forced to release all of your source code, just because you've pulled-in some GPL'd code (this is what GPL requires, though). This limits the use of GPL'd code in legitimate apps.
It's up to the person releasing the source code in the first place to decide whether they want it to be GPL'd or LGPL'd (or any other 'free' license) - you can't make that decision as a user of the code.
Of course, if people are ignoring MS's copyrights, I suppose they may ignore the difference between GPL/LGPL/other free licenses. I'm not passing any judgement (or pointing fingers) here - just stating the obvious.
- Paulb
Post by: alg20 on November 25, 2003, 03:33:00 AM
take a break and thinkcotton white panties and u will b ok!
Post by: heinrich on November 25, 2003, 05:42:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| best part.. its all FREE for us...... and they say nothing is FREE??? i haven't payed for any of my bioses, APPS or anything. |
Thats right, it is all FREE, so why keep it to yourself?
And that isnt just for xecuter. Evox was on the ball early on, their dash had features that no other had until just in the last few weeks. Things like flashing chips, and hard drive formatting. Wouldnt it have been nice if they shared this with all 18 months ago?
| QUOTE |
| no honor amongst thieves? |
Ever hear of DOMINION-X? How much respect did they get for ripping off someone else's work? No, its not nearly the same as xecuter and the lba48 code, where they gave due credit, but it shows that there is a line somewhere in there.
Post by: the joker on November 25, 2003, 06:44:00 AM
| QUOTE (heinrich @ Nov 24 2003, 12:25 PM) |
| the joker, i see where you are coming from, and the way I took the question, it was just asked that changes/conversations of the code be made public and/or shared with the original developer. IE: if ava used SMB code from xbmp, and made any improvement (optimizations), they would share their findings with the community, which makes it better all around. |
now this is a vision I share. if it can be made better - it should be shared for the common interest.
| QUOTE |
| you are right what devs could do if they could use the resources like they wanted but think where the resources came from. all the things you mentioned like SMB,SDL etc. is licensed under the GPL. if the people who have written this code wouldn't had given it out you would know nothing about it. if someone writes good software the source should be shared for others to learn. if everyone would keep their sources closed you wouldn't be as good a programmer as you're now. |
and this one I find a bit insulting
because DUDE ! you have no idea how many hours I spendt without a single example to go from in 99% of all my cases. And I dare you - open a few RFC's.
I lack the skill of reading / learning of other peoples code, so open sourced code has never improved me a bit.
but still, that's a vision that varies for many people.
And Lantus, I would never dare to diss you, but this is in the sdl's readmefile :
| QUOTE |
| - Remember if you decide to port an existing SDL app/game/demo/emulator you must provide source code as per GPL. |
And as said, since I respect developers wishes ( you more than many others) - I took it straight out to not piss anyone off.LGPL is veery different. That's the ideal way of doing things imho. That is giving to demand progress, not giving to put people in a position where they have to choose where to go.
And as mr.B said, people that programs using the xdk is per definition a "criminal". If you steal cars, would you also dare to drive over the speedlimit ?
Post by: the joker on November 26, 2003, 02:29:00 AM
Post by: Large Dopant white on November 26, 2003, 05:10:00 PM
| QUOTE (Nailed @ Nov 27 2003, 02:58 AM) |
| Dopant, a bit grittier that I might have written, but I think you hit the issues facing the XBox scene right on the nose. We just have to come to the realization that certain individuals and groups are looking to get props from the masses not their fellow computer-programming peers... can't take all the thunder if you have to share. |
It may be gritty, but so's the situation. I mean, come on. We're the only scene to not have a decent open source devkit after a year, most of the big development groups act like children in a mudfight, and we all sit around and take it, with the barely-formed excuse, "modchips are illegal, so the rest of the scene should be. Problem solved!". Moreover, it seems that the same people and groups that develop and release the shit seem to want to keep it that way for some sort of prestige, which is completely retarded. If this scene was "legal", source was shared, and we could download our shit from a legitimate site rather than a single FTP server, we'd be lightyears beyond what it's at now.
But, now, I'm getting carried away. I guess I should just wrap it up and say that the scene, as a whole, needs to grow the fuck up. The convienience of using the leaked XDK is starting to be like an untreated wound on a soldier's leg, and the groups and individuals (the movers and the shakers, if you will) acting so damn possessive of developments they like to hang over our heads are really just going to get knocked out of the loop, kinda like what happened to EvoX. It's only a matter of time; how much time is the undetermined factor.
Post by: Large Dopant white on November 26, 2003, 05:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (lantus @ Nov 27 2003, 03:23 AM) |
| Large Dopant white: a couple of points -XPort never "wasnt sharing the source". In fact i asked him for his DGen source a long time ago and was more than willing to give it to me. The fact remains he was reamed by GPL Zealots coming to the Emulation forum demanding he release all his source or there would be "repercussions". He was asked in private by one of the pcsx authors to release the source at request and he did so . So you see, simple courtesy is all that is required. -Ubergeek and Xecutor aint the only kids on the block. Theres some really good bios stuff in the pipeline from other groups. You've already seen the 'Complex' anim that went around a few months ago. You'll just have to wait and see what eventuates out of it. |
On the point of Xport: I didn't mean to dog on him when I made that statement. I also didn't know he shared his source "between authors", as it were. In any case, I was pointing out that at least he wasn't entirely rude when he wasn't sharing his sources publicly and someone posted a public message about it.
I didn't mean to imply that Team Xecuter are the only kids on the block, but they're certainly the most well-known and frequent releasers. While Complex hasn't done alot, they've hit some milestones, and I was actually thinking that they're a good possibility for the next group to be the king of the hill.
One more point: the quote you had implies that I misspelled the word "wasn't". I'd like to politely point out that I certainly did not.
Not a big deal, but I'm sort of a stickler on the whole english thing.
Post by: heinrich on November 26, 2003, 06:14:00 PM
As for the Xbox Scene, what Large Dopant white said is mostly in line with what I feel. The lack of a legal XDK is unfortunate, but we all know, 'it will never be better then the original', and the MS one is more or less available to anyone who has enough brains to use it.
As for xecuter... they are not just a team that releases software, they sell chips; they have a business to run. Does their bios help them in shelling chips? Perhaps. Is the reason they dont want to share code/findings because they are afraid of loosing that 'edge' in the modchip market? Again, this could be the case, and I dont feel its my place to point fingers.
Of course, xecuter is not the only one at 'fault'. Evox was the big name in bios's and their dash was used 95% of people in the scene for a good year. Evox however, has nothing to lose if they were to share their code. So why dont they? The way I see it, they have pride in their work, and know that if they do release, there is a GOOD chance that someone else will build off their sources and release that work, thus, evox loosing their 'props' in the scene.
now, Complex, there have been some rumblings that they have something in the works, but based on the fact that I havent seen them release any source for any of their other work, I'm not expecting anything different in any future releases. It would be nice to see a new group releasing stuff.
Post by: Large Dopant white on November 26, 2003, 06:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (heinrich @ Nov 27 2003, 04:14 AM) |
| The lack of a legal XDK is unfortunate, but we all know, 'it will never be better then the original', and the MS one is more or less available to anyone who has enough brains to use it. |
I don't know if you were meaning to be sarcastic, but I want to adress that false mindset while I still remember to.
A homebrew devkit *can* surpass the commercial one, in some aspects. For example, I believe the devkit for the DC (in case you wonder, I use the DC as a prime example simply because it's been around the longest and had a huge homebrew scene) has a better chance of reading and writing to the VMUs without corruption, and I know for a fact that it's quicker than the WinCE devkit (there were two, Katana and WinCE... WinCE is slow, anyway, but my point stands). It's all about the amount of effort exerted and the amount of time spent.
Post by: Rodent on November 27, 2003, 01:16:00 AM
if you code something, and you really would like to give out your sources seriously,
then GPL it.
If you do not want it to be used from Team Xecutor, just state clearly in your release, that it must not be used from team xecutor.
team xecutor is all about the money, and so are the releases of bioses...just for keeping in mind, Xecutor is not dead...
xecutor DOES something for the scene...
yea kind of...but at the end in sum it is for their own purposes,
thats it...money
ubergeek, i dont know you personally, but one thing:
your X3 with only ONE additional feature will definetly be crap...even by now it is not released...
there will come something...
something you can steal ideas for your X4 hardware...
keep that in mind...
prices for x2 are too high...and i have seen the x3 design...where will this put the prices at?
you will know, when the time comes
rod
Post by: Ubergeek on November 27, 2003, 05:48:00 AM
| QUOTE (lantus @ Nov 27 2003, 03:23 AM) |
| -Ubergeek and Xecutor aint the only kids on the block. Theres some really good bios stuff in the pipeline from other groups. You've already seen the 'Complex' anim that went around a few months ago. You'll just have to wait and see what eventuates out of it. |
Hi Lantus - this was a beta kernel from ms - we have it too of course - it wasn't made by any group it was made by MS themselves. The startup anim cant be ripped this is why its not been seen on any release. Sure maybe if we get some time in the future we will do it. But why spend 3 months on something we'd give for free only to be met with bashing posts for not showing how we did it.
General Comments
it pisses me off that anyone would bitch that we dont share our kernel code. We share everything else we have designed in the past and also help other teams develop when they need a little help but we still get this crap. You all get the bios's we and others make for you and you all get evox / ava dashboards and other apps to use also by the other guys who choose not to release their "babys" to the public. For 95% of other apps you get the sources - be content with this and be happy you are not in the PS2 scene where the figures are a little more reveresed.
for anyone to moan about the xbox scene and its openness is so crap
xbox scene is THE most open scene with regards to development that ive ever seen or ever been involved in
because some groups keep a little code to themselves as its their "baby" for props or whatever - well get out from under your rock as this is how any scene in general has operated for almost 2 decades now.
Rodent: Blow me
Your comments are dumb and stupid. You have zero clue about how we work and the regarding the prices we dont set those on anything. If you knew how much is made by us youd laugh your ass off. Its the retailers that make the money. Dont believe us ? - ask Xodus they know how it is also.
I laugh my ass off at your comments on money. You are selling a shitty cheapmod device for 27 Euro and some double SST with a free released 508 pic code for 42 euros LOL - how you have the balls to say X2 is too expensive - man thats funny
I suggest you look at yourself before commenting on what other people do.
my 2 cents for the day - happy thanksgiving to everyone else !!!
Post by: Rodent on November 27, 2003, 06:51:00 AM
then better do not read my signature
can you see that? its a smiley after my sig,
so really do not také that too serious.
this signature is the result of a flamewar wit our friend nasis X
rod
Post by: Ubergeek on November 27, 2003, 11:46:00 AM
Post by: Large Dopant white on November 27, 2003, 02:08:00 PM
I think you fail to see the difference between pride and possession. You can be proud of something even if you don't have exclusive rights to it- if everyone respect you and your group as much as you hope they do, due credit would be given to you when the source is used. If they don't, everyone will know where it probably came from, anyway, if you make enough news about said project or program being opensource.
Or are you afraid that everyone will give your group the amount of respect we all give M$? Are you afraid that people are going to rip you off the same way- steal it, bastardize it, and change it? I smell a palable aura of fear on you, and I don't buy that "pride" crap- as said, you can have pride in something you created without having sole possession of its workings. Hell, if your shit was opensource, your work could possibly pass down into other projects, and, in way, you would have contributed to more projects than you've actually sat down and coded (I'll make a bet that the guys working on XBMP/C get a tinge of pride whenever someone uses a snippet of their code, for example).
Sorry, Ubergeek, but you just sound like you're pumping out excuses, and they're paper-thin ones, at that. I don't know about this whole thing between you and Rodent, nor do I care about how much money you make (though, by sheer quantity, you must make at least a decent amount- I don't dog on capitalism, however).