App Store needs updating

[WizardStan]

This is only true of proprietary software - for the vast majority of Pandora software, there's nothing stopping you from uploading binaries to Craig's site, as long as you follow the license (add a copy of the GPL and the source code, generally).

Actually there's nothing in the GPL that says you need to give up copyright of your program. If the person builds the binary, they're allowed to say it can only be downloaded from their website. Posting it to another website would be in violation of their copyright.


That being said, since they have to provide the source code on request (assuming GPL and you have legally obtained the binary), you could simply build it yourself: then the copyright on THAT binary becomes yours and you can upload it wherever you want.

 

[Tom`]

Actually there's nothing in the GPL that says you need to give up copyright of your program. If the person builds the binary, they're allowed to say it can only be downloaded from their website. Posting it to another website would be in violation of their copyright.


That being said, since they have to provide the source code on request (assuming GPL and you have legally obtained the binary), you could simply build it yourself: then the copyright on THAT binary becomes yours and you can upload it wherever you want.

hmmm.... You certainly don't give up copyright, but doesn't the GPL say that you can't impose further conditions on distribution of the software? For example, I'm certain you couldn't say "this software is under the GPL, but you're not allowed to charge a fee for distribution."


I don't know whether the same rules that apply to source also apply to binary distribution, though, since I haven't read the GPL in a while (and haven't carefully read V3 at all).


(You can dual-license the software, but that's a separate point, and would have to be noted - you could say "Craig can only distribute the software under the terms of this separate license, and not the GPL," but I don't think anything like this has actually happened to Pandora software).

 

[WizardStan]

hmmm.... You certainly don't give up copyright, but doesn't the GPL say that you can't impose further conditions on distribution of the software? For example, I'm certain you couldn't say "this software is under the GPL, but you're not allowed to charge a fee for distribution."


I don't know whether the same rules that apply to source also apply to binary distribution, though, since I haven't read the GPL in a while (and haven't carefully read V3 at all).


(You can dual-license the software, but that's a separate point, and would have to be noted - you could say "Craig can only distribute the software under the terms of this separate license, and not the GPL," but I don't think anything like this has actually happened to Pandora software).

GPL really only applies to the source code. If you write a program based on GPL code, you can put any restrictions you want on that binary, and in fact a lot of programs do just that, ranging from commercial use to the images that can and cannot be packaged with it. So long as the offer to hand over the source code on request is kept, it's not in violation. Of course, like I said, if you put these restrictions on the binary, there's nothing stopping someone who has obtained the binary following your rules from then asking for the source code and the compiling their own binary without all those restrictions.


edit: at least, that's been my interpretation of the GPL. I could very easily be completely wrong.

 

[Tom`]

GPL really only applies to the source code. If you write a program based on GPL code, you can put any restrictions you want on that binary, and in fact a lot of programs do just that, ranging from commercial use to the images that can and cannot be packaged with it. So long as the offer to hand over the source code on request is kept, it's not in violation. Of course, like I said, if you put these restrictions on the binary, there's nothing stopping someone who has obtained the binary following your rules from then asking for the source code and the compiling their own binary without all those restrictions.


edit: at least, that's been my interpretation of the GPL. I could very easily be completely wrong.

That runs completely contrary to my interpretation. I would actually appreciate clarification on this issue, if anyone has any more knowledge.


Edit, I'm looking at the GPL now; I'll post again when I organize my thoughts, or edit this one.


Okay.


Here are the relevant terms and conditions.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

So here we have the definition of "Program," and not only does it not specify that it has to apply to source and not a binary, it doesn't even have to apply to software (though the FSF strongly recommends that it be used only for software, and that a Creative Commons license be applied to other artistic works instead).

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.


You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

These are the restrictions on distributing source code. So far, so good.


(I omit section 2 because it deals with distributing modified copies of the software.)

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,


b) 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.


If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

It appears that Section 3 explicitly guarantees the right to redistribute a program in object code or executable form, as long as the source is offered. In conjunction with

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

and

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

it is my opinion that imposing any further conditions on the distribution of GPL-licensed programs (in binary or source form) would violate the license.


Of course, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even a programmer, so I could be misinterpreting any of the above.


I'm not arguing here for its own sake, though I've done that on GP32X occasionally; I really believe that anyone would be perfectly within their rights to upload GPL software to Craig's app site, and that doing so would make it a better community resource.

 

[richiz]

@Milkshake


I'm sure your app store is awesome but who hosts it? Can you guarantee you're going to support it for as long as the pandoras life? What happens if you go on holiday, your server goes down and 7999 pandora owners are wondering what happened to the App store? Whilst it's impressive you have taken things into your own hands, OP have a link to the app store on their site which pretty much makes their App store 'Official'. Whoever is buying a pandora will check that App store and first impressions will be made. If there's a swelling of games and things in the apps store that will impress new users and potentially persuade them to buy a console - more pandora owners is the benefit of everyone. I can't believe Evil Dragon and Craig have overlooked the importance of that link. Everytime I show the pandora console to someone the FIRST thing they check on the web page is the App store.


@Others


You don't even need to host EVERY file. Just copy the download URL and place the download URL on the main app store. Done. No copyright laws broken controls, in Dev's hands and I'm sure for the few devs that don't even want their link used Craig would be fine to take it down (which would be absolutely shocking, given it's an open source community). Another way would be to NOT EVEN HOST ANY FILES ON THE APP STORE, just get a script that runs the main pages like Open Handhelds etc.


Whilst choice is always good and I wouldn't expect Open handhelds to stop being used anytime soon... fragmentation on something as important as an app store is just a pain the arse. I spend 10 hours a day in front of a computer and server monitors. When I play my pandora I want to go to the app store, check out "5 most recent or something" play the game then maybe stop in on here and give my praise for the developer and maybe donate a little something if they have their own web page etc. Anyone devving for the Pandora, surely wants as many people as possible to see it right?


I don't want to be downloading software from a million different web pages. As all reasonable developers will agree...more centralized location means more exposure. Surely if you write a game or do a port you would like to be recognised amongst your community? This would be the best way.


But again it only works if Craigs app store is kept reasonably up to date. I still can't see Bubbman 2 in there. So either Craig needs to

1. Work on the app store more frequently
   
2. Ask some members on here to help keep it up to date (something as simple as an email from trusted users on here could strip the attachment and upload it automatically)
   
3. Decide that the community should take care of it, then we could use Milkshakes or something and reference Milkshakes page on the official page to put Milkshake in some sort of official capacity as OP's app store updater. This should be a last point of call really.
   

 

[richiz]

Apologies I just made an account on the app store. Please give me upload privileges asap, my account is zRichi (Could a mod change my name on here to zRichi as that's my account on gp32x as well).


As such i will do some of the work myself.


What is this archive? Is this Evil dragons or Craigs?


http://apps.open-pandora.org/cgi-bin/viewarea.pl?Emulators

 

[foxblock]

What I would like to see and what in my eyes would solve a lot of there problems is some kind of JSON interface to apps.open-pandora.org


That way all files could be hosted there and everyone unhappy with the "official" user interface of the site could build their own and just pull the information data instead of all the files or part of the file data (easy on the server).


So in the end we would have a central place with ALL the apps, but multiple interfaces (with different features). But as they all connect to the same database every app would automatically show up on all the paces and if one goes down it is not a real loss as long as we have the official interface.


The data should contain the full PXML data or at least author, description, upload-data, version, etc.


How does that sound? It just takes one to implement it and if Craig is not able to do it, I am sure one in this community is...


foxblock out


EDIT: Also the approval process has to be made more transparent and fast in that case. Maybe instead of just making the user click a link include an application form where he can fill in his gp32x or OpenPandora boards username to speed up the process.


Sure it can be abused, but what can't....


Maybe make it similar to the File Archive's, I don't hear people having trouble with that (but I head a lot of complaints about apps.open-pandora,org)


EDIT2: To top it off, having such an API interface would also enable us to easily make a software for browsing apps on the Pandora without any nasty hacks.

 

[bzar]

^ Oh yes. An API is something I've suggested on several occasions along with many others. A JSON-based API is a good choice in my book. We probably could even modify The Box to use it as a back end.


This gets a lot of +1's from me

 

[craigix]

I'll be updating it with everything which is on the wiki page over the next week. I would like maybe a couple of people to me admins on it too so we can keep it up to date.

 

[richiz]

I don't mind being one.

 

[Blue Protoman]

I'll admin on it if you'd like.

 

[milkshake]

What I would like to see and what in my eyes would solve a lot of there problems is some kind of JSON interface to apps.open-pandora.org


The data should contain the full PXML data or at least author, description, upload-data, version, etc.

Mine will allow JSON interface and temple says he will work on a native client for it, but im only basing my JSON on the spec thats in the pandora wiki so if the other app stores did this too the native client could have multiple sources.


also the PXML spec says that author details are not required they are optional so unless that changes then some apps my not have author details (but again as said to craig people might not add it to the PXML but will still manually be able to update the db details with these bits of info).

 

[foxblock]

Mine will allow JSON interface and temple says he will work on a native client for it, but im only basing my JSON on the spec thats in the pandora wiki so if the other app stores did this too the native client could have multiple sources.


also the PXML spec says that author details are not required they are optional so unless that changes then some apps my not have author details (but again as said to craig people might not add it to the PXML but will still manually be able to update the db details with these bits of info).

Ah that is good, but still it does not fix the basic problem, which also is why Craig wanted to have his own site - we need an official OP repository as that is (for now) guaranteed to not go down.


So having your "unofficial" site with such an interface is nice, but it's more like fixing the (bad) results than fixing the actual problem.


Additionally with the official site having an API you would stress the server much less with your frequent update calls.


So please, Craig, add some kind of API to the shop - I am sure people on this board can help you with that! (there is no good reason to not have one!)


And before people say "well, this is a temporary solution at best anyway - we want a real repository", I agree, but some people might want to look through available PNDs on their home computer and also download them there first, so it's not like we are trying to improve some kind of temporary solution here.


foxblock out


EDIT: About the author thing: That does not matter, just display "no author specified" or something like that.

 

[milkshake]

Aditionally with the official site having an API you would stress the server much less with your frequent update calls.


EDIT: About the author thing: That does not matter, just display "no author specified" or something like that.

it wouldn't stress the server too much anyway, the script would only be run once a day maybe plus it checks the first 100kB of the file for duplications so apart from the odd new app it found and pulled accross, if there was 200 Apps it would only use 20mb of bandwidth, but I know what you mean it would help.


Yeah that's what will happen anyway with the author thing

 

[craigix]

Is there any apps/games/emus in particular which are missing or need updating?

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

Is there any apps/games/emus in particular which are missing or need updating?

not sure if uae4all is up to date updated on openhandhelds on the 10/9/10.nice to see an update to the appstore .appreciated.

 

[richiz]

119 games on OH, 70 on app store

 

[whynodd]

Is there any apps/games/emus in particular which are missing or need updating?

My Enigma-port.


http://dl.openhandhelds.org/cgi-bin/pandora.cgi?0,0,0,0,25,174


And of course everything else that is in ED's file archive

 

[milkshake]

just to check, when are the updates to the app-store happening? I know you have added lots of pnd's but there is not site update just yet.


could you wet my appitite a little and tell us some of the updates we should expect?

 

[stustaff]

Just gone on AppStore and the think is BORKED!


Left hand side is a big White square only way to navigate is by putting mouse over and reading link info at the bottom.


Mid update?