Gpfce V0.2 Released

[o0o0o]

Beeing back-stabbed isn't something always fun.

How is this backstabbing?:

Some dude named Giuseppe Zompatori brought to my attention that FCEU is actually licensed under GPL. After some research, I realized that FCEU was relicensed under GPL as of version 0.80. Since I had done a lot of research on earlier versions of the source, I had not realized that the version I ended up with was GPL licensed. Certainly there was no harm intended on this. Download source diff for version 0.2 All that being said, I don't much appreciate being called "guilty" and being reported. I started this project on my spare time completely out of technical interest of the GP2x and its community. This kind of accusation is truly "motivational".

He should have released the code from the begining. I really don't understand on a Linux-based system why all the emulator creators are holding on to their code so tightly. Beyond being against the spirit of the system, its not like they could sell their emulators anyway.

 

[nik166]

what's the deal about gpl ? i thougt you could freely modify and distribute whatever you want just as long as you mention the original thing etc, what was the supposed problem with gpfce and the license?


edit: ah, i see, source release
well for sure i guess releasing the sourse was not the biggest worry of the author, looks like it is from some peoples, lucky them to not have bigger problems .... <_<

 

[Jarska333]

Beeing back-stabbed isn't something always fun.

How is this backstabbing?:



He should have released the code from the begining. I really don't understand on a Linux-based system why all the emulator creators are holding on to their code so tightly. Beyond being against the spirit of the system, its not like they could sell their emulators anyway.

I'm guessing the more fanatical GPL-people started harrassing him, calling him names, and sending him letterbombs before he really could do anything. Would piss me off.

 

[Epicenter]

The GPL is such an aggravation at times. Why is it not acceptable to just release the source if asked for it? Some of us aren't proud of how our code looks all the time; often it's full of hacks and tricks and things that don't make sense. I know I'd rather clean the hell up out of my code before releasing it, not send off a messy ZIP of source to some screaming slashdot fuckhead because one of the tools I utilized mandated it.

Now the issue with GPH/Dignsys and the GPL'ed kernel and mplayer source is a whole different story, Dignsys was only working on the firmware to keep how the MPEG4 decoder hardware worked a secret from GPH and other developers, so MagicEyes could charge more money for software using it (GPH/MagicEyes are partner companies.) This is the reason we know so little about how the MMSP2 works, and GPH knows even less. The fact that you didn't have the source of the software bundled with the Linux kernel isn't the issue to me at all, you can download the Linux 2.4 kernel sources anywhere and there's no logical reason why the whole package should need to be open-source just because some code used in it is-- the greater damage here is Magiceyes scamming the consumer by attempting to disgise the features of their products as 'magic' only they can unlock. For a sizable fee.

 

[Winterkid]

GPL is supposedly there to protect the developers and end-users alike. However, when authors who code things under it (even by accident) wish to hold onto the source code a while longer, it tends to infuriate those people that think the GPL is gospel and "thou shalt not bend it", even slightly.

Those who really want the source for this so desperately should either be a bit more patient or download the other original source in the meantime and port their own.

OR do what they're doing and throw a tantrum online, I guess.

 

[nik166]

Those who really want the source for this so desperately should either be a bit more patient or download the other original source in the meantime and port their own.

or even more simply: be polite and ask like a gentleman

but that's quite a forgotten concept <_<

 

[Winterkid]

Be polite? Are you sure your Joined On date for this forum is accurate? *laugh* Just kidding. But I do think polite is too much of a stretch for the GPL "at all costs" crowd.

 

[iignotus]

Last time I checked, the GPL was a legal document that is also held up in court cases. Legally, there's no reason to be "nice" or cater to those who break its terms.

 

[epitaph]

The GPL is such an aggravation at times. Why is it not acceptable to just release the source if asked for it? Some of us aren't proud of how our code looks all the time; often it's full of hacks and tricks and things that don't make sense. I know I'd rather clean the hell up out of my code before releasing it, not send off a messy ZIP of source to some screaming slashdot fuckhead because one of the tools I utilized mandated it.

If you want to consider developers who might use your source code when deciding which license to pick, drop GPL and use the BSD license which is much more lenient and does not require you to redistribute the source code (basically, the only thing you need to do when using source from a BSD-licensed application is to credit the original author).

GNU-zealots usually go around touting how GPL is "freedom" compared to other licenses. I don't agree one bit -- GPL puts lots of requirements on someone wanting to adopt your code. It is, per definition, not freedom as it does not allow you to use the code in whatever manner you wish.

 

[Jarska333]

Last time I checked, the GPL was a legal document that is also held up in court cases. Legally, there's no reason to be "nice" or cater to those who break its terms.

But it's nice to be nice. There's no law forcing to to pass the salt when someone asks, but it's a nice thing to do. It's also nice to not rip someone's throat out when they apparently didn't know the code was GPL.

 

[EvilDragon]

To be honest, I hate people sueing and cursing about others if they ACCIDENTALLY break the law.

The good way is, as said, telling "I don't know if you realized it, but you used GPL'ed code and therefore you need to release the source. Maybe you didn't know that, but it would be great if you could do that as soon as possible."

The bad way is: "Hey, you used GPL'ed code and didn't release the source! You are breaking the law, I reported you, and if the sourcecode will not be out in 24 hours, I'll sue you to death".

There's nearly no aspect in life where you can't break a law without even knowing you do.

While I find the concept of the GPL good (share your enhancements so that everybody can use them), I have to say I met so many definately stupid and annoying Linux coders yet ("Hey! You used my GPL'ed code, you sucker! Release it at once! Now! Or I will sue you!"), which is kinda worrying me.

 

[Orkie]

The GPL is such an aggravation at times. Why is it not acceptable to just release the source if asked for it? Some of us aren't proud of how our code looks all the time; often it's full of hacks and tricks and things that don't make sense. I know I'd rather clean the hell up out of my code before releasing it, not send off a messy ZIP of source to some screaming slashdot fuckhead because one of the tools I utilized mandated it.

If you want to consider developers who might use your source code when deciding which license to pick, drop GPL and use the BSD license which is much more lenient and does not require you to redistribute the source code (basically, the only thing you need to do when using source from a BSD-licensed application is to credit the original author).

GNU-zealots usually go around touting how GPL is "freedom" compared to other licenses. I don't agree one bit -- GPL puts lots of requirements on someone wanting to adopt your code. It is, per definition, not freedom as it does not allow you to use the code in whatever manner you wish.

I agree. I either release things for free (so that anybody can use them, under the BSD license), or I don't. It is unfair to allow some people to use the code and not others. Free software isn't necessarily the underdog (e.g. Apache and IIS). The GPL does exactly the same thing as businesses try to do, make things stale because there doesn't need to be any competition to add features if your code is 'safely in your hands'.

GPL 3 seems to be going even further to remove people's freedom, so hopefully, many projects will follow the Linux and remain under v2 (which is bad, but not as bad).

 

[krosfyah]

Human knowledge belongs to the world!

(Yes I just watched Antitrust and couldn't help myself )

 

[iignotus]

The good way is at as said at telling "I don't know if you realized it, but you used GPL'ed code and therefore you need to release the source. Maybe you didn't know that, but it would be great if you could do that as soon as possible."

Acting in such a manner is obviously the first course of action. However, if when the situation is brought to their attention fully they do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, there is no reason to drag on the case with "please", "aw come on it would be really nice of you", "okay well take your time I'm sure you have lots of stuff to do", nor othersuch pleasantries. Good laws are to be enforced to protect and serve both parties, and the GPL is certainly one of those laws. There are two kinds of freedom -- the kind where you only take yourself into account, and the kind where you acknowledge that freedom should be inherent to everyone. If you want the former, use a license such as BSD; if you want the latter, GPL is the license you should use. There is no other license with the benefit of everyone in mind moreso than the GPL.

 

[nik166]

Last time I checked, the GPL was a legal document that is also held up in court cases. Legally, there's no reason to be "nice" or cater to those who break its terms.

1- what's the crime ?
2- who's the victim ?
3- who complained ?

 

[Ravnos]

1- what's the crime ?

Copyright infringement.

2- who's the victim ?

The original developer, and anyone who wants the source of a GPL-ed port that does not receive it.

3- who complained ?

Someone who wanted the source which they are entitled to under the terms of the GPL.

 

[nik166]

exactly

desserves a lethal injection AT LEAST , kinda like downloading a copyrighted MP3 or such obscene crime ruining people's life

 

[Orkie]

There are two kinds of freedom -- the kind where you only take yourself into account, and the kind where you acknowledge that freedom should be inherent to everyone. If you want the former, use a license such as BSD; if you want the latter, GPL is the license you should use. There is no other license with the benefit of everyone in mind moreso than the GPL.

I think you are wrong. The GPL is less free because it doesn't let anybody use the code.

 

[o0o0o]

I think you are wrong. The GPL is less free because it doesn't let anybody use the code.

It's less free because you're forced to license any derivative code under the GPL as well. BSD/MIT licenses are much less of a hassle.

That said, I still see no reason why people making emulators for a Linux based system feel the need to keep their code closed source. The primary reason I bought the Gp2x was for the "open source" community that went along with it, or so I thought. We've seen way to many people drop off the scene and without code, it just means someone else has to start from scratch again. It also means that other people coding for the system can't learn from what you (the coder) have already done.

Imagine if squidge kept the mmu hack all to himself.

 

[Winterkid]

Tried reading back a bit, but couldn't find it, but......

Has anyone even ASKED him for the source code nicely yet?!?!
Isn't the GPL specify that it has to be released "UPON REQUEST"?