Nulldce On The Beagleboard

[jscinoz]

The thing is, there's no valid reason not to share the source to an independently developed application which is being made for the good of the community anyway. The majority of the time people's reluctance to open source their projects simply comes from the fear of forks, which to me at least, seems ungrounded. Forks are only good for the community in the long run.

 

[drkIIRaziel]

The thing is, there's no valid reason not to share the source to an independently developed application which is being made for the good of the community anyway. The majority of the time people's reluctance to open source their projects simply comes from the fear of forks, which to me at least, seems ungrounded. Forks are only good for the community in the long run.

[Sort answer]
There is.I code for myself, not for the comunity.Sorry.
[/Sort answer]

nullDC started as a personal project to extend my knowledge and explore the dreamcast hardware.After a few months of development Zezu joined and the project was ported to C/C++ (the original code was in C#, and it has been released as free code (public domain) at some point).For me, the fun is to code the stuff, fix bugs, debug .. learn.I do not gain anything by doing source releases (binary releases aren't much useful either, but they do help to find bugs ;p).In fact, doing source releases usualy *hurts* other coders as they don't try to write their own code and instead base it on someone else's (reducing their expirience, and usualy making em folow the original coders design).Now, thats just my opinion, i'm sure Zezu has some other ideas (after all, everyone is in a project for his/her own reasons).

nullDC is FREE.You can load it on a hex editor and RE.You can hack it.You can use it.In an attempt to keep it as free as possible i don't accept donations for it (i consider projects that accept donations non-free).

nullDCe is NOT free.So far it is donationware ;p.The source will probably be released as it is more meant to help the community.

Oh and btw, i'd love to see the freedom to lience our code/binaries/images/bugs under whatever lience we like and still be wellcome.Thats what i don't like about foss platforms, they want to be free as long as it benefits em ....

And yes, i have released many other projects under gpl/lgpl.

 

[jscinoz]

Ah, thanks for the clarification drkIIRaziel, I wasn't aware of the distinction between nullDC and nullDCe. *facepalm*

 

[Svartalf]

Oh and btw, i'd love to see the freedom to lience our code/binaries/images/bugs under whatever lience we like and still be wellcome.Thats what i don't like about foss platforms, they want to be free as long as it benefits em ....

You should be. And as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to license under any license you see fit so long as you're consistent and abide by any terms of any other licenses that might be involved in your code. There's actually very few people out there that'll bash you on licensing (Even Stallman recognizes there's a place in this world right at the moment for non GPL/LGPL type licenses- he just prefers the other and this came from the horse's mouth based off of a discussion, in-person, with the man a few years back...) and the ones that do typically are even more fanatical than RMS ever dreamt of being. They're a vocal minority, in truth, and I've encountered them too- I do game dev after hours and I've seen some gems put forth in forums on the subject.

 

[Exophase]

The thing is, there's no valid reason not to share the source to an independently developed application which is being made for the good of the community anyway. The majority of the time people's reluctance to open source their projects simply comes from the fear of forks, which to me at least, seems ungrounded. Forks are only good for the community in the long run.

If you meant that fear of forks is ungrounded because forks don't happen then that can be refuted outright because they do happen. If you expect people to respect the wishes of the original developers then you're just being naive. Actually, it seems to me that most of the biggest supporters of FOSS don't really see the developers as having rights and they love to call them out for being "selfish" for caring about their own interests. Let's just bury this right now, because everyone does some things in their own self interests and for one person to demand that another relinquish their self interests for their sake is actually much more selfish, IMO.

If you meant that forks have no ill side effects ever then I disagree. You said that they're "only good" in the long term but at what point does something become long term? Do short term effects not matter? It's all pretty arbitrary. This is similar to the basic problem I have with people who insist that emulation should only be utilized for "long term" preservation - you have no idea if the program will be interesting or useful to anyone in the "long term." What you can measure is what you can observe (which is what I would consider "short term") - how much you get out of writing your software and how much people get out of using it. There's legitimate worth in maintaining "creative license" - there's a reason why writers write their own books and scripts - they might take input from others, but ultimately they have an authoritative say, if they have been granted such control (and they often are). Would you find it strange if an artist refused to put the development of his painting up for others to modify? Sure, you may say, what's the problem so long as each iteration of his work is available as he last left it? But each present iteration is also available on equal footing, and now someone else may have obscured the original vision of his work and the artist is stripped of true authorship.

Stallman has argued before that one should not be blinded by the success of their program, but should evaluate success in how much it furthers the cause of "free" software. I find this notion to be self-serving and circular at best. Since the beginning his vision of free software has been an a priori assertion of idealogy rather than the pragmatic response that it would purport itself to be. I'm not going to argue that it's not a successful and logical principal in many contexts, but I will argue that it isn't in all contexts, or at least, can't be proven as such.

But I think that forks do more potential damage than just to the programmer's ego. Several competing forks can actually create a huge problem for users who have no idea what to use, and a new version doesn't actually mean a better version (I've seen forks that actually break more than they add). Some programs are just better off being taken care of by someone who knows the thing intimately rather than just granting anyone free control over screwing it up. And that's not to mention a userspace which blindly embraces constant releases no matter what they do (and will attack the original author, hard at work on substantial improvements, for not giving them the useless releases the forker has).

Most serious open source projects have organized group policies and vote on things. There usually isn't a single person who did most of the work. Small projects, like most emulators, are often pretty different.

 

[Phawx]

The only time I think a project should go open is when the original developers don't care to work on it anymore.

I think holding on to something that you obviously aren't using anymore has to do with that "pack-rat" gene in humans. If it is serving no purpose in your possession, put it out on the curb for someone else to take. Lording over something with a vague notion that you may do something with it, but ultimately will not, is a waste.

That is my opinion though. If the author of the code chose to not do anything with it and not release it is ultimately his choice. And we should respect that as well.

@Exophase

I never realized how dogmatic FOSS actually is. If I were writing code I wouldn't be bothered with it. That is way too much bullshit to even worry about. People get a little too caught up with themselves. I think it should just boil down to Human Rights and respect. But some people tend to only see their point of view.

 

[Vorporeal]

Just to provide a bit of context - Exo is speaking out of pure experience in that second to last paragraph. So there's NO disproving/disputing him there.

 

[Trip]

It's a real shame when people take a good idea and try to turn it into a religion IMO.

To me, the most important thing is that the standards used for things like file formats, the Internet and information management are open for anybody to use. I really don't care if the programs themselves are open source, free to use or commercial, I'll use what I thinks the best tool for the job. As long as I'm not tied down to any one operating system or a single way of doing something, I'm pretty damn happy. Yeah I will use open source/free software over commercial software whenever possible, but I'll never use an open source/free program if it doesn't do the job it's supposed to do. What's the point?

Developers choice at the end of the day

 

[giovanni]

I personally like more the open-source license than the free one, but that's a personal opinion.
It's true that an open source make the divelopers less attracted by creating completely new softwares because they can simply ricycle older codes...
A developer can do exactly what he wants with his source but, it's better for the software itself to release it as open when he stops to develop it , to let it get better and better (of course by the hand of other developers)...
And an open source gives to other developers the possibility of porting it to other systems....
However you're the owner, you can decide

 

[Pleng]

Can we get the thread at least vaguely back on topic?

As interesting as i'm sure the latest episode of SourceWars saga is to the select minority, it's derailing the thread.

I, for one, would love to know if there's any way to find out which games rely on WinCE, and therefore will not be able to run on Pandora.

 

[Phawx]

I had completely forgot Dreamcast had WinCE on it. Games made use of that?

 

[emcp]

The thing is, there's no valid reason not to share the source to an independently developed application which is being made for the good of the community anyway. The majority of the time people's reluctance to open source their projects simply comes from the fear of forks, which to me at least, seems ungrounded. Forks are only good for the community in the long run.

your joking me right
i dont like open, sure in some cases i do but most i dont, freeware is ok however im also for low-profit development, like £1 for a killer game etc (although 1x50000.....) can add up

No anyway, the reason i dont like open source is, its one bitch to manage someone updates this, then another person comes and updates this then theres two separate version then another to develop from that, and it becomes ridiculous, look at all the quake mods, infact quake should be in the top 100 words on the internet it has so many clones mods etc

i believe in open project, you come into a team and can leave when you want, but must make some sort of agreement not to distribute it

btw i know theres licenses for all these things and correct terms, but im just to tired right now

 

[pder]

Actually, I would say he's been had if he thinks that Pandora is an "FOSS oriented system."

Really? How is the pandora not FOSS oriented? You have the Linux kernel, everything in the Angstrom distribution, and pretty much every emulator from the GP2X that will be ported to the Pandora was at least based in part on GPL code.

Binary only releases were certainly the exception and not the rule on the GP2X, and I don't see why that would change on the Pandora.

 

[darkblu]

I had completely forgot Dreamcast had WinCE on it. Games made use of that?

few. tomb raider comes as one of the higher-profile among them (if there is such a thing as "high-profile shitty dx port").

 

[Pleng]

I had completely forgot Dreamcast had WinCE on it. Games made use of that?

few. tomb raider comes as one of the higher-profile among them (if there is such a thing as "high-profile shitty dx port").


SEGA Rally, 1 of the 2 games I bought my Dreamcast for. The other game I purchased my Dreamcast for is Daytona and I'm desperate to find out if there's ever any chance of me running it on Pandy. I also have VF3, but I can take or leave that.

 

[Exophase]

Really? How is the pandora not FOSS oriented? You have the Linux kernel, everything in the Angstrom distribution, and pretty much every emulator from the GP2X that will be ported to the Pandora was at least based in part on GPL code.

Pandora is a system that benefits from and utilizes several FOSS projects, but it doesn't do so simply because they're FOSS. Linux in particular, and whatever's in Angstrom, is used because it's the right operating system for the job as much as because it's open (although it wouldn't really be possible if it weren't open). The emulators on GP2X were GPL not because GP2X is a "GPL oriented system" but because almost all of them are ports and couldn't have been pushed onto GP2X otherwise. It's not because GPH was espousing the ideals of open source software - actually, with their reluctance to properly release source at all I'd say quite the opposite.

Binary only releases were certainly the exception and not the rule on the GP2X, and I don't see why that would change on the Pandora.

I don't think you really see what I wanted to say, so let me elaborate. Most software on Pandora will be open source, and most of that will be GPL, but the license of said software is largely irrelevent and the designers of and most of the users of the Pandora aren't going to care if the source is available. Much less are the designers trying to actively discourage anyone from not using a particular license. This is in stark contrast to certain Linux distributions which outright disallow any non-GPL compatible code from entering them.

In other words, anyone who thinks that non-GPL software isn't welcome on Pandora (any so called danger of "closed source crap") is only speaking for themselves. I for one am going to be releasing closed source emulators on it, just like I did on the GP2X (one of those "exceptions" to the rule). By the way, to this date no one has given a crap about me not publically releasing the source to that emulator.

 

[Tom`]

Pandora is a system that benefits from and utilizes several FOSS projects, but it doesn't do so simply because they're FOSS. Linux in particular, and whatever's in Angstrom, is used because it's the right operating system for the job as much as because it's open (although it wouldn't really be possible if it weren't open). The emulators on GP2X were GPL not because GP2X is a "GPL oriented system" but because almost all of them are ports and couldn't have been pushed onto GP2X otherwise. It's not because GPH was espousing the ideals of open source software - actually, with their reluctance to properly release source at all I'd say quite the opposite.

I cannot buy this - the entire reason Linux is the right OS for the job is because it is free and open. If it were proprietary, it would be unusable unless Craig paid for the rights to use it, which would almost certainly not be possible. Also, free development tools would likely not be available, as is the case with Linux.

I agree that the system is not necessarily "GPL-oriented," but that is a fairly pointless distinction, since the GPL is not the only free software license in existence.

The GP2X was not intended as a FOSS-based system, and not promoted as one, but nevertheless that was the reason for its success. It would have barely registered outside of Korea, if at all, if it were not for the fact that it ran a widely-used OS with no restrictions on software development, and with development tools freely available. As far as I am aware, it is not entirely fair to say that GPH was reluctant to properly release source, but rather a misunderstanding of the GPL combined with licensing issues of proprietary code they had purchased.

I don't think you really see what I wanted to say, so let me elaborate. Most software on Pandora will be open source, and most of that will be GPL, but the license of said software is largely irrelevent and the designers of and most of the users of the Pandora aren't going to care if the source is available. Much less are the designers trying to actively discourage anyone from not using a particular license. This is in stark contrast to certain Linux distributions which outright disallow any non-GPL compatible code from entering them.

Users are largely not going to care, and that is understandable. You are creating a strawman here, however. I am unaware (and please correct me if I am wrong) of any Linux distributions that disallow any non-free code from running on them. There are certainly distributions that refrain from distributing non-free software, but that is very far from disallowing non-free code from running.

In other words, anyone who thinks that non-GPL software isn't welcome on Pandora (any so called danger of "closed source crap") is only speaking for themselves. I for one am going to be releasing closed source emulators on it, just like I did on the GP2X (one of those "exceptions" to the rule). By the way, to this date no one has given a crap about me not publically releasing the source to that emulator.

You are certainly free to release your software in any way you see fit, and users are free to run it or not. I do not have any problem with running non-free applications in principle, provided they do not come with harmful DRM or other such restrictions, but I can understand why others would.

 

[Chip]

Enough of this crap. DrkIIRaziel and ZeZu can release their software however they please, just as anybody else who codes from scratch can do the same. This is not the place for software-licensing-as-a-religion arguments. Any further off-topic bickering will be deleted.

 

[lulzfish]

"I for one am going to be releasing closed source emulators on it,"

"You are certainly free to release your software in any way you see fit, and users are free to run it or not."

You guys aren't even arguing.
This is weird.

 

[Bramrash]

The unreleased Half-Life port uses WinCE, thats the only one I remember because it's the only one I was dissappointed about.

The emulator looks fantastic so far guys, keep up the good work!