PSX4DROID using PCSX-ReARMed source

[SNESFAN]

http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/04/psx4droid-3-0-0-is-out-download-here-self-published/


despite notaz's specifically saying zodttd was not welcome to use his source code, zodttd appears to be using it anyway.


discuss...

 

[Blue Protoman]

This won't end well.

 

[Nintendo]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

[WizardStan]

I wonder if he can do that. GPL says you can't restrict the source code: if you are giving away the binary, the source needs to be made available as well. That doesn't mean you must give the source code to everybody, there are a lot of commercial ventures that use open source, and the are only required to give the source to the people who purchased their binary. In this way, I believe, depending on how Notaz worded his "zodttd can't use it" remark (which I don't remember seeing, so don't know exactly what he said) it may be construed as copyright infringement. If zodttd had no rights to the binary, he has no right to the source code, which makes this theft.


Just my understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's not an unreasonable way to look at it.

 

[Blue Protoman]

I wonder if he can do that. GPL says you can't restrict the source code: if you are giving away the binary, the source needs to be made available as well. That doesn't mean you must give the source code to everybody, there are a lot of commercial ventures that use open source, and the are only required to give the source to the people who purchased their binary. In this way, I believe, depending on how Notaz worded his "zodttd can't use it" remark (which I don't remember seeing, so don't know exactly what he said) it may be construed as copyright infringement. If zodttd had no rights to the binary, he has no right to the source code, which makes this theft.


Just my understanding, but I'm pretty sure that's not an unreasonable way to look at it.

He specifically said that Zod can't use the source code.

 

[DavidBowman]

At the very least, the source is available and he's not charging for it. I'd be livid if he was charging for this after using notaz's source code.


As far as I understand, there's no way to enforce notaz's request that zodttd not use his source, though I think that's a classless move. Was it stated anywhere other than in that post on the other forums that he wasn't welcome to use the source?


EDIT: Notaz was apparently asked.

 

[SNESFAN]

At the very least, the source is available and he's not charging for it. I'd be livid if he was charging for this after using notaz's source code.


As far as I understand, there's no way to enforce notaz's request that zodttd not use his source, though I think that's a classless move. Was it stated anywhere other than in that post on the other forums that he wasn't welcome to use the source?

I think the first line of the header of each file is in bold "GTFO ZOD!!!"


I kid, I kid... I have no idea. I personally feel you should not charge for open source code unless you add a significat amount of addional modification.


Is what zod added was a significant change to code? ...I don't know


Is the end product worth the cost he's charging? ...yes


Do I feel he's right in what he does? ...I don't know that either

 

[Poem58]

Engadget just announced Zodttd has had had developer accounts frozen and has been effectively banned (cannot publish to, or profit from) from Google's App Store and is now offering the software for free. Does this mean he was charging for it? the question now is what did he do that was wrong while other emulators apparently don't cause a problem? Was Google aware that he wasn't supposed to use the code, do we even know he didn't ask Notaz? Does he have to? Is one not ever allowed to charge for GPL code? So many questions now! At least I'm bound to learn something about all these license things because of this. Time to go Googling.


sthttp://www.engadget.com/2011/04/07/zodttd-makes-psx4droid-3-0-free-claims-google-booted-him-from-a/


Edit: I see.


Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom.


So I guess the question comes down to if it was on the app store was it being charged for, so in this case that would be a problem.


Learn something new everyday!

 

[WizardStan]

Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom.

It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer. There is no legal reason a person or company can't charge for open source software. In fact, you don't even have to do anything. If you make an awesome app and release it open source and release it for free onto the net, I can then take your source code, change nothing, compile it, and then sell the resulting binary. The "free" part comes from the source code: if I sell the binary of a GPL program, I must make the source code available to the people I sell it to.


Of course, even if I do make significant changes to the program, make it mine, and because of all the awesome modifications I've made to it I decide to sell it, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone who has purchased the binary from requesting and receiving the source code, compiling it themself, and then releasing it to the internet completely free (as in beer).


So while there's no legal reason not to charge for GPL software, there is the logical reason that someone is likely to just spread your source code around against your wishes, and they have the legal right to do so.

 

[Granitehead]

Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom.

It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer. There is no legal reason a person or company can't charge for open source software. In fact, you don't even have to do anything. If you make an awesome app and release it open source and release it for free onto the net, I can then take your source code, change nothing, compile it, and then sell the resulting binary. The "free" part comes from the source code: if I sell the binary of a GPL program, I must make the source code available to the people I sell it to.


Of course, even if I do make significant changes to the program, make it mine, and because of all the awesome modifications I've made to it I decide to sell it, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone who has purchased the binary from requesting and receiving the source code, compiling it themself, and then releasing it to the internet completely free (as in beer).


So while there's no legal reason not to charge for GPL software, there is the logical reason that someone is likely to just spread your source code around against your wishes, and they have the legal right to do so.

In the highlighted cases it should say "free software", as far as I understand this licenses.


I can release a program as open source and for free and it's still illegal for someone else to sell it.


There is some big difference between open source and free software. Look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

 

[WizardStan]

I can release a program as open source and for free and it's still illegal for someone else to sell it.

Depends on the license. I assumed we were talking about the GPL, since that's what PSX4Pandora is released under (because that's what the original program was released under, etc...) Other licenses may not allow you to sell open source software, I'm not familiar with all of them.


There is nothing illegal about selling open source (GPL) code. GNU even encourages it, provided that you follow the license, making the source code available to those that purchase your binary.


Zod's program violated GPL. He was selling it, which is fine, but he was not making the source code available. Even now that it is free he is still not making the whole thing available, just a small piece which isn't enough to satisfy the license: he is still in violation of the GPL.


His emulator also linked to another program which allowed users to download roms directly off the internet: blatant encouragement of piracy if I ever saw it.


So there's two reasons it could have been pulled and his account suspended.


edit: reason 3: he used SONY's logo, a trademark violation.

 

[Granitehead]

I can release a program as open source and for free and it's still illegal for someone else to sell it.

Depends on the license. I assumed we were talking about the GPL, since that's what PSX4Pandora is released under (because that's what the original program was released under, etc...) Other licenses may not allow you to sell open source software, I'm not familiar with all of them.


There is nothing illegal about selling open source (GPL) code. GNU even encourages it, provided that you follow the license, making the source code available to those that purchase your binary.


Zod's program violated GPL. He was selling it, which is fine, but he was not making the source code available. Even now that it is free he is still not making the whole thing available, just a small piece which isn't enough to satisfy the license: he is still in violation of the GPL.


His emulator also linked to another program which allowed users to download roms directly off the internet: blatant encouragement of piracy if I ever saw it.


So there's two reasons it could have been pulled and his account suspended.


edit: reason 3: he used SONY's logo, a trademark violation.

Yeah, but "GPL" is not equal to "open source".


The term open source software means rather open source software and not free software, as of my understanding. So you shouldn't use it when you mean free software. ;-)

 

[WizardStan]

Yeah, but "GPL" is not equal to "open source".


The term open source software means rather open source software and not free software, as of my understanding. So you shouldn't use it when you mean free software. ;-)

Why? Open source is a subset of free software and the GPL. GPL necessarily encompasses open source. If the source is not open, it cannot be free and therefore cannot be licensed by the GPL. I made the mistake of assuming that since we were already talking about GPL'd code, it would be understood that I was still talking about GPL even if I used a broader term to discuss it. I did so because it's the more easily understood. Everyone should understand "open source" means the source code is available. Not everyone understands that "free software" means effectively the same thing (with respect to the question at hand) and does not actually mean the software is free (as in beer).


I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Exophase]

zodttd DID ask notaz, or rather he asked me to ask notaz and I did. notaz doesn't have a problem with zodttd doing a port so long as it complies with the GPL and he gives appropriate credit.


He is not just making a "small piece" of the source available. What zodttd released is a library, libpsx, which is the derived work of PCSX-reARMed, and complies with the GPL by including the source/COPYING/etc, although technically he should be distributing the license details with the package (I don't know how you really do this with an Android package, maybe he should just put it in a zip). The package also includes dynamically linked code which implements the user interface.


zodttd would release the source to everything, but the user interface isn't done by him and the author (yongzh) doesn't want it to be open. Since that code is completely agnostic to the libpsx code I don't really see there being a problem, someone could easily drop in their own user interface that's GPLed if they want to.

 

[SNESFAN]

Just want to update the free emulator is littered with half screen intrusive ads and the app force closes when you actually load a rom on a xperia play.


I'm gonna stick with my near perfect fpse I think

 

[Poem58]

WizardStan, when I was reading the GNU site I momentarily confused the always free part as not charging but realized my mistake. So it still begs the question, if he had permission as it appears he did, and other emulators are fine, then what did he do wrong to have Google shut him down? This is the part I'm not understanding. I was also curious as Engadget was saying now he's giving it away free. Does this mean he WAS charging for it? Could this in any way what made Google shut down his account? I'm just really puzzled WHY he was targeted by Google if other emulators are not shut down.


Also a clarification question. Am I understanding this right? Notaz writes the software. Zodttd gets source and makes changes. Zodttd sells the app, but the license makes him have to give the source code out to whoever buys the software if requested, or to who ever requests the source regardless of buying the software? I'm guessing it's not the latter or anyone could avoid buying the software buy requesting the code to compile themselves. Right? Just curious, as I want to understand seeing as how this get's mentioned a lot around here about the licenses.


Also "Freedom 2" the right to distribute copies to help your neighbor. Doesn't this one make it legal then to buy someones program then give copies of it away effectively taking the sale away from the code creator? I can understand Freedom 3 giving away a version you modified but 2 sounds really unfair to the original creator of the code. I must be missing something.

 

[WizardStan]

Does this mean he WAS charging for it?

Yes.

Could this in any way what made Google shut down his account? I'm just really puzzled WHY he was targeted by Google if other emulators are not shut down.

Probably not. There's nothing wrong with charging for emulators or GPL code. There's three possible reasons why he was targeted where others are not

1. GPL violation. As far as I know, after multiple requests, he still didn't release his source code. Enough people complain, and down it comes.
   
2. Link to program that lets you download ISOs directly, encouraging outright piracy.
   
3. He used SONY's trademarked logo, something SONY is very sensitive about.
   

Also a clarification question. Am I understanding this right? Notaz writes the software. Zodttd gets source and makes changes. Zodttd sells the app, but the license makes him have to give the source code out to whoever buys the software if requested, or to who ever requests the source regardless of buying the software? I'm guessing it's not the latter or anyone could avoid buying the software buy requesting the code to compile themselves. Right? Just curious, as I want to understand seeing as how this get's mentioned a lot around here about the licenses.

Just to whoever buys it, as I understand. Of course, then we go to your next question...

Also "Freedom 2" the right to distribute copies to help your neighbor. Doesn't this one make it legal then to buy someones program then give copies of it away effectively taking the sale away from the code creator? I can understand Freedom 3 giving away a version you modified but 2 sounds really unfair to the original creator of the code. I must be missing something.

Exactly. Anyone can buy the program, and then rerelease it themselves for no charge. That's the reason why most GPL projects are free (as in beer). There's a few niche programs that successfully charge, but most programs that charge aren't charging for the binary, they charge for the customer service and support that comes with it.

 

[DavidBowman]

Well, if he had notaz's permission, then he had it. Plain and simple. I can't blame any developer from wanting to make some profit from their work, but this wasn't exactly just his work.


The way I see it is that I have no problem with charging for GPL'd work, even if he didn't add anything to it - so long as the source code is provided. There are plenty of folks who will want to just download something and have it run without the bother of having to compile it themselves and are willing to pay for that service. If no one else had released an android/iphone binary, then this was an unfulfilled niche and there isn't any problem with making a profit from that. However, when the source code was asked for repeatedly and not provided... now we have a problem. That's not playing by the rules. That's immoral in my opinion. That's my issue with him.


And using a trademarked logo and providing a way to download ISO's is just pure stupidity.

 

[Granitehead]

Yeah, but "GPL" is not equal to "open source".


The term open source software means rather open source software and not free software, as of my understanding. So you shouldn't use it when you mean free software. ;-)

Why? Open source is a subset of free software and the GPL. GPL necessarily encompasses open source. If the source is not open, it cannot be free and therefore cannot be licensed by the GPL. I made the mistake of assuming that since we were already talking about GPL'd code, it would be understood that I was still talking about GPL even if I used a broader term to discuss it. I did so because it's the more easily understood. Everyone should understand "open source" means the source code is available. Not everyone understands that "free software" means effectively the same thing (with respect to the question at hand) and does not actually mean the software is free (as in beer).


I apologize for the confusion.

No, open source software can be unfree at the same time.


Rather free software is a subset of open source software.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Look at this quote from gnu.org. If you think of "open source software" as programs with an open source, only /a part of/ freedom 1 is there for sure. If you think of "open source software" like in the Open Source Definition then most of the freedoms exist. But still not all:

The official definition of “open source software” [...] was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let you run your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.

Also read this:

Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only.

 

[WizardStan]

No, open source software can be unfree at the same time.


Rather free software is a subset of open source software.

But free software cannot not be open source. That is what "encompasses" means, that is what "subset" means. If I have ten apples and say "I have five apples" I am not wrong, I'm just not giving the complete picture. But if people have difficulty grasping the concept of "ten" (for whatever reason, I don't know, bad analogy, just go with it) but do understand "five" perfectly, and I just want to give a quick overview of the situation, I don't see a problem saying I have five apples and deal with specifics later, should they come up. If the fact that I've got five apple is enough knowledge for everyone, so much time and energy saved and I can get on with distributing apples.


If free software were a subset of open source, then the definition of open source would contain things that are expressly not in the GPL, and I don't believe that is the case. The GPL takes the definition of open source, and then adds its own requirements. Open source says A, B, and C. GPL says A, B, and C, but also D, E, and F. Another license might say A, B, C, D, E, and F, but also G, making it a superset of both open source and the GPL. Other open source licenses might say A, B, and C, but also D, E, and G, but never F, making them incompatible with the GPL, but they are still an open source license. We weren't talking about those though, we were talking about open source specifically as it referred to the GPL under which PSX4Pandora is released.