Releasing Beta copies of games....

[shah]

I just wanted to know what people think of this situation. Many people who code progs, wehter its emus or other stuff, often get very stroppy (I realise if you get 1000s of ls asking questions u too would probably get stroppy..!) when its inadvertantly released to the public and stop the project all together. The last one i remember was the NEOGEO emu (Although the coder kept on working on it in the back ground... THANX..!)

How do the people who release these beta copies get the copy from..? Surely it must be from the original dude who created the prog or by hacking into his/her computer... any ideas, cos if its from the coder himself, then they have themselves to blame.

Also whats is a L33t... anyone care to explain...?

thanks

 

[kerb]

Actually I don't see the problem..
There are too many closed-source projects, and emulators should have snapshots of f.ex the latest CVS, so other developers might contribute etc.
And too often I see projects discontinued just because the author didn't bother anymore, and never bothered to release the source so someone else might finish it.

But I guess some people are really perfectionist or something


And by the way, l33t = 31337 which means elite. Easy as that.

 

[Toris]

These people get beta copies from the author, on the ground that they do not spread it, they just test the program, and report bugs etc...
So really, they are going against the author's wishes.
They release beta's to certain people to get feedback on what needs to be improved before a public release.

And l33t means elite, cool, the best...

-Toris

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

Many developers who make emulators and use GPL code, dont distribute the source. This bugs me a hell of a lot, especially when they make private releases, which are NOT allowed under the GPL.

 

[rcx21000]

Many developers who make emulators and use GPL code, dont distribute the source. This bugs me a hell of a lot, especially when they make private releases, which are NOT allowed under the GPL.

Ohhhhh, does that mean we can shoot lots of lawyers at people who brag about a private release of something that uses GPLed code?? Cool :lol:

 

[kerb]

Swiss_Cheeseman: I agree, this is actually quite a problem.
It is a pretty good example of lack of respect when you use GPLed code for a closed project.

Since the GP32 community relies on hobbyist developers for growth, where cooperation might be the key to developing succesfull software, keeping the sources open would indeed be favorable.

 

[Toris]

Sure, yes, for a GPLed project, the source *should* be released, but, I don't think the author should have to upload it when a little change is made, it should be done for every public release.

However, I still think private-releases are a good idea, as it's a way for you to test new ideas without the public moaning at you, saying that you should hurry up and fix a bug, improve speed, add a new idea etc...

At least, that's my personal opinion anyway

 

[jlebrech]

I like to release versions of my software, to show people the progress, but where id get to version 1 i wont show a new version till version unless theres a bug fix or something. cos past version 1 you have used up all the clever sugestions and just need little tweaks. so have 100 people giving the same sugestion is anoying, cos i the early stages everyone has different ideas but then later on they all want the same features.

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

but, I don't think the author should have to upload it when a little change is made, it should be done for every public release.

If he releases the binaries, anywhere, he has to distribute the source, otherwise hes violating copyright.

 

[r0lf]

Ages ago I somehow got invovled in a closed beta of an online game. Each person was given a special version of the game that had a 'fingerprint' compiled into it. This meant that if the game was ever leaked they could say exactly who had done it. This fact was plastered all over the installer / documentation.

Maybe this might be a good method to deter would be leaks.

Then again, they also made us all sign an NDA. So I guess the scary paperwork might have been a deterrent.

As for GPL based work, is there a legal obligation to make your software open source? or a moral one? Also, if you used open source and unmodified libraries or components to build your software does the same rule / ethic apply?

I'd like to see people who do this release their code, but my motivation would be selfish, so I could learn from it, not for the benefit of mankind or anything.

 

[kerb]

*deleted by author*

 

[RobertG]

I don't have a problem with private beta releases as such. If you want to give it to a few friends to do some testing then fine..

What annoys me is the not-so-private beta releases. I.e when you see news posts on every GP32 site like:-


New (emulator) beta version!

Today (author) sent me the latest beta of (emulator) and it's really great, I'm having lots of fun with it!

Here's a screen shot!

(author) says it'll be released some time next year, in the mean time he'll be sending me weekly beta updates so that I can tease you all!


Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing, but it seems like these betas aren't released for testing purposes. They're released get props from websites and to TEASE ME!


Releasing source code is up to the author/porter. Even if someone is violating the GPL (or whatever) by not releasing source I don't lose any sleep over it..

I think that when you release open source stuff then people should be allowed to do whatever they want with it (apart from sell it, but that's a given). I don't like all this GPL stuff (you can't mix code from (emu1) with code from (emu2)!! the licenses clash!! etc).

 

[MojoJojo]

As for GPL based work, is there a legal obligation to make your software open source? or a moral one? Also, if you used open source and unmodified libraries or components to build your software does the same rule / ethic apply?

There is a legal one, although it has never been tried in court. The main reason it hasn't been tried, however, is because it is widely accepted that it does have legal basis, so no one has wasted the money challenging it in court.

The only exception would be dynamically linking to libraries under the GNU Lesser General Public License, but this doesn't really apply to the GP32 since it doesn't/has little need to support dynamic libraries (I could be wrong on this but I don't think I am).

Don't be too hard on people who release private versions of their software though. They're under no obligation to release anything they do, whether it uses GPL code or not. The GPL only applies if they actually give there software to anyone. They could just keep it all to themselves.

Basically, they're giving you stuff for free. They should be releasing source code etc. under the law if its GPL'd, but complaining about this is a bit harsh when they're trying to avoid the huge amount of email and stuff that releasing it would do.

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

Releasing source code is up to the author/porter. Even if someone is violating the GPL (or whatever) by not releasing source I don't lose any sleep over it..

Bzzt, wrong.

How about asking the many, many contributers to GPL projects how they feel about people stealing their work?

If you dont release the source, your a fucking asshole and i hate you.

 

[CoderArt]

Bzzt, wrong.

How about asking the many, many contributers to GPL projects how they feel about people stealing their work?

If you dont release the source, your a fucking asshole and i hate you.

I totally agree with you SwissHead - you are a total arsehole! those fucking emu authors should release everything that *you* want whenever *you* have one of your childish tantrums - it's written into GPL

Christ alive those emu guys do good works - we really don't need idiots like *you* mauling the scene with your rants, the scene is already in a terrible state !!

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

And one of the reasons it is in a terrible state is because of authors with massive egos that dont want to release the sources of a program that they only partially created, because the code is, uh, messy.

Its stealing goddamnit. If the programmers create their OWN code, then fine, then they dont have to release it, but when they steal other peoples code for their own project, THAT is wrong.

Note that snes9x, while open source, doesnt need to have the source released, I understand that. Also, a lot of emu authors, namely the author of Little John, the NES emu for the GP32, released the source to his emulator, as he should of, as it uses a lot of code that is under the GPL.

The term "source beggar" was coined in the DC Emulation scene I beleive, as if there is something wrong with it. There isnt, its the authors that are wrong, they MUST release GPLed code under request.

 

[CoderArt]

I really couldn't care any less about source code wotnot - In my book if people release GPL stuff then so it's up to them - I just want cool emu's yes!! Anyway how many of these emu's do you reckon use GPL shit and why are you so worrying about it?

 

[MojoJojo]

The GPL doesn't/can't state the users have to release anything. Its states that if they do release anything, they have to release the whole lot with source and for free (or minimal distribution fee).

Basically, if you force them to release the source with their beta versions when they don't want to, they won't release any beta versions. So stop whinging - as long as they release the source code eventually (when it comes out of beta say), I wouldn't complain too much. Just be glad that people are giving you stuff for free.

BTW, why are you so certain that people are using GPL code? It's normally fairly hard to tell without the source.

Have you tried emailing the author about getting the source?

And complaining about the legality of the GPL when we're talking about emulators... do you own all your own roms?

 

[RobertG]

How about asking the many, many contributers to GPL projects how they feel about people stealing their work?

If you dont release the source, your a fucking asshole and i hate you.

I find it hard to consider it "stealing" when they're allowing you to download and use the source code. I agree that if someone says you can use the source code on the condition that you keep it open source you should do as they say. I'm just not going to get my knickers in a twist over something like Snes9xGP being closed whilst Snes9x is open source.

And one of the reasons it is in a terrible state is because of authors with massive egos that dont want to release the sources of a program that they only partially created, because the code is, uh, messy.

Haha..

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

Just because you get something for free doesnt mean you own it.

and if they keep the program to themselves, yes, they dont have to release it, they do, however, have to release it if they distriubte it, even if its only a single person.

And quite often, when authors give updates, they give info on what sources they have used. Thats usually how I tell.

E-mailing the author for the source does nothing if he doesnt want to release it.