Something that's been bothering me, Closed source.

[RoboJoe32]

How can you test your program out or get constructive criticism if you only have a small handfull of people testing it? And having closed source hurts the dev scene (Remember everyone. Windows= closed source, Linux= open source! And linux has gotten improved to the point of pwning windows, if only people would stop supporting windows though) I mean, if you code say... (example) a kickass SNES emu but leave it at 70-80 percent speed with a few sound bugs and just let the project lie.. If it's closed source, it will never be finished, open sourced, a resourceful programmer can scoop it up to optimize it and make it work! People HURT the dev scene by making things closed source... Sure you're a great programmer and coder and I respect that... But you could still give others a chance to improve upon your work!

Who else agrees?

 

[RoboJoe32]

I mean don't get me wrong, I respect every programmer and devver. But these are just my opinions.

 

[MojoJojo]

I basically agree.

I was going to release the source to my asteroids clone but my hard drive bombed and I lost all the source. Now it will be forever frozen without UFOs or a high score table....

 

[sgbfree]

How about you GP32 programmers forming a Group??

You can then keep the source to yourselves and take the credit as part of the group but also keep a project going when some of you have less time on it?


Megadrive!! Megadrive!! Megadrive!! Megadrive!! Megadrive!! Megadrive!!

 

[Dozer]

Yeah i thought that 2. Theres a site being put up i think that allows people access to this kind of stuff. Also though, it would hav to be done well or there would be loads of edited ones and ones finished at different levels. Duno how it would b worked out. Maybe if one person worked on it at a time and then passed it on.

 

[DJWillis]

Apologies in advance if I have gone off on one . To much coffee .

<Begin Rant >

Hmmm,

I have to honestly say if somebody works on something in there own time for no reward then what they do with there code is there own concern.

I have done a fair bit of coding on large projects over the years, some closed source, some open, some for my own amusement and there are merits to all methods.

Making something ‘open source’ is not without it’s work, it’s expected by the community that the code has a certain level of readability for starters (my homebrew stuff for example is not easily useable by anyone but me as I have my own ways of doing things and no documents), add to that documentation and creating things like makefiles to suit other compilers etc, mountains of questions and the large amount of personal bitching you get from people about your code (believe me this DOES happen) then you can start to understand it’s not something to rush into.
Add to that the fact that you loose all control of your code (and let’s be honest if you have spent 6 months blood and sweat on some software and some sod comes along and tweaks the menu screen and claims title to it that bites a little).
Also, if you use commercial libs in your code (as a lot of closed source projects do) then going open source can often not be an option legally.

I don’t want to sound negative about open source but at the end of the day it’s the persons time to develop something and they have to decide how they want to distribute there code (and the wishes of any other code they used).
For example, I am working on getting ScummVM (.5 Pre) compiling for the GP32 with a few tweaks of my own, if/when I get something I am happy with then I’ll release it and any source patches (in keeping with the apps OS nature). Until then it’s a pet project of mine and I’ll continue to work on it when I have time. If I posted my source patches now they would not compile, be very hard to read and basically useless so I don’t see the point.

If I decided to write a game in my own time and just distribute the .fxe then I don’t see a problem with that either.

I don’t feel it hurts the dev scene either way as there is a hell of a lot more to it then just releasing chunks of code, help, code snippets and just general banter can be just as useful. Developers tend (and this is a generalisation) to be more interested in the code of the cool things you can write for the device rather then driven to write an emu (for example) so that they can play there huge stash of roms. There more lightly to write an emu just to get mode 7 working at 30 fps and not play the games .

When you consider the recent flurry of ripping developers off (Distributing beta NGP and GBA emus against there wishes) then it’s no wonder they choose to keep things under there hat and closed source.

Black’s GPEngine is close source currently and I don’t see how he has harmed the community, all he has done is raised the quality bar about 80 notches for everybody else and I understand he is very helpful when asked questions.

Despite how it may seem I am not anti open source just pragmatic about people’s right to develop what they want how they want. If you chose to write some software for the GP then that would be really great, if you make it open source or closed source would not make much of a difference to me. If you asked me a coding question and I could answer I would regardless.

<End Rant>

 

[khephren]

I think that's a good point.The GP scene is a bit like the PC scene, people want to release a fully finished EMU, and get the respect without the hastle of people complaining about bugs. Problem is sometimes they lose interest, and the code is never released, also the GP scene is too small for this. But' at the end of the day they are the reason most of us bought the GP, so I guess it's up to them. Personally I prefer the way Castaway was done, with continous releases and feedback- it's still my favourite emu.

 

[RoboJoe32]

Yeah, I don't mind closed source as long as the original coder WORKS on the project and makes new releases quite often and takes feedback to fix things. But say..... He gets sick, or something important happens, and he basicly forgets about the project, or doesn't care anymore... Or his PC majorly screws up... Then all of his hard work is gone, and he probably wouldn't bother to have to re-build everything from scratch...

 

[VirtuaLeech]

I think, as a coder, that private betas (maybe we should call the alphas) are a good thing. When you build something that you think is now good enough to show to the outside world, you also just know there are still some obvious bugs in there that you missed.

Having a private beta is very handy to make sure you are not getting 50 mails about the same error, as well as risking people bitching because of some "obvious" errors.

Just having a few people look at the first version makes the beta and debugging stage a lot easier.

 

[A600]

Yeah, I don't mind closed source as long as the original coder WORKS on the project and makes new releases quite often and takes feedback to fix things.

As long as the coder WORKS for you. Coders have a life and can't do what you want.

If you want a Snes emu, snes9x source is available, so learn to program and write your own emu and stop moaning.

 

[DJWillis]

Yeah, I don't mind closed source as long as the original coder WORKS on the project and makes new releases quite often and takes feedback to fix things.

Why should someone have to work on a project and make new releases. No amateur GP32 developer is paid or reimbursed for there time we all do it because we want to.

What you’re asking for is akin to demanding we all work ten hour shifts for you out of the goodness of our hearts and graciously take on board all your wonderful comments.

Sorry, but everybody hear also has a day job and although I can't speak for anybody else I would strongly suggest you pick up a C manual spend 5-600 hours coding a project and then be ready willing and able to answer everybody’s comments. You will of course be making 2 releases a week and keeping the code fully up together and in a public CVS tree and holding down a 37.5 hour a week job at the same time.

Most professional software projects have a concept of releases, until you’re ready to do a release it's not ready regardless of how many people tell you it is and how many people demand the code . I don’t mean to sound grouchy but your requests air on the side of unreasonable for what is essentially 'no stings' hobby development.

EDIT: Oooops, maybe my post is a little strong. Sorry.

 

[Flack]

No one wants open source because they're afraid a programmer is going to be sick a couple of days and wants the show to go on ... everyone wants "sharing" of betas so they will get more free software faster. Might as well call a spade a spade.

As a user, sure, I'd love more open development. That means earlier betas for me to play with for free!

As a programmer, maybe they don't want their early work made public. Maybe they don't want 1,000 e-mails a month about the current status (or criticism, or comments, or suggestions).

DJ (my new favorite member of the forums) hit the nail on the head. When you're a programmer and it's your code, it's your call.

 

[Swiss_Cheeseman]

We've already been through this.

I would prefer it if authors did open betas, however, if all the code is theirs, they have every right to keep it closed.

ON THE OTHER HAND, many coders use code from other authors, much of which is licensed under a contract that requires the release of the source code (usually the GPL). If these programs are distributed privately, they are in violation of the GPL, and are breaching copyright, and being dishonest to the authors of the original code. I seriously hate this when it happens, and is the one reason I try to stay away from the xbox dev scene, as thats just a orgy of stolen code.

 

[Mofokubik]

Emu authors have a right to do this stuff. There is nothing wrong with it at all. But if its no longer being worked on the source should be released. Private betas are....meh...depends on the emu....

 

[RoboJoe32]

Ah the classic 'don't criticize if you can't make one' response, I can't direct a movie, but I can comment on it or say it feels un-finished or left off somewhere. And like I said, programmers are the heart and soul of the world today. But it's a shame when they just drop a project for one reason or another and it just dies.

 

[NiN^_^NiN]

They may drop there project for reason but they can do it cause they made it. They dont owe you anything and they arnt gonna make it open source cause your bitching about it. Its there source if they release it thats great if they dont then its still great they are allowed to keep it close its there right.

There is no use in releasing source code if you cant read it if they release it they have to clean it up and comment parts for it so you know whats what. They dont have time to comment it if they stoped it.

Open source is good if the author lets it but i support closed source cause its there right.

How can you test your program out or get constructive criticism if you only have a small handfull of people testing it? And having closed source hurts the dev scene

They get people to test for bugs etc they only need a small few to test it they dont need to release it to get bug fixes. Closed source doesnt hurt the Dev scene at all if a emu was released in private then was stopped it woudlnt hurt it at all they only know its possible and they try to make that emu themself.

You thinking from 1 side your saying give me give me give me but your not taking anything about the reason they might have for stoping it into consideration.

Its there right so dont bug them bitching about source code.

h34r:

 

[SephirothIce]

Well I agree with most of the people who says it is the authors choice, but what about ports of emu's that already have open source. Isn't it a bit lame to take something that was open source and not leave it open source? I mean the people who made the original would probably not like to hear that someone took their emu and made it closed source.

 

[NiN^_^NiN]

Let me quote the GPL licensing:

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.

So the source code doesnt have to be released if it was ported to another OS cause the source code is the same as when they got it off source forge and the only things changed are to get it to work on that system.

The source code is the same its just been made to work for the gp32 so they really dont have to let the source code out. But when adding ASM to replace the code thats under the licence and that bit of the source code must be released.

h34r:

 

[MojoJojo]

NiN - you've completely misread that. Thats's saying that you don't need to include the source for something like GTK ( a windowing toolkit), even though you would need it build your project, because its generallyincluded in most linux distro's. Its not speaking about porting at all, and if you port an Open Source emulator you are indeed obliged to release your port as Open Source.

 

[NiN^_^NiN]

Sorry i must of read it wrong i have a major migrain i cant think to stright right now.

h34r: