Something that's been bothering me, Closed source.


That is exactly what I was thinking MojoJojo, then why are the emulators being released as closed source now? I mean I understand they are working hard on it, but still I always have thought it is lame to take something that was open source and make it closed source.
 
There is nothing wrong with closed source if the author is still working on the emu. And this may be the last time that I post in a topic like this, because its pointless. I wish the best of luck to all the gp developers....
 
Mofo you obviously didn't understand what I was talking about, I was refering to open source emulators that are converted to GP32 then made closed source. I don't think it's fair to the previous authors.
 
Yes, they are often released under som esort of public license that the code is available but any changes you make must be available as well.
 
Have any GPL emu's been converted, released, then made closed source? The only ones I can think of that should have the source opened haven't actually been released yet so they don't count (you only need to release the source if you also release the binary - a private beta doesn't require a public source release)
 
in my last post I was talking about the topic in general. I do think its bullshit for an author to steal work of an emu for a port then make it closed source, unless it is still being worked on...
 
woogal posted on Jul 27 2003 said:
Have any GPL emu's been converted, released, then made closed source? The only ones I can think of that should have the source opened haven't actually been released yet so they don't count (you only need to release the source if you also release the binary - a private beta doesn't require a public source release)
Hit the nail bang on there...

It seems that alot of people get confused about different licensing arrangments. Just because something was open source, doesnt mean it must also be realeased under the GPL. Some open source licenses actually forbid anyone else making changes and then releasing their own version (Hydrairc anyone?)
But some are just making source avaliable for people to do as they wish, in which case they wouldnt be doing anything wrong by releasing their own modified version without the source code.

Only the GPL states that the code must be released, and as woogal pointed out, I also am not aware of any GPL emus that have been converted and closed, and even so, you do not have to release source with a private beta.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of people would argue that anything which isn't under the GPL isn't Open Source, and more of a case of companies trying to get people to work for them for free. If you're not allowed to make you and release your own derivations, I don't see how it can be called Open Source, except by companies who want to jump on to bandwagon without giving anything away.
 
I dont know about you, but i appreciate the idea of open source, so I can see for myself whats going on, its one thing for a developer to say 'theres no spyware in my program' quite another to give you full access to the source code, so that you know for sure.

The source is open to enable people to learn from it, not jump on it, change the front screen and call it there own

Its the code thats open, not the licence. At the end of the day it should be down to the individual doing the coding. If they want to keep it closed, then thats down to them (unless the licence for what they are doing states that they must keep it open), the same goes if they want to open the source for feedback, but not redistribution, or they are fully entitled to release under the GPL if thats what they want to do.

The example i used before, hydrairc, is relevant here as well. As you said 'more a case of companies trying to get people to work for them for free'. Hydrairc is coded by an individual, and the code is avaliable, and alot of people appreciate him for that. Many users have submitted changes to the code that they thought would help, and many of these have been added to later builds. I much prefer this way of progression, where the original coder has creative authority over his own work.
 
Back
Top