Theoretically, yes. You are free to request the sourcecode which he has to give you to comply the GPL, compile it and release it for free.
What the heck?
- Thread starter Scntrblob
- Start date
Theoretically, yes. You are free to request the sourcecode which he has to give you to comply the GPL, compile it and release it for free.
How should we know it is opensource? He doesn't say that it is a port of a GPLed program. That was discovered by reverse-engineering his binary, not by a readme file or such.
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
The frontend and touchscreen control setup he wrote is closed source
You can put a different method of control and frontend on it and distro it for free.
The frontend, menu setup and controls are worth the price if you ask me, its not completely just repackageing free software and charging for it.
Also where is the competition, there is none, if there was a free alternative I would use it
You can put a different method of control and frontend on it and distro it for free.
The frontend, menu setup and controls are worth the price if you ask me, its not completely just repackageing free software and charging for it.
Also where is the competition, there is none, if there was a free alternative I would use it
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus, you think people would just fucking credit the original authors. What does yongzh have to gain form removing that shit? It's never worth the hassle.
Even if he wrote the front end himself, he can't just strip it of it's original credits. Not allowed, man.
And I don't think you should take Craig and ED's response as supporting this guy. They just aren't throwing in with the lynch mob crowd. Good on them.
Even if he wrote the front end himself, he can't just strip it of it's original credits. Not allowed, man.
And I don't think you should take Craig and ED's response as supporting this guy. They just aren't throwing in with the lynch mob crowd. Good on them.
Well, as said, I had no idea about that. I never downloaded any of his emulators, I never downloaded ANY Android or iOS application yet.
Where are the readmes usually stored at the marketplace? If that stuff is included within the packages, it might be a bit hidden - like with Pandora PND files.
You know, Yongzh is from China, and not everything might be clear for him about that.
I know GPH had GPL issues years ago with the GP2X. They nearly got sued for that, and didn't understand why.
I had to explain them about the GPL and what they have to release and what not.
GPH didn't want to hurt anyone. They just had no idea they have to release it with the modifications done.
Having the GPL within a file doesn't necessarily mean everyone understands that. I'm pretty sure most people using OpenSource software have no idea about the GPL. Ask all the Windows FireFox users.
That's why I would suggest talking to him would be a proper action before sueing, blaming, etc.
If he does understand was GPL means and doesn't agree to it, then I'd say it's intentionally done. But he might simply not know what he's doing there.
Is it that one?
That's what I find searching for n64oid with google, and it mentions it's based on Mupen.
If he really never stated anywhere what he based his emulator on, that's a bad thing.
Where does Android usually save the readmes / licenses?
Inside of the package?
Well, it depends. If the frontend and touchscreen are plugins, then he can keep them closed source, yes.
However, if he included the code within the GPL'ed code, he HAS to release it.
Nobody can complain if he SELLS the modified emulators, but he has to stick to the GPL and can't remove credits.
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-androidemu-n64-xqAAi.aspx
Another link
Another apps, same question, same answers
http://groups.google.com/group/fbreader/browse_thread/thread/36d55772acaa7e42
Another link
Another apps, same question, same answers
http://groups.google.com/group/fbreader/browse_thread/thread/36d55772acaa7e42
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I've seen this one.
But I checked the marketplace and checked various apps there from different devs and companies. There's no license mentioned in the market, so I guess the license usually is stored within the package of the app, or not?
Where is the license usually stored for Android apps?
I can't imagine Google doesn't include some licensing info somewhere..?
I'm not sure google look every app on the store
If the "author" do not package licence with the app, and if nobody complain, I think google do not know about the issue
But it's speculation, in never post app on google market
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
Its ideally stored on the google code page, that's not always the case, some store it in the app its self under a menu option
Just checked n64oid and there is just a non nintendo disclaimer, nothing noted about source code or what code the emulator dirives from
This might be what you are looking for though
http://code.google.com/p/n64oid/wiki/MainPage
Just checked n64oid and there is just a non nintendo disclaimer, nothing noted about source code or what code the emulator dirives from
This might be what you are looking for though
http://code.google.com/p/n64oid/wiki/MainPage
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/android-market-has-drm-too
Some clue about GPL and google market, but no directly link to the prime subject
Some clue about GPL and google market, but no directly link to the prime subject
So you don't have to include a license when uploading... that's stupid. So I have no chance as non-Android user to find out what license an app has?
That's stupid...
Does anyone know if his other emulators have credits in them?
Ah, geez. And I had hoped so far that Google won't handle things like Apple here
Now I'm even more happy to have a N900 with Maemo...
However, that doesn't really solve the issue here.
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
Just updated my above post with link to google code page
ZXDunny
Deep avatar
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,585
Yeah, it is just code. To me, the Pandora is just something to code for. As a hobby. Whether or not I release anything for it is of no interest to me, I have fun just coding. What, to me is not a big deal (though obviously it's very important to you) is that I get credit for my "work". I don't need to see my name in lights or have throngs of adoring fans worshipping my every word with me safe in the knowledge that if anyone even looks at my code they have to add my name to the list of "original authors".
So what if someone sells what I gave away for free? It's not as if they're taking anything away from me, are they?
And if people stop developing the Pandora OS because someone else took their code and implemented it somewhere else without credit, then it's probably just as well they stop developing really, they're more interested in their ego than the OS.
D.
chris_r
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 745
I just checked and no they don't. The about page for all the emulators is the same on each emulator just with the emulator name and company swapped in.
You're entitled to not care what people do with your code, in which you'd probably want to put it under the MIT license or similar. However, if you don't like someone else's licensing terms, the only thing you're entitled to is to not use their code.
People don't use the GPL because they feel strongly about credit. Even the MIT license requires the licensee to preserve the copyright notice in non-source redistributions of the code. It's a pretty fundamental requirement. The reason people choose the GPL is that they want to make sure that all downstream users of their code are able to exercise certain freedoms. It basically lets anyone do whatever they want with the code, except for restricting what others can do with it.
The GPL does give you the right to take someone else's program and sell it, BUT it should be clear to the first person who buys your application that the whole thing is licensed under the GPL, with the source code either included or available on request. The buyer can then republish what they bought from you, and anyone else can download it for free. There is a way to get around that by including a protected trademark somewhere in your redistribution. This doesn't prevent someone from redistributing the source code or binaries with the trademark removed, though.
edit:
Yes, though the best case would be if the mupen64plus project themselves published Android builds on their downloads page, and then gave e.g. Engadget a summary of the situation and a polite request to publish an update to their previous coverage. I can dream, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, and I don't really care that much about what Yongzh did. But here's an analogy...
Suppose you get together for a friendly neighborhood ball game, and one guy gets caught cheating. Is it a big deal? No, not really.
Now suppose there is one guy who is always cheating, and everyone knows it. Then other people start cheating too. Soon no one wants to play any more. Is that a problem? Yes.
Since he's in China, that would be rather difficult. Theoretically, a court order in the United States could be used to confiscate proceeds from sales on the Android app store, if there was any money left that Google hasn't already paid him or refunded to customers. I doubt it would be worth the effort.
I'm not inclined to place a lot of faith in what he says.
He obviously went to some effort to obscure the fact that it was based on mupen64plus. I don't know what his motivation was. It wasn't hard to guess where this emulator came from, so this only succeeded in making people angry with him. I doubt the people who paid money cared one way or the other, but he's not making any money now that it's removed from the appstore.
I just don't understand what the heck he thought he was getting away with. Also, what he did is likely to cause problems in the long-term, such as developers being less willing to publish source code under GPL, and Google being more restrictive about what they allow on the app store.
It is implied by the requirement to publish an appropriate copyright notice.
No, that's a totally separate (and incomplete) project that was also called "n64oid".
notaz
Certified Guru
ED, it feels like you are trying to defend this guy, while in reality he is just full of sh*t. This is not really about the GPL, it's about taking someone's work, calling it your own and even making effort to hide this from others. If you have doubts about this fact I can tell you I've disassembled that thing myself. And don't tell me it's some cultural or he-did-not-know thing, it's quite obvious he is doing it on purpose. If people like Yuan Works for the same China can do things right, why can't he?
I wonder how you'd feel to see chinese pandora knockoff at 1/5 price (half of parts missing or whatever) that's even running some 'dorapan' firmware which was in fact exact same firmware that you were tweaking those whole nights, just with all names replaced.
It seems to be some trend by mainstream device porters to not even think about it and treat all open source software as public domain. I've seen it happen on PSP too, but there you can't really sell the result, so less need to hide it's a port.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I will not defend anyone who did a GPL violation on purpose. I just had no idea what exactly had happened so far. I was in the same situation with GPH a few years ago, where they violated the GPL but didn't intentionally do that (it took me a while to explain them what the GPL means
), I just thought it might be the same here.After browsing through the net some more, it seems it WAS on purpose, which is a bad thing.
When deciding whom to send an iCP, I checked the marketplace (and nothing there says anything about licenses, so I thought the licenses would be included in the downloads) and some devs on Android IRC talked to me and told me yongzh would be a great guy for that...
Well, to be honest, I wouldn't have any problems with them using my code, I'm happy to share my knowledge and work I've done with anyone. Heck, I remember that a long while back I'd suggested to even make the hardware public... though Michael and Craig quickly told me this could lead into cheap clones and kill us off.
I'm fine with giving away my works for free, but with the Pandora hardware, there's money involved - and therefore, clones could lead to us having problems to make a living.
But that's completely different case - I know I always gave away my knowledge way too cheap (that's something most of my friends and colleagues do tell me).
However with Mupen (and his other emulators as well, as it seems), I do not agree with what happened. If you want to use code, you have to accept the wills of the original coders, and that's something that didn't happen here.
Yes... that and the partly ignorant users ("Your homebrew game is boring. It's crap! Couldn't you write a tool which allows us to play ripped ISOs instead?" and similar) was what made me leave the PSP scene.
I'm one of the guys always trying to support the smallest groups. Heck, I've offered Zod money at some point to get his sourcecode released... he didn't want it, but mentioned he wants to release the sourcecode soon.
Well, thank god Zod has now released a really OPEN version of the PSX for Android. Finally
Guess I'll start trying to yongzh as well to see if the sourcecodes can be released.
It shouldn't hurt his sales, as he doesn't have to release the code for his launcher...
Well, it is a cultural thing, there are a lot of scams in China so people there think it's normal.
