Will The Emulators Be Free?

[elwing]

hum, some open source license allows you to charge for the sofware, but if i'm recalling corectly GPL only allow you to charge for the cost of distribution, no?

No. GPL allows you to charge whatever you want however you want, so long as you give the source to anyone who has purchased the binary when they ask for it.

hum, just checked again, GPLv3 allow you to charge what you want, not GPL... or I misundestood the text...

 

[pelrun]

All the GPL versions let you charge what you want. "Free as in speech, not free as in beer", as the saying goes.

In fact, it's a key provision. You're not obligated to give GPLed software away for free, but you *are* obligated to pass on the source code to whoever you sell/give the binary to, and you cannot prevent them then giving away both for free or selling copies under the same conditions/obligations.

 

[WizardStan]

Section 1 refers to the distribution of the binary

You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy

You can charge for the distribution of the binary but the license doesn't say anything about how much you can charge. You are free to put whatever price you want on it.

Section 2 refers to modifying the code. Specifically from subsection d

you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

If you want, you can charge for warranty and support of the application; the license says nothing about how much. If everything else fails, this is your "out" to allow you to charge for your open source application: just say it's a $X charge for a one year warranty.

Section 3 refers to the distribution of the source (this from subsection b, the offer to provide source on request)

except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution

You can charge for the source code but no more than the cost of distribution. ie, if the offer is for a CD with the complete source to be mailed out, you can charge for the CD and the stamp to ship it, but no more.

 

[TrashyMG]

So I couldn't for say install mame from compiling the source code myself? I wasn't talking about piracy.. all the emulators on the list for the most part are open source projects.

Yes and no.
You could easily get the MAME source for the PC version, you can get it right now, but it wouldn't be directly compilable for the Pandora. A lot of x86 and OpenGL specific stuff needs to be changed before it will actually run on an ARM platform.
So hypothetical situation: someone else has already done all the work. They think they deserve some sort of compensation for their effort, so they put the binary on the AppStore for a reasonable fee. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, legally or morally. And unless you have paid for the binary, he is under no obligation to give you the source code. So getting the Pandora compatible MAME source code and building it yourself would not be easy: someone who has paid for the binary would have to request it and then give it to you. Or you could download the PC source and make the changes yourself. Personally I think it's kind of a dick move (not illegal or really immoral, just not really fair) to get the source code for the sole reason of bypassing someone else's cost.

So, to followup, not all Linux applications are open source. We may actually see closed source ARM binaries in the AppStore at some point in the future. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Not all open source projects are free (as in beer), and this is not a bad thing either. Money encourages people to do better. You get superior open source software when there's incentive to work on it.
Even if the project is open source, they are not obligated to give you the source code unless you have legally acquired the binary.

I don't see it as a "Dick" move to compile software myself.. no offense If I put the same effort in as another person. It just means I'm paying someone for something I can do myself.. that money doesn't see the original programmer.. If anything I'd pay the original developer with paypal and cut out the middle man..

 

[WizardStan]

I don't see it as a "Dick" move to compile software myself.. no offense If I put the same effort in as another person. It just means I'm paying someone for something I can do myself.. that money doesn't see the original programmer.. If anything I'd pay the original developer with paypal and cut out the middle man..

Someone can put in hundreds of hours rewriting the recompiler for ARM, and you don't have any problem whatsoever just getting the source and compiling it yourself, against their desire for some sort of compensation?

 

[TrashyMG]

I don't see it as a "Dick" move to compile software myself.. no offense If I put the same effort in as another person. It just means I'm paying someone for something I can do myself.. that money doesn't see the original programmer.. If anything I'd pay the original developer with paypal and cut out the middle man..

Someone can put in hundreds of hours rewriting the recompiler for ARM, and you don't have any problem whatsoever just getting the source and compiling it yourself, against their desire for some sort of compensation?

Not if I spent the same amount of time on it.

 

[WizardStan]

Not if I spent the same amount of time on it.

Why would you need to download someone else's source if you're planning to do the same work? One of us isn't presenting their arguments very well, and I can't tell if it's you or me.

 

[pelrun]

If they put their work under the GPL, then it's not a 'dick move' for someone who gets the source to distribute it freely. That's the license they chose. If they want it any other way, then they are free to pick a different license, and refrain from using other GPL code in their work (because they are no longer entitled to it.)

You can't really use the standard business model to sell GPLed code. Instead, you sell value-added services on top of it, which is how Red Hat and Novell and all the other Linux companies make their money. Insisting that the GPL is in the wrong because it interferes with direct commercial exploitation is the real 'dick move' here.

 

[juniorm33]

So I couldn't for say install mame from compiling the source code myself? I wasn't talking about piracy.. all the emulators on the list for the most part are open source projects.

Yes and no.
You could easily get the MAME source for the PC version, you can get it right now, but it wouldn't be directly compilable for the Pandora. A lot of x86 and OpenGL specific stuff needs to be changed before it will actually run on an ARM platform.
So hypothetical situation: someone else has already done all the work. They think they deserve some sort of compensation for their effort, so they put the binary on the AppStore for a reasonable fee. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, legally or morally. And unless you have paid for the binary, he is under no obligation to give you the source code. So getting the Pandora compatible MAME source code and building it yourself would not be easy: someone who has paid for the binary would have to request it and then give it to you. Or you could download the PC source and make the changes yourself. Personally I think it's kind of a dick move (not illegal or really immoral, just not really fair) to get the source code for the sole reason of bypassing someone else's cost.

So, to followup, not all Linux applications are open source. We may actually see closed source ARM binaries in the AppStore at some point in the future. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Not all open source projects are free (as in beer), and this is not a bad thing either. Money encourages people to do better. You get superior open source software when there's incentive to work on it.
Even if the project is open source, they are not obligated to give you the source code unless you have legally acquired the binary.

I don't see it as a "Dick" move to compile software myself.. no offense If I put the same effort in as another person. It just means I'm paying someone for something I can do myself.. that money doesn't see the original programmer.. If anything I'd pay the original developer with paypal and cut out the middle man..

Sorry I think it's crossed wires here.
You can download the source yourself and compile it. That isn't a problem and is part of the fact that the Pandora is an open device, the more the merrier.
What we're saying is that you could have say an emulator that is for x86, but needs a lot of work to get it to work on the ARM, which isn't a simple recompile. Now if someone put in a lot of work to get that to work and wanted a little money for it, then that's not a problem, the same way it's not a problem if you wanted to do all that work yourself, and even give it away for free or charge for it, or keep it to all to yourself.
You can download the source and compile, write recompilers as much as you want.

 

[Dunny]

Sorry I think it's crossed wires here.
You can download the source yourself and compile it. That isn't a problem and is part of the fact that the Pandora is an open device, the more the merrier.
What we're saying is that you could have say an emulator that is for x86, but needs a lot of work to get it to work on the ARM, which isn't a simple recompile. Now if someone put in a lot of work to get that to work and wanted a little money for it, then that's not a problem, the same way it's not a problem if you wanted to do all that work yourself, and even give it away for free or charge for it, or keep it to all to yourself.
You can download the source and compile, write recompilers as much as you want.

And again, anyone that bought the binary from the port author could also insist on downloading the full source also - and then recompile and distribute that binary for free. The port's author can't do anything about that, because by choosing a license like GPL (and choosing to make use of available GPL code as their base) they explicitly granted permission for people to distribute their work for free.

Nobody's being a dick about it - the port author has, as I say, granted explicit permission for anyone to do this by utilising GPL code and licensing. So it's completely moral for them to do so.

D.

 

[WizardStan]

If they put their work under the GPL, then it's not a 'dick move' for someone who gets the source to distribute it freely. That's the license they chose. If they want it any other way, then they are free to pick a different license, and refrain from using other GPL code in their work (because they are no longer entitled to it.)

It's not illegal, but I still consider it a bit of a dick move. The GPL is supposed to encourage evolution of software by giving you the source code to the program that you are running, so that you can learn from it and change it as you see fit. It wasn't meant to circumvent compensating the person who actually did the work if that person wants to be compensated. Getting someone else to give you the source so you can compile it yourself thus avoiding paying for the binary is basically telling the developer "you think your code is worth something, but I think it's worth nothing". It's valid in the license, but it doesn't seem very nice.

 

[TaG]

Don't you just love another "GPL is..." discussion.

 

[Exophase]

It's not illegal, but I still consider it a bit of a dick move. The GPL is supposed to encourage evolution of software by giving you the source code to the program that you are running, so that you can learn from it and change it as you see fit. It wasn't meant to circumvent compensating the person who actually did the work if that person wants to be compensated. Getting someone else to give you the source so you can compile it yourself thus avoiding paying for the binary is basically telling the developer "you think your code is worth something, but I think it's worth nothing". It's valid in the license, but it doesn't seem very nice.

In cases such as this, the "person who did the work" isn't the one making the money. Sure, they may have done some work, but never anywhere near a majority of it. Put it this way - if the person selling were capable of reproducing the work themselves without a time investment that greatly eclipses what they have already put forth then the would do so, in order to better protect their profits. No one who wants to make money off of something they developed in their entirety is going to GPL it.

Making money off of software isn't about "getting what you deserve", it's about getting what you think you can. I feel that in capitalism the term "compensation" isn't that well fitting. That isn't really how things work. I think your argument has an especially substantial flaw - if the seller is not sharing their profits proportionally with the people who did the work in the first then isn't that much more of a "dick move" than the user not paying the seller for their minority contribution? By your logic, isn't that like saying "I think my code is worth something, but the collective much more significant code I didn't write is worth nothing"? In my opinion "worth" doesn't even enter the picture.

Of course there are cases where the seller actually does share the profits with the original author, but if there are many contributors spread out all over the place then this isn't even a realistic option, much less a practical one. In cases where one person did the original GPLed code then you're back to square one, where if that one person cares about protecting their profits then they'll change the license on the source.

In reality, very few GPLed items are sold standalone. Usually instead a commercial license is offered and what's being sold is not under the GPL. Or the item is sold as part of a larger hardware, software, or media package where the profits aren't derived from the GPLed work and source exposure itself isn't a risk. Trying to sell GPL programs where the program is the entire product is foolish and no one bothers to do this; they'd may as well just take donations instead of they care more about keeping their source open than making money from it.

 

[mali]

Don't you just love another "GPL is..." discussion.

Indeed :lol: It's been a while so it's about time now for a refresh....

 

[WizardStan]

I think your argument has an especially substantial flaw - if the seller is not sharing their profits proportionally with the people who did the work in the first then isn't that much more of a "dick move" than the user not paying the seller for their minority contribution? By your logic, isn't that like saying "I think my code is worth something, but the collective much more significant code I didn't write is worth nothing"? In my opinion "worth" doesn't even enter the picture.

Depends on whether the original authors wanted to be paid for their work or not, or if the new work overlaps the original. If the original author doesn't want compensation, then they've already labeled their work as "worthless"; if someone makes significant changes and chooses to charge for those changes, you should only be paying for those changes, and decide if the second authors belief in the change's value is the same as yours. The original author isn't being intentionally cut out because they didn't want to be cut in in the first place.
Or if someone writes an emulator that is x86 only, and chooses to charge for it, and a second author rewrites the recompiler to run on ARM and also charges for it, there's no overlap between the two sales so the original author can't claim to be losing anything.
Now, if the first author does charge for their work, and the second author takes the code and also charges for it, especially without making any changes, that feels wrong. Alice writes something, GPLs it because she believes in freedom, but still thinks the time she put into writing it is worth something, so she asks $10, as is her right. Bob buys Alice's program, requests the source, rebuilds it, and starts selling it at $8 without passing any back to Alice. Bob hasn't actually done anything wrong per the license, but does that make him right? What if he were only charging $1? What if he gave it away for nothing, does that make it suddenly better? In my mind it doesn't.
None of the authors even have to charge for it. If Alice is giving away her game for free, and Bob rebuilds the source and starts giving it away as well (especially if done in such a way that implies it was his in total, but not necessarily), per the license he has done nothing wrong, but it is still a dick thing to do, in my opinion. There have actually been some real world cases of this, an author putting his code as GPL only to have someone come along and basically "steal" (but not really steal, because it is totally valid within the license) their code. Those authors no longer GPL their code, and everybody loses.

 

[Exophase]

Depends on whether the original authors wanted to be paid for their work or not, or if the new work overlaps the original. If the original author doesn't want compensation, then they've already labeled their work as "worthless"; if someone makes significant changes and chooses to charge for those changes, you should only be paying for those changes, and decide if the second authors belief in the change's value is the same as yours. The original author isn't being intentionally cut out because they didn't want to be cut in in the first place.

So you honestly think that people turn down money if offered? Just because someone isn't charging doesn't mean that they don't want the money obtained.

Why should people value something depending solely on what the seller arbitrarily determines that it is (or isn't) worth? Just because a price is being asked doesn't mean that the price is justifiable. If the program was being sold for $100,000 would you still call someone a dick for getting it from someone else (assuming that someone actually bought it)?

Or if someone writes an emulator that is x86 only, and chooses to charge for it, and a second author rewrites the recompiler to run on ARM and also charges for it, there's no overlap between the two sales so the original author can't claim to be losing anything.

But this scenario is unrealistic because someone who writes GPL software doesn't decide to charge for it. It only happens when someone is modifying someone else's software, and even then it's not common.

Now, if the first author does charge for their work, and the second author takes the code and also charges for it, especially without making any changes, that feels wrong. Alice writes something, GPLs it because she believes in freedom, but still thinks the time she put into writing it is worth something, so she asks $10, as is her right. Bob buys Alice's program, requests the source, rebuilds it, and starts selling it at $8 without passing any back to Alice. Bob hasn't actually done anything wrong per the license, but does that make him right? What if he were only charging $1? What if he gave it away for nothing, does that make it suddenly better? In my mind it doesn't.

The whole act of making something GPL but wanting to limit its distribution is contradictory. You could argue that Bob is pursuing freedom more rigorously. This is all really pretty immaterial - if Alice cares so much about protecting her work then she should choose a different license (yes, I know I've made that very mistake myself), one that doesn't allow Bob to sell her program. If the question is the money she makes, why would it matter if Bob made any changes or not and how much he's selling it at? If anything, making positive modifications, something that she's promoting by making it GPL, should be a bigger threat to her.

None of the authors even have to charge for it. If Alice is giving away her game for free, and Bob rebuilds the source and starts giving it away as well (especially if done in such a way that implies it was his in total, but not necessarily), per the license he has done nothing wrong, but it is still a dick thing to do, in my opinion. There have actually been some real world cases of this, an author putting his code as GPL only to have someone come along and basically "steal" (but not really steal, because it is totally valid within the license) their code. Those authors no longer GPL their code, and everybody loses.

Yes, I was in that situation as well - but the reality was that I shouldn't have made my program GPL. I like some things about the GPL, but all in all it gives far more protection to people who modify code than people who write code. I don't think everybody loses though, there isn't something inherently great about GPL. You can spin a more restrictive license that accomplishes the same important things while protecting against this. It's under the license that allows and promotes this that people lose.

Regardless of what any of us think is "right", or a nice thing to do, if you expect people to respect your wishes regardless of their rights then you will always come out losing. In fact, some people are outright insulted if you dare ask them to do not do something that they're legally entitled to. You can't win.

But this is all pretty far removed from someone making money off of someone else's GPLed work. Many GPL pundits think that GPLed products can be successfully sold as is, which is hopelessly naive. GPLed software does have an important place in the software world, but not this one. It might not really matter, though, because the amount of standalone software being sold is dwindling. These days most software that people use is either available for free or strictly dependent on resources that are not software.

 

[aesir911]

no, it's a dick move. no one (generally speaking) has been paid in the past for emulators, why now? other software is one thing, but emulators and games??? big dick move...

 

[WizardStan]

So you honestly think that people turn down money if offered? Just because someone isn't charging doesn't mean that they don't want the money obtained.

No, if someone wants to give me a big bag of money, I'll take it, and I expect anyone else to do the same. But if I'm doing something not expecting to be paid for it, I'm not going to get upset when I don't get paid for it, even if someone else has found a way to make money off of it. My hat to them, they did the work to figure out how to get people to pay for something that I figured no one would pay for.
You are right, there are better licenses that would restrict things the way each of these authors would want, but they shouldn't really have to, in my opinion. Not in the world where everyone is nice and fair, anyway. To put my opinion more succinctly, just because you are allowed to do something doesn't automatically make it a right/nice/fair thing to do.
My opinion hasn't changed: getting the source code for the sole purpose of bypassing someone else's desire for payment seems like an inappropriate use of the license. It might be valid under the license, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Exophase]

But if I'm doing something not expecting to be paid for it, I'm not going to get upset when I don't get paid for it, even if someone else has found a way to make money off of it. My hat to them, they did the work to figure out how to get people to pay for something that I figured no one would pay for.

Okay, since your criteria is now how people have about it, how do you know that someone selling the derivative software would be upset at having it resold for free? What if the original author comes along and reincorporates all of their contributions then resumes giving it out for free? If someone was selling my GPLed software without offering me a cut then I'd probably either personally reproduce their work or get someone else to port it for free if it's to a platform I don't have or develop for - does that make me a dick too? Or would I just be one if I did it using their source? Or is it just valid depending on how upset they are? What if they're upset not because they're being "devalued", but just because they're no longer making money?

You are right, there are better licenses that would restrict things the way each of these authors would want, but they shouldn't really have to, in my opinion. Not in the world where everyone is nice and fair, anyway. To put my opinion more succinctly, just because you are allowed to do something doesn't automatically make it a right/nice/fair thing to do.

My opinion hasn't changed: getting the source code for the sole purpose of bypassing someone else's desire for payment seems like an inappropriate use of the license. It might be valid under the license, but that doesn't make it right.

The problem is that you're talking about a world where everyone's nice and fair, where what you mean is a world where everyone behaves by what you in particular determine to be nice and fair. The world would probably be a better place if everyone merely acted upon what they thought was a justifiably right thing to do, but I don't think you've given very convincing reason why forking someone's pay product isn't justifiable.

 

[WizardStan]

I don't think you've given very convincing reason why forking someone's pay product isn't justifiable.

I'm not objecting to forking someone's pay product out of hand, just in certain instances. Specifically in this case, I'm objecting to Carol asking Bob to fork his copy of the code so that she doesn't have to pay Alice. The reason I'm failing at any convincing is that I was trying to prove it in a general case, rather than just this specific case, so I'll try again. We can debate the other instances or even the general case later, but first let's get this one settled.

We have Alice writing software and charging for the binary. Bob has purchased the binary and has the source. Carol does not want to pay for Alice's code.
Carol, at this point, has no rights to the code whatsoever. She asks Bob to exercise his rights to transfer the code to her. Bob can do this, it is within the license agreement, but should he?
This next part relies on an assumption: can we agree that, when someone sells software, there's an implicit "don't make a copy and give it away" request? Alice should be using a different license that makes it an explicit request if that's her desire, no argument there, but for some reason she is stuck on GPL, so the implicit request will have to do. If Alice wasn't asking that her software not be given away, it wouldn't make any sense to charge in the first place, yes?
So Alice has asked Bob not to give away the source, Carol has asked Bob to give away the source. Bob is under no legal obligation to follow one request over the other. He could flip a coin and come up valid either way. So who's request should he follow? All things being equal, Carol has no rights to the code whereas Alice can at least claim some ownership over it. Alice is also the supplier, and by rejecting her request you risk losing that supply, as anecdotally demonstrated. By accepting Carol's request and denying Alice's, Alice is at risk of losing. The risk may not actually materialize (Carol could say "not worth it" and never buy it anyway) or it could manifest the other way in a proliferation this gratis version becoming more popular than the original. Carol, who currently has nothing anyway, can only benefit; even if Bob rejects her request and fulfills Alice's, Carol is no worse off than before.
Therefore, it would seem to me, Alice's request is the more correct of the two.