Slashdot Mirror
Jaleco Borrows PocketNES Emulator Source Code
Thanks to Waxy.org for its story discussing Jaleco's apparently legitimate use of the public domain PocketNES emulator in a Game Boy Advance game without explicit permission, explaining: "While the emulation community was outraged, the emulator's programmer felt a bit differently." The article notes: "Like the recent Classic NES Series, Jaleco Entertainment's Jajamaru Jr. for the Gameboy Advance is a nostalgic reissue for the Japanese market... [that] includes five different emulated classic NES/Famicom titles from Jaleco's library: Ninja Jajamaru, Jajamaru's Great Adventure, Exerion, City Connection, and Formation Z." Although "Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement", the emulator's author responded: "Yes, PocketNES is public domain... I wanted it to be public domain. This 'Jaleco incident', in fact, is the very reason I wanted to make it FREE (as in public domain) rather than 'GPL free' (strings attached). I'm not a fan of the GPL, I think it's selfish."
Emulator author releases source to public domain. Company takes advantage of his generosity to use public domain source. Emulator author pleased that his source is being used. Everyone happy except fanboys who don't know what "public domain" means.
Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?
I know Loopy, and this is what he always intended. There is nothing wrong with the company doing this. I agree with Loopy that prohibiting commercial use is selfish a lot of the time, but I wouldn't say *always*.
Melissa
Since the program was released under a very liberal license, this is the kind of thing that can happen, but as long as thats ok with the developer(s), then its a non issue. It's almost the same as when Microsoft used the BSD networking stack in Windows, where again nobody really cared but I'm sure it mustave flattered the original developers.
Public Domain is where coders often put "abandonware" stuff they're not particularly interested or proud of, or they'd likely get into legal hot water for asserting their ownership. (Or, alternatively, they're US Government employees who were funded by the US taxpayers).
I'm not saying they don't value their own software -- clearly they do, like any coder does -- but they don't care enough about it to ask people even to assert their authorship.
Given those set of values, I can easily understand the coder here.
Does my bum look big in this?
Let me try again: Public domain is as unrestricted as you can get. If you thought the above post had something to do with politics, well, I feel sorry for you and your country's education system.
Ha, their site must be hosted on a gameboy adv...what the...it's still up?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
This 'Jaleco incident', in fact, is the very reason I wanted to make it FREE (as in public domain) rather than 'GPL free' (strings attached). I'm not a fan of the GPL, I think it's selfish."
Uhm, your code is not "FREE" any more big guy, because I doubt Jaleco put it in the public domain themselves!
He thinks the GPL is selfish, but he thinks nothing of whatever license the company probably has on this game, with his code in it??
It goes like this on the FreedomScale(R):
Public Domain > GPL > any EULA
If he thinks the GPL has strings attached, what does he think of the ropes and chains on his software now?
He has indirectly created a piece of software with a license worst than the GPL.
It is this subtle point that makes the GPL so useful. It *keeps* the software free as others modify and use it.
I don't care what license or lack of license he uses. But please don't say things about the GPL that defy logic. And why pick on the GPL, when other licenses from BSD to Apache also have strings attached??
I followed the link to the PocketNES site, and sent the author a small cash contribution, just because it's so refreshing to see somebody act and respond so magnanimously.
Things here worked out brilliantly. The PocketNES folks put out a great piece of free software that many people enjoy, video game fans get to legally play some old classics, and Jaleco employees get some cash.
Those people who champion the GPL because they believe proprietary software is inherently wrong, I have respect for. (Though the subset of those champions who make their living writing proprietary software, well...) Stallman's plan certainly worked; look at all the excellent GPL-licensed software out there. It's a huge codebase that will never make its way into closed-source software -- mission accomplished. And it certainly was a clever plot to use copyright to keep software open.
But I'm not so politically motivated. Public-domain-style licenses are just fine for most open-source purposes. This situation was a perfect example why. Nobody gets hurt! Like I said above, things here worked out great for Jaleco, for PocketNES (which certainly gets more respect and attention for this), and for the Japanese video-game-playing public in general.
The only "injuries" are that Jaleco is selling more closed-source software, and that the PocketNES author doesn't get a cut. But the author knew full well this could happen, and he didn't care, because it didn't hurt him! He wasn't motivated by greed.
So the only remaining "injury" is that the body of closed-source software has once again grown. Again, for those of you who think this is a Bad Thing, I respect you and your views. But I disagree, and I suspect many of you do, too. GPL is overkill, most of the time.
He's just not funny.
Why not release the code under the BSD license? That way the code would still be available to anybody that wants to use it, and you would receive credit for your work as well.
Nintendo will no doubt be thrilled to learn that they have now licenced a game that contains code from an "unofficial" emulator.
Considering how the want to prohibit even legal hardware emulation of their systems (unless they have control over it), I think Jaleco might be in a tiny bit of hot water...
A person copied a system without renumeration to its creators, creating a system to play copies of other people's software without renumeration to the software's creators... OK, that's good and proper, right?
One of the creators of the software that was being copied without renumeration copied that person's software, without renumeration... And that's bad?
I must be getting middle aged. This stuff's just starting to sound like people getting outraged for the self-importance of getting outraged.
IMO, GPL is important because it protects code from companies such as Microsoft who would use it in their own product and make lots of money. That being said, if you don't MIND that kind of use for your code, then there is no problem with releasing your code in the public domain. If you want the glory of being incorporated in such a project, or you just want to help others out without bothering with their end intentions, then public domain is the way to go. That being said, I wouldn't put my code under any license more restrictive than the BSD license.
If that's true, loopy needs to see a psychiatrist and find out why he's against the basic human nature of seeking praise, reward and happiness.
Here's a hint: Nintendo are a sue-happy company that grind emulator authors into the ground. Nintendo is currently re-releasing old NES and SNES games on their GBA. What do you think Nintendo want to do with homebrew NES and SNES emulators on the GBA? I wouldn't admit to writing it either.
Loopy says "I wrote PocketNES so people could have fun playing old games.". If he didn't want any recognition, i.e. pure altruism as you're suggesting, he should have released it anonymously, like the author of Convert LIT does. But he still continues to work on the code, participate in the emulation community and add features and fix things that people ask. I'd say he enjoys recognition for his work, particularly kudos from users, but not to the extent that he'd put his real name on it as any copyright-based license would require him to do.
Call me cynical if you want, but I reckon he wants all the fun and rewards of authorship without any of the hassle (i.e. being sued to the point of bankruptcy for angering a rich bully)
It goes something like this: The USA, UK, European Countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and so on, are all free countries, right? But you can't go out and kill someone...in fact there are huge bodies of law restricting people's actions; but they're still free countries...
This is what the GPL is about; it's about preserving everybody's freedoms by placing some restrictions on the use of the code.
holy shit it's a logical slashdot poster
Because using public domain code in a commercial product is analogous to murder... Right...?
Sure, anybody can release their code under any terms they like. The point of the story, I think, is that if you release something public domain or using BSD-like terms, somebody may well take your code and make money from it.
Maybe you expect that and are fine with it, and have as a goal the encouragement of better software (say, going back 15 years, if you release a toolkit like Tcl/Tk because you want to provide an alternative to C/Motif), or just recognition and acclaim based on wide usage.
But this seems somehow wrong when the product being released and charged for is a small increment on top of the original PD stuff. This could happen if the code is a full application rather than components or framework.
If I release a program in the latter category I would consider a license that says "free to non-profits, but pay me if it's a commercial product". This probably has a name in the OSS license taxonomy but I don't know what it is. It seems fairest because the author would always get a share of the profits (whether they are zero or not). I think universities tend to give approval to research projects releasing their code under this kind of license more easily than the GPL - these days technology licensing is no small matter for schools.
If the author of the PocketNES code thought about this and figured PD was what he wanted, great. But the next person might be in for a surprise if they don't think the issues through...
That have been in circulation for how long now? 15-20 years?
The legal standard is not 15. Not 21. It's ninety-five.
PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way, it uses the MiniLZO Library. Jaleco is not using that component.
the emulation community was upset about copyright infringement of an emulator's source code. Someone tell them they're infringing on copyrights by downloading ROMs for free. hypocrites. -_-
... deliver their own punch lines.
Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement.
The author of PocketNES appears to be aware of some GPL infringement (perhaps infringement of MiniLZO), but it casts an entirely different light on the story (and thus makes so much of this Slashdot story obsolete). The author writes:
As you can see, the author dismisses this far too quickly; this infringement may change the entire means by which PocketNES is licensed. But this whole story shows the underlying reality of copyright law: licenses are only as strong as the copyright holder. If the copyright holder(s) to MiniLZO do not defend their copyright, their work can and will be included in non-GPL derivatives.
Take another look at this quote from the PocketNES author:
There are profound misunderstandings here, but I think I can distill the major points of rebuttal to two objections:
I have no problem with someone choosing to place their work into the PD or license their work under a generous non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license or the MIT X11 license). I use those works, I build upon those works, I distribute those works, and I thank them for their effort. I also have no problem with works regularly entering the PD by expiring copyright in a timely manner (far shorter than the current term of copyright). But that's not what appears to be going on here; neither of these sentiments are being made real here. This author's words appear to be an attempt at a gift of code with a colossal misunderstanding of why the GPL exists and what it attempts to do.
I usually find that people who don't mind treating businesses like charities are naive and have little real-world experience with businesses. They are rudely awakened to the reality that one's misunderstanding of how copyright law works will not absolve them of copyright responsibilities.
Digital Citizen
He went to such lengths to let it be known that he didn't like a joke someone made, what a moron!
S/he could be like Dani Bunten.
No, because they have never needed to. In a move sure to please those who think the US is too litigious, the FSF has chosen to work with infringers so they are no longer infringing upon the FSF's copyright license. I would cite a document stating this, but this comes from Brad Kuhn, executive director of the FSF, who came to a college near where I live and spoke about the history of free software including how the FSF reacts to copyright infringement.
One of the GNU GPL's biggest strengths is that people and organizations of all sizes have been using the GPL for the better part of two decades and only recently has anyone been willing to pursue anything close to a GPL infringement case. Lawyers have studied the license and apparently concluded that it is solid. Eben Moglen has spoken on this at his Harvard talk and his two articles on the topic of enforcing the GPL.
Digital Citizen
Laws made by the U.S. Congress don't apply to Japan. Odd, that.
And in Japan, the current term of copyright is the minimum Berne standard, that is, the end of the year in which the last surviving author died plus 50 years.