Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jaleco Borrows PocketNES Emulator Source Code

Posted by simoniker on from the all's-fair-in-thing-and-thing dept.

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."

5 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Whats the problem then? by chrispyman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  2. Re:So... what's the story? by olimar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    GPL + controversy = guaranteed Slashdot headline. Shocking!

    Personally, I'm a bit suprised Nintendo doesn't license out their emulator (used in the "Classic NES Series") to other companies. Nin's own emulator is in many ways superior to PocketNES (this is loopy from the article, btw, so I'm allowed to bag on my own software :)

  3. Yeah... by gasaraki · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because using public domain code in a commercial product is analogous to murder... Right...?

  4. Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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:

    Yes, PocketNES is public domain (at least, that was my intent. Kuwanger has brought it to my attention that I may be in violation of the GPL, but let's not worry about that for now).

    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:

    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. Let someone take an idea, do something cool with it, and not have to hesitate because of legal nitpickings. If a company can take something that I made, and turn it into a product that other people enjoy, I'm all the happier for it. Why should I care if someone else profits off of something I made? It's already free. Demanding that someone pay homage to my work is just ego-stroking, and I'm not into that. Sure, as a courtesy it would have been nice for Jaleco to tell me "hey, thanks for the source", and they didn't, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it, because I didn't write PocketNES so people would pat me on the back. I wrote it so people could have fun playing old games. And that's exactly what's happening here. Mission accomplished.

    There are profound misunderstandings here, but I think I can distill the major points of rebuttal to two objections:

    • If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.
    • The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will become clear to anyone who has released their program under a non-copyleft free software license or in the PD and then watched as they had to compete against a derivative of their own program. This is not a pleasant experience and yet by the time it happens, one has already chosen to forgo all copyright power to stop it from occurring. This is why everyone "should [...] care if someone else profits off of something" they hold the copyright to.

    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
    1. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by olimar · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.
      An unfortunate mistake I've admitted to. I may have done things differently if I was aware of this at the time I released the source. This doesn't change my stance though.
      The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will become clear to anyone who has released their program under a non-copyleft free software license or in the PD and then watched as they had to compete against a derivative of their own program. This is not a pleasant experience and yet by the time it happens, one has already chosen to forgo all copyright power to stop it from occurring. This is why everyone "should [...] care if someone else profits off of something" they hold the copyright to.
      If you're not prepared for the ramifications of releasing something into the PD (someone taking your stuff and running with it) then I agree with you - you're a fool for doing it. Yes, the GPL is a way to protect yourself from this. This is what makes me call the GPL selfish - it's saying "I don't want to make money from this, but dammit, I don't want to see you get something out of it either". Oh, it's not about the money? But it's still about control. It says "Here, have my source, it's free! But I get to tell you what to do with it. And I get to dictate what you do with YOUR source too, since you used something that's mine." It's selfish in that you're still trying to maintain control over something that you've deigned as free. If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.