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."

71 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. So... what's the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:So... what's the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One thing. You're missing the irony of a piece of software written to pirate video games being pirated to play video games. (In the opinion of the fanboys - the author knew he didn't have a leg to stand on.)

    2. Re:So... what's the story? by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the author knew he didn't have a leg to stand on

      No, the author is completely happy because this is what he intended in the first place, anybody can take the source and use it for anything they want.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    3. Re:So... what's the story? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?
      The story is supposed to be intended to say that the copying of code was legally permitted. However, the phrasing of Slashdot's title and leading statement seems to distort this to imply that it is code theft rather than something that's permitted. (The 'dept' thing doesn't count, since it is easily glanced over.)

    4. Re:So... what's the story? by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the dept part ALWAYS counts. if the title is a joke, the dept is the punchline. check out the 'pixel blocks for fun, profit' story from the 'not so much with the profit' dept

    5. Re:So... what's the story? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?"

      There's plenty of story here. It's the drama that's virtually non-existent. Here on Slashdot, I find that to be a relief.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:So... what's the story? by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fans of the emulator, and the emulation scene, were upset because the work of this author was being used for evil commercial purposes by an evil company. If you haven't noticed, companies now play the role of the hated other. They routinely do terrible things that go unpunished (Shell murdering people in Nigeria, anyone?) and provide worse and worse products. For a company to take someone's work without payment and expoit it commercially is the highest evil imaginable.

      Ok, that's a little thick, but you get the point. The problem is this "evil" company is Jaleco, a videogame company which generally seems motivated simply by making quirky games out of quirky ideas and doing so on the cheap. They probably re-released the games because they wanted people to play their stuff, rather than they wanted a quick buck. I know this isn't true at all publishers, and I have no personal contact with Jaleco, but most people who get into gaming do so because they love it, not because there is much money to be made. True, there are some toothpaste salesmen, but by and large even publishers are gamers. What they should have done was notify and thank the original author... but I wouldn't crucify them for that. They put out more retrogames into the world. They deserve support.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    7. Re:So... what's the story? by joshholm · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?"

      I think the real issue is the emulator author's blasphemy against the glorious GPL license. We, as honorable /. group-thinkers, must get out our torches and pitchforks and find this heathen. ;)

    8. 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 :)

    9. Re:So... what's the story? by mriker · · Score: 1
      ...a piece of software written to pirate video games...
      Ah, so only pirates use emulators, is that right? And the author revealed to you that he wrote it for the purpose of assisting piracy?
    10. Re:So... what's the story? by Westacular · · Score: 1

      There's the slightest bit of story in that the emulator uses a GPLed library to handle save states; the company showed some savviness regarding such matters by not including this in what they released. Of course, for their purposes, it wouldn't make sense for them to include save state features anyway...

      But, you are correct. There is no real story beyond the indignation expressed by uninvolved and irrelevant fanboys.

    11. Re:So... what's the story? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?

      Nope, you're not missing anything. Maybe you're on the wrong site though. This is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters", and this story is a story interesting to nerds (software, source code, freedom), as for the "stuff that matters" part, it does matter to some (enough to be a story).

      This story is interesting specifically in the fact that sometimes a company can take source code and build a non-open product and not be evil by doing so. Yes, it has happened before, but this is a contemporary example. It's a twist on an old story, "Company takes community source code and there's outrage (ok, we hear this story now and then, but...)--project author pleased with the use of his code (What? Oh, I see, it was BSD style free.)"

      There are enough people who are all "Free as in GPL" who might benefit from hearing the point of view of someone who is all "Free as in BSD". It raises the issue for the reader to consider whether they prefer something that's so free it is free to become unfree, or something that's so free it can never become unfree. Which is more free? How do you choose?

      Huh, I bet that could be an interesting story, one which could make one think.

    12. Re:So... what's the story? by TechniMyoko · · Score: 1

      You're the famous loopy? Wow. I just got a flash cart a few days ago and I love PocketNes. PocketSnes is extremely impressive.
      I can only hope something I program on GBA is as well done and well used as PocketNes

  2. Loopy's okay with it as article says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      The GPL doesn't prohibit commercial use at all.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      I agree with Loopy that prohibiting commercial use is selfish a lot of the time, but I wouldn't say *always*.

      I think corporations are selfishly trying to make as much profit as possible for their top management and shareholders.

      But ah, maybe I was smoking crack when I was reading ,a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith'>Ada m Smith.

      My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

      Yes, they have to share their (modified) code, and sometimes that balances things out. On the other hand, sometimes al they add is their company logo, and you often see software "agregators" selling CDs of GPL'd software, without ever clearly explaining this stuff is freely available.

      Given that companies also use those profits to buy legislation like the INDUCE Act, writing code as "charity work" for for-profit companies is tantamount to volunteering to forge your own shackles and chains for your enslavers.

      --
      Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
    3. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

      Would you really want to have to pay IBM whenever you make an open source program?

      Given that companies also use those profits to buy legislation like the INDUCE Act...

      Logical fallacy #1: overly broad assumption. You need to show that companies sponsoring INDUCE are using the GPL at all (or are using public domain software from piddly podunk programmers).

      Logical fallacy #2: Assumption of corruption. After the flagrant disregard for copyright brouhgt about by Napster and its clones, criminalizing software that is designed to share copywritten work isn't unreasonable. Especially since, as its worded, INDUCE won't slap BitTorrent or FTP or even a classic P2P that uses Creative Common's licenseing schemes.

    4. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code."

      And it forces them to give the code back to you if they release it as well (well if you ask for it). Using it internally is a different matter.

      What the fuck is wrong with this? Why is it wrong for someone to make money off of something else? I know someone that gave away his comic collection after I suggested he eBay it, and the guy he gave it to suggested he might sell it. When it got sold for quite a bit of money, the original giver got pissed off that he didn't make any money and demanded 'at least half'.

      What a fucking moron.

      The idea of the GPL isn't that someone can't make money off of it -- actually thats one on the selling points of it -- its that you have to keep sharing. If someone makes money off of it, you can take the same code and sell it yourself too.

      Why have a problem at all? If thats what someone wants to do with it, cool. If thats not how you want to deal with your code, thats cool as well.

      Personally, I release my code three ways depending on how I feel about it. I have commercial code that I release with no source. I have commercial code I release with source to most clients -- but the first is solely for stuff I don't feel like having others know how the mathmatics and statistics engine is working. Yeah they can reverse engineer it, but that would take quite a bit of work and understanding how I originally created the engine in the first place, and if they understand, they could have done the same thing themselves.

      Secondly, I release other code as GPL...older stuff that I want to live beyond my control. Stuff that doesn't have all the new code in it or that I have already presented the idea behind it at a conference or had published in a journal. No reason to keep it a secret -- and I've already got my glory. If someone else takes it and uses it commercially, folks already know who did what. And if they make any modifications to my code -- I can see what they've done and reintegrate what they've done (and without stealing the code -- just the ideas).

      Thirdly, stuff that I *HOPE* others make money off of or uses how ever they feel -- that gets either BSD'd or Public Domain'd -- depending if I need my name on it or not. Generally utilities I need to do my work, but has nothing to do with the basis of my work. Stuff I don't want anyone to f'n bother me about nor call me up and ask me to make additions to it. There is no way I'm going to make any additions to this code because it doesn't interest me past what I needed it to do and then I discard it. I've seen some of the public domain stuff come back a few years later when I need have more functions and I look out on the net for something that can do what I need it to do but more than the last one did -- the last time I did that, I found someone else had taken my software and actually added these functions to it (and still kept the appropriate contacts in there even though I didn't ask them to do it). Luckily the field I work in is small enough that there is some comradery even if we compete against each other...heck, most of the time we know how the others are implementing their ideas, but we ultimately think our approach is better, so it doesn't really matter.

      But no matter how I license my code, its done with a purpose. Anyone that picks a license and doesn't think about it or goes with the group think on the subject is a fucking idiot. Personally, I think GPL is a group think license. The few folks that release quality apps are doing so through the use of the community and mainly acting as a project manager in the task -- or they are fully endoctrinated in to the religion and can't understand why anyone would do anything else. The others -- well their software is crap and I don't understand why they need to release it in the first place with a license. Past that -- its mainly nonprogrammers that never c

    5. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Trusting the client to handle the user interaction is one thing, trusting the client to calculate outcomes is another thing. Aimbots and the like cannot be prevented, opensource or closed source, but things like Freelancer's "The client can create and destroy objects on the server at will" can. Trust the client only as far as user interaction goes (since you can't check that, anyway) but not an inch further. Sure it would reduce the server load if you could establish a P2P-style network where each client computes its part of the world, but it's far too easy to cheat that way. Let's take an MMORPG: A hacked client computs a part of the world. Now, for some reason, the client just assumes that every low level monster in there has a 100% chance of dropping some ultra-rare and powerful item. If you trust that client you suddently have hundreds of people runnng around with hundreds of super powerful items, if you check back on that you bring the server load back to its old, high level.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1

      I have commercial code that I release with no source. I have commercial code I release with source to most clients -- but the first is solely for stuff I don't feel like having others know how the mathmatics and statistics engine is working.

      I completely understand that this may be a clever thing to do in a capitalist economy as we live in. However, I'm sure you understand that in total, this approach leads to less innovation, and more problems (such as bugs in software because there are only few people who can fix them.)

      This is exactly Stallman's point: If people would just stop accepting non-Free Software, things would be much better. The problem is that things would be better for everyone, and not always directly for the person it concerns.

      And if they make any modifications to my code -- I can see what they've done and reintegrate what they've done (and without stealing the code -- just the ideas).

      Sounds like you need to do a lot of double work, just because you don't release your main code under the GPL. Also, with large contributions it will be hard to show that you didn't use the code, especially it is clear that you have indeed seen their code. Copying it by hand with small modifications like different variable names is still copying. You are probably just lucky that noone can be bothered to sue, or that they don't know because you keep your code closed.

      [I license BSD or put in the public domain] Stuff I don't want anyone to f'n bother me about nor call me up and ask me to make additions to it.

      These should not be reasons not to use the GPL. With the GPL, you are allowed to not respond to anyone asking you things, you can specifically state in the program that you feel like that, so they don't call you. Of course you can't prevent them from forking, but you don't want to anyway if you'd use a PD-style license.

      I've seen some of the public domain stuff come back a few years later when I need have more functions and I look out on the net for something that can do what I need it to do but more than the last one did -- the last time I did that, I found someone else had taken my software and actually added these functions to it (and still kept the appropriate contacts in there even though I didn't ask them to do it). Luckily the field I work in is small enough that there is some comradery even if we compete against each other...

      So you're very happy about BSD/PD, because it allows others to make additions and if they release them again then you are lucky to be in a field of work where the people are so nice to give you back their new source? Guess what, if you'd have used the GPL then it wouldn't be about luck. You get it back with source, or they don't release it at all. Them not releasing it may sound like a bad thing, but if your software is any good, they want to use it as a basis for their own product. And if they do that, then they do it nicely (by releasing with source, which is good for everyone), or they can only use it internally, which is probably mostly their own problem. The other option (which is not available with the GPL) of releasing the new program, but not the source, would result in a program that can no longer be improved. Not having those releases doesn't sound like a big loss to me.

      Anyone that picks a license and [...] goes with the group think on the subject is a fucking idiot.

      If they have thought about it for themselves, I don't see the problem. The group can be right.

      Personally, I think GPL is a group think license. The few folks that release quality apps are [...] or they are fully endoctrinated in to the religion and can't understand why anyone would do anything else.

      Religion is about believing things that cannot be proved. Indoctrination is about making people believe things so strongly that t

    7. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1

      My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

      Would you really want to have to pay IBM whenever you make an open source program?

      He says he considers it reasonable to give IBM part of the profit he makes (and only if he used IBM software for it), not to give them money for doing things that don't make him money. I don't agree with him, but your wording means something quite different.

      After the flagrant disregard for copyright brouhgt about by Napster and its clones, criminalizing software that is designed to share copywritten work isn't unreasonable.

      It's not designed to share copyrighted work. It's simply designed to share, and (just like a VCR) it doesn't bother to try to prevent sharing copyrighted work. That is illegal, and a copying device being available doesn't change that.

      But if so many people consider copyright to be unimportant, then it might be a good idea to change the law. You live in a democracy after all, or don't you? Copyright and technology don't go together anymore. One of them has to go away. Which one would you choose?

      Don't get me wrong, I want artists to get money for their work. But the current copyright system just isn't the right way. Instead of protecting it with laws that stifle innovation, politicians should better think about how a new system should look.

      Especially since, as its worded, INDUCE won't slap BitTorrent or FTP or even a classic P2P that uses Creative Common's licenseing schemes.

      Oh that's good, only P2P systems where people can stay anonymous are targeted. I'm sure oppressive regimes (at company, national, or any other level) won't mind.

    8. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      But if so many people consider copyright to be unimportant, then it might be a good idea to change the law. You live in a democracy after all, or don't you? Copyright and technology don't go together anymore. One of them has to go away. Which one would you choose?

      You're arguing a real, REAL false dicotomy. I'll give you two examples to think about.

      Example 1: Fifty years ago, most people considered racial equality (or the rights of a person accused of a crime) to be unimportant. Should we have stayed that way?

      Example 2: Microsoft. Like it or not, copyright law is how MS got the huge dollars they get--and despite their despicable business pracites, they have pushed for innovation in the industry as a whole (even if that innovation is mostly "let's do it better than those bastards at MS").

      (Now, of course, I agree that copyright isn't the right system to protect software. But speak up about the rational way to protect new things done in software--patents--and you'll get a bunch of wannabe hackers bitching about how "code is art." A hammer is art too, but you don't see Black & Decker relying on copyright to keep its designs distinct.)

      Oh that's good, only P2P systems where people can stay anonymous are targeted. I'm sure oppressive regimes (at company, national, or any other level) won't mind.

      News flash: you're not anonymous now. If you use Napster, or Kazaa, or Gnutella, or any of the rest of the Napster rip-offs, a competent lawyer and a competent sysadmin can track you down and slap you with a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

      Oh, and if you bother to look, Creative Common's licensing scheme DOES let you be anonymous. It's actually a rather clever way to mark what items are or aren't "shareable", by tracing them back to a person who sends them out.

      (not to mention that users of Bittorrent or anything else are essentially anonymous. Just the person who does the potential criminal act has to have a pointer to them.)

      In the greater meme, if you really have cause to be anonymous, there are plenty of ways that don't involve the internet (which was never intended to incorporate anonymnity) to be so. The simplest method is US mail with a bogus return address, but other schemes up to an even including hiring a lawyer to convey your messages exist and are entirely workable--and far more reliable than the false anonymnity of the internet.

    9. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1

      Having code out there that does everything and I just play lego and mash it together to me is just as bad to socieety as it teaches you not to figure out how to deal with shit on your own, but teaches you how to take other peoples work and integrate it into your own.

      You seem to think that all blocks have been built, and writing a program can be nothing more than putting them together, if only you had the blocks. Even if this was true, I would not see the problem, but it isn't true anyway. There are always new things to be written. Not in 10,000 years will that end. You know why? Because the rest of the world is changing. 20 years ago, people thought that 640kB should be enough for everyone. Now we want more. That's not because the memory changed, but because there are faster CPUs and graphic cards to actually use that memory.

      But as I said, even if it was true, there is no point in not doing it. That's the same as saying we shouldn't give anyone a car, because then they don't have the pleasure of inventing it for themselves. For learning reasons, many people write things that have been written before, and nobody has a problem with it. However, it is nonsense to keep available programs from people just because they might use them otherwise.

      As for my example about taking others contributions to GPL'd work and integrating it back into my own -- you mis the entire point.[...]

      Your example assumes that you know a better way to do things than what you see in the code. What if you don't? Will you write code that is worse, just because copying is not allowed?

      All in all, you sound like the religious one. Prove my religion wrong or you are a heretic you say.

      The philosophy section of gnu.org is nothing like the bible. The bible is full of stories, which religious people say you should believe are actually history (in a more or less literal sense.) The philosophy section is full of reasons why free software is indeed better than non-free software. For example, in Why schools should use exclusively free software, Stallman gives arguments for his statements. It's not a believe-it-or-not story, it's a clearly written article which makes some points. If you don't agree with the points (except the ethical base), then you're supposed to give arguments saying what's wrong with the article. Where does his logic fail? You are simply saying that the article doesn't actually defend anything, it just tells a story. Well, read it again. What he says is simply true, except School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. That is an axiom, and if you don't agree with it, then there's no point in arguing. But all the other points are simple logic and facts, and I ask you again to tell me which facts are incorrect, or where the logic doesn't hold up.

      I look at solely the ethics [...] If they cannot be free to think, they are less likely to contribute to society and more likely to do only that which contributes to themselves.

      I am quite surprised to hear this from you. You may actually be right for your situation. What I'm saying is not that in all cases GPL'd code is the only Right Way. I'm saying that if you don't use GPL, then there must be a reason for it. You seemed to disagree, but the argument you make here may be a valid one. My point is that usually, GPL is simply better for society than BSD or closed source. If you have a reason, you should consider the effects of your choice. In some cases the conclusion may be that the GPL should not be used. But (I came to the conclusion that) it should be used by default, and there are very few reasons to do something else.

      The current economics of society allow for this. It also allows for GPL and BSD ideals. Saying one is better than the other ignores the re

    10. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1
      Example 1: Fifty years ago, most people considered racial equality (or the rights of a person accused of a crime) to be unimportant. Should we have stayed that way?

      We did stay that way. Only when people started to think of it as something important, it was changed. That's how things are. They don't always change fast enough to my taste, but things change because people want them to change. At the moment I have the feeling what people want counts much less than what makes the big companies money, and that's a pity, but I'll not go into that now.

      Example 2: Microsoft. Like it or not, copyright law is how MS got the huge dollars they get--and despite their despicable business pracites, they have pushed for innovation in the industry as a whole (even if that innovation is mostly "let's do it better than those bastards at MS").

      I'm not saying copyright law doesn't get people a lot of money. I'm saying that it costs too much for society in terms of freedoms it loses. Of course there are people who innovate. But I think there must be other ways to let people innovate without taking away all those freedoms. I didn't think of how exactly, because noone would listen to me anyway.

      News flash: you're not anonymous now. If you use Napster, or Kazaa, or Gnutella, or any of the rest of the Napster rip-offs, a competent lawyer and a competent sysadmin can track you down and slap you with a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

      I wasn't talking about being anonymous to do criminal things. I was more thinking about running a human rights organisation in China or something. I would like people to be able to do that, and I don't care what the internet was invented for, if it can make it possible then that is a Good Thing.

    11. Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1
      (not to mention that users of Bittorrent or anything else are essentially anonymous)
      This would be the BitTorrent that, as an integral part of the protocol, lists the IP numbers of all the seeds/peers taking part in a transfer?
  3. 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.

  4. As far as I've noticed, by kyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:As far as I've noticed, by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .....Or the author could be releasing it into public domain as an act of good will, freeing it in the most extreme sense of the word in hopes that it will benefit others? 'Cause, that's what just happened.

    2. Re:As far as I've noticed, by Electrum · · Score: 1
      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.

      Or they simply want it to be used by as many people as possible. Lots of excellent software is public domain. SQLite is a great example:

      The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of a legal notice, here is a blessing:

      May you do good and not evil.
      May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
      May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
      The above is taken from the SQLite source code.
    3. Re:As far as I've noticed, by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      if everyone gave more than they took thered be a bit of an excess in stuff to take...

      --
      I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
  5. /. effect by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Funny

    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
  6. linked comments by black+mariah · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the linked article comments:
    I'm of two minds on this one. Open-source / public-domain or not, the code was still taken without consent: it was stolen. The fact it was then used to make money just worsens their situation. Jaleco did the wrong thing.
    The author of the software comes out and says "I put this in the PUBLIC DOMAIN so things like this WOULD HAPPEN." and some other dipshit thinks that using that code is stealing. FUCKING MORON! Learn what public domain means, dumbass. No consent is needed, because no ownership is claimed.
    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    1. Re:linked comments by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
      How can you put something in the public domain, and yet still not consent to others taking it??

      And how does them making money/not making money change the morality of thier actions?? What they did is either right or it's wrong.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  7. Throw this guy your support! by vslashg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Throw this guy your support! by black+mariah · · Score: 1
      Jaleco is selling more closed-source software
      No, they are not. They are selling an emulator based on PUBLIC DOMAIN code. This is no more closed source than any GPL project.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:Throw this guy your support! by vslashg · · Score: 1
      They are selling an emulator based on PUBLIC DOMAIN code. This is no more closed source than any GPL project.
      The emulator is public domain, but the main thing they're selling is their collection of five closed-source games.

      Putting that aside, who knows what changes or improvements they may have made to PocketNES? Perhaps they didn't make any, but if they did, they never have to share the source with anybody. As you might gather from my grandparent post, I don't think this is a problem. But it's certainly not open-source.
    3. Re:Throw this guy your support! by black+mariah · · Score: 1
      The emulator is public domain, but the main thing they're selling is their collection of five closed-source games.
      That have been in circulation for how long now? 15-20 years? Sorry, this just isn't an open/closed thing.
      Putting that aside, who knows what changes or improvements they may have made to PocketNES? Perhaps they didn't make any, but if they did, they never have to share the source with anybody.
      No, they don't and the author of the software doesn't care. You know what else? This is exactly how the BSD license works as well. I don't see anyone saying that isn't open source. You're confusing Stallman-esque "Free Software" that has its basis in software-as-religion and "Open Source" software that has its basis in reality. Free Software is some lame moral crusade about proprietary software being evil. Open Source software just means the code is available. It doesn't get much more available than being in the public domain.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    4. Re:Throw this guy your support! by vslashg · · Score: 1
      [Source code] doesn't get much more available than being in the public domain.
      Of course not. But public domain is not viral. People can and do make closed-source apps based on public-domain code. The fact that the PocketNES is open-source doesn't magically make Jaleco's cart based on it open-source.

      I know this is how the BSD license works. That, the MIT license, and true public domain were what I was thinking of when I wrote "public-domain-style licenses" in my original post. This is my favorite style of open-source licensing, and I don't like the Stallman "software-as-religion" approach, so I'm sort of surprised that we're having this debate. "Closed-source" is not a slur. I'm not insulting this GBA game, I'm just calling it what it is.

      I'm really not religious about this thing, but I believe your categorization of the Jaleco product is definitionally wrong. If I release binaries without making the source open, then the binaries are not open-source. This has nothing to do with politics or software-religion.
    5. Re:Throw this guy your support! by Bas_Wijnen · · Score: 1
      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...)

      Those who really believe in Free Software, but still write non-Free Software, must have a reason for it. They are probably not happy with their job. I know that in the Netherlands you are pretty much forced to take any job (including jobs you morally oppose) if you are unemployed, otherwise the state stops giving you welfare.

      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.

      While we've come a long way, we're not quite there yet. The plan was to make everyone consider closed source a Bad Thing(tm), so for example hardware manufacturers will by default write their drivers as open source. I'm sure you agree that that is not yet the case :-)

      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.

      For those of us who think this is a bad thing, you didn't give any argument why the GPL is overkill, because (according to us) it prevents Bad Things from happening. Sounds good to me :-)

      I don't see why you suspect that many of us would disagree with our own views. Or were you talking to the slashdot crowd in general? In that case you are most certainly right.

    6. Re:Throw this guy your support! by incom · · Score: 1

      I think why many people like the gpl in this situation is that if a company wants to sell a product based upon the GPL code, then the GPL project gets back any improvements that are made, and the company still makes money. In this (pd) case, emulator doesn't receive any impovements that jaleco make. It isn't always blind anti-closed source people, some just like to give their software away and receive improvements if others modify it, and they couldn't care less what others do with thier own code.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  8. Re:I don't understand his thinking by black+mariah · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If he thinks the GPL has strings attached, what does he think of the ropes and chains on his software now?
    What ropes and chains, moron? You can't take something out of the public domain once it's there. Public domain means that nobody has ownership and nobody controls it. Then again, you're too stupid to comprehend the fact that he doesn't care that Jaleco used his code, despite quoting him saying so in your own post.
    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  9. BSD License? by Blackknight · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:BSD License? by black+mariah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the author just doesn't care about credit, has no interest in playing bullshit software politic games, and just wants to have fun writing some software. You ever think that not everyone sees software as a religion?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  10. Nintendo and Jaleco by HimajinX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  11. The Self Importance Of Outrage by nick_davison · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. Why GPL and Public Domain are both important! by agraupe · · Score: 1

    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.

  13. Re:I don't understand his thinking by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Uhm, your code is not "FREE" any more big guy, because I doubt Jaleco put it in the public domain themselves!

    Erm, last time I checked anythng Jaleco can do with it cannot prevent people from downloading the original public domain code and do what they want. Jaleco uses a copy of the code, maybe with some modifications, to make their compilation. People can still download the original code, everybody but GPL fanboy are happy.
    The program was made public domain so everybody could use it instead of every company/developer having to reinvent the wheel. Few corporations like the prospect of having to release their modified code or something like that, so they'd have to reinvent the wheel to have essentially the same software without the GPL strings. This way they saved a lot of work without catching any strings. Maybe it will encourage more developers to release NES game compilations.
    I'd go as far as saying only PD or equivalent software is free software because only with a PD/evivalent license you're absolutely free to do and don't do what you want. With the GPL you're not free to release a closed source derivative.
    PD benefits all developers, if more and more standard programs were PDed we'd see dev cycles being shortened because the need to rewrite basic functionality is no longer there. The GPL tries to enforce more opensourcing and open contributions but with the same move restricts the usage of the code.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  14. Re:I don't understand his thinking by Dasaan · · Score: 1
    What ropes and chains, moron? You can't take something out of the public domain once it's there.
    So I guess we'll get to see all the improvements that Jaleco make to the source then? Of course not, their derivative work is not free and it's not in the public domain. Sure the original is still string free, but the derived work isn't.
    *That* is the point that was being made.
    Then again, you're too stupid to comprehend the fact that he doesn't care that Jaleco used his code
    Again you seem to miss the point. The writer of the emulator states he released it into the public domain so that it will be completely free and the poster you were replying to simply asked how it can be completely free if it can then be derived into a closed project.
    --
    XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
  15. GPL and Freedom by dismentor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:GPL and Freedom by dismentor · · Score: 1

      Like the constitution and bill of human rights is hypocritical: "everyone is free, but not that free"?

    2. Re:GPL and Freedom by dismentor · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms.

      It isn't about having rights for the originator. Those are preserved by his first ownership of the copyrighted work. It's about preserving the freedoms for everyone that uses the software. If the source code and modifications get closed, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them, so they have to be restricted to stay in the open.

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

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

    1. Re:Yeah... by dismentor · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms. Of course, What I am not condemning is anyone for their choice of license, or anyone for respecting that license, just pointing out what the GPL and simliar licenses were about.

  17. Dual-terms licenses are always a possibility by wayne606 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  18. Direct your griping at Sonny Bono by tepples · · Score: 1

    That have been in circulation for how long now? 15-20 years?

    The legal standard is not 15. Not 21. It's ninety-five.

  19. Re:I don't understand his thinking by black+mariah · · Score: 1

    Like the man sad, he wanted it to be REALLY free, not 'GPL Free'.

    --
    'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  20. PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way... by Dwedit · · Score: 3, Informative

    PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way, it uses the MiniLZO Library. Jaleco is not using that component.

  21. Oh the irony... by GaimeGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. -_-

    1. Re:Oh the irony... by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      though there is no infringement as there is no copyright...

      --
      I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
  22. Some jokes ... by evslin · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... deliver their own punch lines.

    Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement.

  23. 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.
    2. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by @madeus · · Score: 1

      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.

      That assumes competition is always healthy. It is not, especially for small software projects. Split user bases drastically reduce the momentum behind projects and the amount of feedback, support and patches you get. Splitting a small project can actually leave you with two dead projects in a relatively short space of time because neither side manages to keep up sufficient user base (particularly true with innovative software).

      It can also end up with the only version that continues a an active project being an badly managed & poorly supported closed sourced shareware hack knocked out by some guy who initially just decided to make a few quid out of a project by adding some features he would otherwise contribute back, but he thought 'what the hell' he'd have a go selling it as shareware because the licence allowed it.

      He may not care about supporting the package or managing the project, he just wants to make a little extra money on the side, and so concentrates on the marketing and the CD packaging till the only project with significant mind share is his, however sadly the real work on the free project dies through lack of interest, because no-one wants to bother supporting a program with shrinking user base when there is a 'nearly-as-good' version (that really starts to slip in quality as time goes on, particularly when the pressure from the 'free' version disappears).

      Ultimately the 'free' version may die a death from infrequent patches, ultimately falling too far behind, but the commercial implementation limps along, but barely keeping up and eventually (once the 'free' project has been thoroughly abandoned) becoming a worse monstrosity with each release due to lack of any form of effective opposition.

      This is very typical of what happens to active small software projects (especially innovative ones trying to get off the ground) in which the investment and potential is not projected. In the long term the community of users suffer and everybody is worse of (apart from the guy who cashed in charging 25 UDS for a minor rehash of someone else program, he's done aright, at the expense of the initial project and the users).

      This of course does not apply to no longer 'active' projects, but for actively maintained small software projects it's the reality of the situation. Managing a project correctly (whether it's a commercial project or not) can be absolutely key to it's success.

      Other free software competition is good (if you can share each others innovations), but competing against someone who can take all the innovations from the one version without contributing back - and so take away all the other projects support (patches, advice, feedback and moral support) is not good for small projects.

      I would quite happily release a project under BSD style license if it was either already complete, abandoned, or had particularly significant code I thought it would be most beneficial to be as free as possible (or if it was just a more trivial implementation). By the sounds of things your project clearly seems to have fallen into the 'completed' category, and so releasing it under something like a BSD style licence or as PD would not be able harm the project. That however cannot be said for all projects.

      In the vast majority of instances, choosing to GPL has nothing to do with such emotive concepts as 'selfishness', 'ego' or 'money', but with the ensuring the health of software projects. The GPL is simply a form of protection, especially for more vulnerable small/innovative projects, one that insures against the reality of a world where commercial parties interests inevitably lie in the profits that can be made for as little outlay as possible (so they can reap the best possible return on investment, of time/money). Commercial interests (

    3. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      First, thanks for responding. There was one part I take issue with:

      If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.

      Whether we are talking free as in software freedom or free as in price I don't think competition is (and should be) unavoidable. Only software patents (patents on algorithms used to make computer software) which are enforced against everyone will come close to preventing competition (and this doesn't even work against the dedicated patent infringers or in countries where such patents don't apply).

      Consider web browsers -- Microsoft's Internet Explorer is popular but there are many competitive web browsers (which more people are discovering are more competitive than they knew). MSIE costs no additional money (over the cost of the Microsoft Windows OS) and MSIE offers the user only one of the software freedoms identified by the FSF (namely, that you can run the program any time you want). Mozilla is one of MSIE's most popular competitors but Mozilla faces the same competitive pressure even though it is free software (anyone may run, inspect, share, and modify Mozilla any time for any purpose).

      --
      Digital Citizen
    4. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
      AFAIK the Jaleco version does not include the GPLd MiniLZO parts. Also since the PD "license" contains no restrictions, it is GPL compatible.

      So the author is probably ok as long as he has the MiniLZO portion of the code available in source form. Probably no infringement here. Unless you want to argue that the GPL is in fact viral and therefore the whole package is now GPL weather the author likes it or not.

      Also he seems to understand the spirit of the GPL well if enough, if not the letter. It is a form of realeaseing your code while imposing some controls.
      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    5. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by olimar · · Score: 1

      Your point is well spoken; I may have been rash calling the GPL selfish. I see how the GPL helps an author by discouraging the actions you've illustrated. Unfortunately, although he only intends to protect his work from being exploited, using the GPL also discourages everyone ELSE interested in his work from benefitting from it, if they aren't interested in the GPL.

      For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own code. Even if he isn't in competition with your own project and means no ill will, he has no choice but to pass up whatever he could have gained from your offering. Net loss to everyone.

      Flubba, now the co-author of PocketNES, has said he was interested in working on it BECAUSE it was left wide open. He's made many improvements to it, and used the experience to go on making two other superb emulators (PCEAdvance and Goomba). Arguably none of this would have happened if a more closed license was used. Just a lame anecdote maybe, but it makes my point. Evildoers aren't the only ones being pushed away with a protective GPL scheme.

      Now this MiniLZO issue looms over PocketNES. The MiniLZO library fits my needs perfectly, but beacuse I'm not interested in the GPL, I'm not allowed to use it, even though PocketNES is in absolutely no way a threat to MiniLZO.

      What am I trying to say? I guess it's that while the GPL may protect an author, it does so at detriment to anyone who isn't a GPL fanboy. Your source is only accesible to those who like the GPL, or are willing to submit to the (whether real or percieved) arm-twisting it does. I'm having a hard time coming up with examples where a lesser (for ex., non-commercial) license can't do just as well as the GPL, while at the same time making your work more accesible to everyone.

    6. Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story. by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
      For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own code. Even if he isn't in competition with your own project and means no ill will, he has no choice but to pass up whatever he could have gained from your offering. Net loss to everyone.

      At this point, Joe asks the owner of said code if he can get a license to use the code outside of a GPL license, and talks go from there.

  24. Re:I don't understand his thinking by CarrionBird · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is code is very much still free. Nothing about his code has changed. There's this new fork that is not free, but that doesn't affect the "freeness" of his code.

    There are no ropes or chains on his software now. He is not trying to make money off of it or stop anyone else from doing so.

    Why is it that some people are fine with not getting any money off of thier software, then get all bent out of shape when some else finds a legal way to do so.
    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  25. Re:I don't understand his thinking by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
    How can it be free? Take a look.

    There's this closed source project using his code. Yet, *gasp*, his code is still as free as it ever was. Can you come up with any way in which the use of his code is harmed by this?

    It sure looks like that people just don't like seeing other people make money using free tools.

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  26. No need to win in court if you're not out suing. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Has the FSF ever won a verdict in court?

    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
  27. Copyright term in Japan by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.