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."

Comments

So... what's the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So... what's the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:So... what's the story?

[Bitsy Boffin]

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.

Re:So... what's the story?

[Sparr0]

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

Re:So... what's the story?

[cgenman]

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.

Re:So... what's the story?

[joshholm]

"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. ;)

Re:So... what's the story?

[olimar]

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 :)

Loopy's okay with it as article says

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Whats the problem then?

[chrispyman]

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.

As far as I've noticed,

[kyz]

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.

Re:As far as I've noticed,

[Mmm coffee]

.....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.

/. effect

[sqrt(2)]

Ha, their site must be hosted on a gameboy adv...what the...it's still up?

linked comments

[black mariah]

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.

Throw this guy your support!

[vslashg]

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.

Re:I don't understand his thinking

[black mariah]

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.

Nintendo and Jaleco

[HimajinX]

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...

Re:BSD License?

[black mariah]

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?

GPL and Freedom

[dismentor]

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.

Yeah...

[gasaraki]

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

Dual-terms licenses are always a possibility

[wayne606]

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...

PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way...

[Dwedit]

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

Oh the irony...

[GaimeGuy]

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. -_-

Some jokes ...

[evslin]

... deliver their own punch lines.

Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement.

Overlooked infringement may undo this story.

[jbn-o]

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.

Re:Overlooked infringement may undo this story.

[olimar]

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.

Re:I don't understand his thinking

[CarrionBird]

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.