Google Yanks Several Emulators From App Store

PC Magazine reports that the "-oid" family of emulators from developer Yong Zhang (better known as yongzh) has been pulled from Google's Android Market. These include Nesoid, Snesoid, and Gameboid. From the article: "So what got Zhang the boot? Or, rather, who? Neither Zhang nor Google have commented on the primary source of the complaints against the developer's emulator apps. While most speculate that one of the Big Three are behind the purge–Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft–there's also speculation that Zhang allegedly violated the open source licenses for projects that parts of his programs were derived from." A piece at Android Police has further mention and some more background on the legal position of emulator software.

Comments

He violated the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what got him pulled.

Re:He violated the GPL

[bky1701]

I have a bridge in Florida to sell to anyone who believes that.

Re:He violated the GPL

[thetoadwarrior]

Snesoid at least was based on snes9x which strictly says you can't make money from it and he did. That's a clear violation which, if I were the author of Snes9x I'd be pissed.

Re:He violated the GPL

[countertrolling]

Lisa, I would like to buy your bridge...

Re:He violated the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, tell me where in the GPL it says you can't make money from it.

Oh, wait... You can't, because it doesn't...

Re:He violated the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Snes9x is not GPL.

Re:He violated the GPL

[uberjack]

Maybe so, but it's not like "yongzh" distributed the source code of his emulators, which _is_ required by the work derived from GPL. That said, while SNES9X doesn't use GPL, it does forbid commercial use of its source code.

Re:He violated the GPL

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Did you send him an email or registered letter requesting the source after buying the app ?

Re:He violated the GPL

[MBGMorden]

Snes9x remember - it has its own licensing scheme which is not GPL. It forbids commercial usage, regardless of if they give you the source or not.

sleezeball

[deisama]

I don't care what you're position is on emulators or Google. This guy tried to make money off of other people's work, his emulators were just based off of open source projects like snes9x. And he actually had the gall to try and play the sympathy card about how he's lost his primary source of income. You mean he might actually have to work, or come up with something original to earn money? How sad.

He deserved to get pulled.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a reason why his actions were worse than say Red Hat? Did he not release chances to the code? Not give proper credit?

Re:sleezeball

[WarpedCore]

SNES9x is a non-commercial license. Even if he released the source, he can't sell it for money, like he's been doing.

Re:sleezeball

[WillyWanker]

The position is that 1.) emulators are LEGAL, and 2.) by definition they are based on someone else's work. His certainly aren't the first, and the won't be the last. You need to take a nice long shit to expel whatever climbed up your ass and died.

Now if there's a GPL licensing issue that's something of another story. But that has nothing to do with your retarded imbecilic tirade.

Re:sleezeball

[jo_ham]

So what you're saying is that OSS is a poisoned chalice that anyone who wants to make money or a career for themselves in software development shouldn't touch with a 12 foot barge pole?

No, I didn't think so.

You seem to think that commercial interest and OSS are exclusive to one another. Where do the major OSS licences forbid you making money?

In this case, if he was using code released specifically under a non-commercial licence then clearly it would explain why his software has been pulled, but your rant smacks of a much broader chip on your shoulder that you think it's immoral to sell OSS software for money, or otherwise generate income from OSS software.

Re:sleezeball

[DMiax]

reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this seems to be something akin to a GPL licensing issue. The emulator is, apparently, ripped of another emulator (that does provide source code; with a non-commerical reuse license.)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/hmwj7/android_markets_most_popular_emulators_disappear/

So, no, the software doesn't seem to be pulled because it was an emulator; but that it was a simple copyright violation in its own right. Not sure what the truth of the matter is; merely that there's good evidence it's not a simple 'DMCA takedown by $BIG_CORPORATION of all emulators'.

Re:sleezeball

[flowwolf]

2.) is the comment of an imbecile. An emulator is not based on an existing system. By definition they are a layer between one system and another. This is not even close to being "based" on someone else's work. The code he used came from open source projects that were licensed under the GPL and the op says this clearly enough. Using this code is using other people's work. This is the nature of open source of course and there is nothing wrong with using this code. The sleezy part of it all is trying to sell it.

Re:sleezeball

[flowwolf]

Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.

Re:sleezeball

[Jahava]

reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.

Not to be pedantic, but it's still OSS (Open-source Software) ... just not FOSS (Free Open-source Software).

Re:sleezeball

[Grey Ninja]

Not to mention that I just checked, and the REAL SNES9x is still on the marketplace. This is clearly a license violation.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHat has contributed so much critical code that it's not even remotely comparable.

On a side note, it's always amusing to see RedHat and Novell get shit on constantly on this site. They've contributed so much critical code that Linux would almost definitely be completely irrelevant if it weren't for them. Perennial Slashdot favorites Debian and Ubuntu don't contribute nearly as much, and in terms of contributions to core infrastructure projects (Linux kernel, Xorg, Alsa, Gnome, Firefox etc.) Debian and Ubuntu developers are barely even a blip on the radar.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the most immediate thing that goes through many, essentially non-programmers' minds is the idea that;

"If I release all of the source code to my application, what is to stop somebody else from forking my project, replacing any copyrighted assets with free ones, and distributing a compiled binary to consumers as a competing, free product?"

If someone could concisely explain why this fear is unfounded in a few sentences, this could become something that people quote to back up FOSS in arguments such as these. Anyone?

Re:sleezeball

[flowwolf]

From the licence file of snes9x.

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

Why are you being modded insightful? This is clearly a non-commercial licence issue and he never said anything about OSS being a "poisoned chalice". Nobody ever said anything close to "it's immoral to make money off OSS software" and I suspect nobody will since its a position that can quickly be eroded. Since we're talking about it though, taking clearly licensed for non commercial use code and selling it directly in a market without any kind of consideration to the licence, is very immoral. There is absolutely no insight provided in your comment. Only FUD.

Re:sleezeball

[icebraining]

FOSS isn't "Free Open-source Software", it's "Free and Open-source Software" (as in, the Free Software as defined by the FSF plus the Open Source software as defined by the OSI).

And according to the Open Source Definition,

. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

So, no, it's not OSS.

Re:sleezeball

[icebraining]

Nothing. That's what FOSS is about.

Re:sleezeball

[flowwolf]

The licence of snes9x

Snes9x homepage: http://www.snes9x.com/

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event shall the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x.

The copyright holders request that bug fixes and improvements to the code should be forwarded to them so everyone can benefit from the modifications in future versions.

Super NES and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are trademarks of Nintendo Co., Limited and its subsidiary companies.

Those two licences don't apply here.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

After Unity, I think Ubuntu is no longer anyone's favorite.

Re:sleezeball

[icebraining]

What two licenses? "Free Software" and "Open Source" are not licenses, they're definition that might apply to licenses.

And what I'm saying is that the Snes9x license is neither Free Software nor Open Source (OSS).

Re:sleezeball

[flowwolf]

Those "definitions" of what OSS is then. They don't apply here at all. They're only those organizations ideal definitions of what OSS should be.

snes9x explicitly declares how the source they release can be used. The FSF has no jurisdiction on the matter

Re:sleezeball

[icebraining]

The accepted definition of Open Source is the one published by the OSI. Using any other is just trying to fool people.

Re:sleezeball

[Stewie241]

The GPL says nothing about not being able to charge money to distribute GPL licensed software. The GPL actually specifically permits this. The problem is that the software in question is according to other posters, *not* GPL, but rather some other license that prohibits selling it.

Re:sleezeball

[physburn]

But its a highly useful app to have, immediately giving buyers access to a lot of old games. Perphaps thats the problem, without the new platform, needing new applications and new games, development dries ups. Originality is hard to find in the modern world, as are places to be original. But conversions, and translations are just as much useful work. I don't see how you can label a programming a sleezeball just for translating from open source projects. One thing open source was definitely not created for was to close off similar development. I'd agree literal, line for line coping of someone else work and selling it as your own is illegal. But you can't call 'based off some other work' sleeze, unless you want every person have start from caveman level.

---

Programming Legality Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:sleezeball

[whoop]

His emulators have been around for at least the 18 months I've had an Android device. So I'm sure he's content with what money he made in that time. Last time I looked, a few months back, he had sold a few thousand of the paid versions (ad free).

There are still a couple paid SNES emulators listed on the market. I'm sure if it were Nintendo, they'd kill all of those and the associated apps (ROM fetchers, soundboards, ringtones, etc).

Re:sleezeball

[deisama]

Its not that I have a problem with selling OSS software. My issue is with someone who is not actively involved in a project profitting off the work of those who are.

The way I see it is, Team A puts a lot of effort and pride into something they want to share with everyone. For whatever reason, Team A decides not to sell it or try to make money, they instead decide to let other people have it so that they can enjoy it too.
Person B comes in, recompiles project and than sell its to other people. And Team A doesn't get any of that money, or benefit in anyway from them doing so.

Person B==Sleezeball.

But I don't know, maybe I am to biased on this. I wrote a plugin for Notepad++ that lets you compare files, and all I can think about it is how shitty I'd feel if someone took my source recompiled it as Compare++ and started trying to charge people money for it. Even if whatever license I put it under allows such things, I still think its disrespectful.

Re:sleezeball

[GooberToo]

He can sell his packaging and related services.

Re:sleezeball

[LingNoi]

People have been bitching about this for ages, then finally when his scams get pulled, oh suddenly it's google siding up with the big corporations, give me break, ugh..

Re:sleezeball

[LingNoi]

Hey wanker, this guy is right, it's totally to do with the GPL license, people have been complaining about this for a long time, so it looks like the only imbecile is you.

Re:sleezeball

[deisama]

Yeah, I think "based off of some other work" is to weak of a statement. It's more like "blantantly ripping someone else's work off"

I agree with you on principle. We grow by building off of what others have done. Its the fundamental principle that lets us keep moving forward.

But this guy expressly ignored the original creator's wishes by trying to sell it even when they said it's not allowed. And to make matters worse, it seems that the original creates DID make a android port. So not only did he practically steal their work, he used to to compete with their own product.

Re:sleezeball

[WillyWanker]

Reading comprehension fail. I already said if it's a GPL issue that's something different. The OP was ranting about he is using someone else's work in his emulator which I pointed out is both legal and the definition of an emulator.

Re:sleezeball

[FrangoAssado]

Not without explicit permission from the autors; Snes9x license explicitly forbids it:

Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes, but is not limited to, charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x, including Snes9x or derivatives in commercial game bundles, and/or using Snes9x as a promotion for your commercial product. [my emphasis]

Re:sleezeball

[theArtificial]

True. Since we're just yelling out things he can do: he can also fork over his profits made from others work. His packaging and related services are not what are at fault. I've attached the license.txt here with emphasis added:

Snes9x homepage: http://www.snes9x.com/

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event shall the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x.

The copyright holders request that bug fixes and improvements to the code should be forwarded to them so everyone can benefit from the modifications in future versions.

Super NES and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are trademarks of Nintendo Co., Limited and its subsidiary companies.

Re:sleezeball

[JesusFreke]

If you don't want people making money from your code, don't release it under a license that allows them to do so.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with someone taking the code I put into, e.g. smali/baksmali, and doing whatever the heck they want with it, including recompiling it and selling it. I don't plan on making an money off of it. If someone else does - more power to them. It's not like they're stealing money from me. This is one of the reasons that I chose to release it under a BSD license. Heck, I would dual-license it as wtfpl if someone requested it.

Re:sleezeball

[jo_ham]

I'm being modded insightful for my post as a whole, which you do need to read to comprehend the use of satire, and you're claiming that my stance (that you can make money of OSS and that it's perfectly fine to do so) is "FUD". Are you a Microsoft shill, or just too shoot-from-the-hip to actually read and attempt to comprehend my comment.

Just to be 100% crystal clear, I am on the side of "pro-OSS" and "OSS is not a poison chalice".

You will also note, in my comment that you didn't read, I addressed the issue with non-commercial licences, and this specific case.

Read comprehension: not just for school. Get some.

Re:sleezeball

[jo_ham]

Those are the breaks with open source licenses though - you have to take the rough with the smooth if you are going to release code in a manner that gives freedom in distribution (depending on the licence of course - GPL, BSD, apache etc).

You have to live with all the potential consequences that arise from the licence you choose - some of which might not be agreeable.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with charging money for open source software, as long as you provide the source code (perhaps this guy didn't?).

If you don't like it, get off your but and use his code to distribute a non-paid version of the product.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

The position is that 1.) emulators are LEGAL

Depending on what specifically is being emulated, that is. Anything which "circumvents copy protection or encryption" is not legal unless it's officially licensed.

2.) by definition they are based on someone else's work

No, no they are not. You're thinking of the system being emulated, we're talking about the code which actually performs the emulation itself, which in this case is rumored to have been lifted from an open source project without proper attribution.

Re:sleezeball

[deisama]

True. But I don't have to feel sorry for the guy when he gets pulled :p

Re:sleezeball

[hairyfeet]

That sounds like the classic OS/2 problem. For those not old enough to remember back in the days of Windows 2 and 3 IBM marketed OS/2 as "a better Windows than Windows" thanks to its having much of the Windows APIs embedded to use by OS/2.

The problem was the developers that saw this simply didn't bother writing OS/2 apps which could take advantage of the platform, instead simply marketing their Windows programs to OS/2 users. Since they only had rights to Windows through Windows 3 OS/2 quickly lost the "better Windows than Windows" advantage and had no real third party software of its own, and thus dried up and blew away.

So while I don't see this happening because of a game emulator if someone were to say come out with a Wine layer? Then I could see it becoming a problem. If you could simply write Windows apps and pack in Wine, why bother writing for Android?

Re:sleezeball

[deisama]

Yeah, I respect that. And certainly if these emulators had been released under similar licenses, than there would be nothing to complain about.

Ultimately I think it comes down to at least making a vague effort to try to respect the wishes of the person who did all that work for free.
If the author says have at it, than have at it. But if not, I feel like the very least we can do to reward the time they put into it, is to not try and do something that will make them regret it.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that OSS is a poisoned chalice that anyone who wants to make money or a career for themselves in software development shouldn't touch with a 12 foot barge pole?

no, no, no it's not a poisoned chalice
the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

Re:sleezeball

[SEE]

If backwards-compatibility stopped developers from writing software that took advantage of a backwards-compatible platform, then it would have also stopped developers from writing Windows 95 apps.

No, the reason nobody wrote OS/2 apps because nobody ran OS/2 2.x. Setting aside the various tricks Microsoft used to discourage OS/2 sales and IBM's inept marketing, the reason nobody used OS/2 2.x is because it needed 8 to 12 MB of RAM back when a computer came with your choice of 2 or 4 MB. By the time OS/2 was available in a size (Warp 3.0, 4 to 8 MB) that would run on the computers being sold in bulk (with 4 to 8 MB), Windows 95 was already in beta and everybody was busy developing for it.

Re:sleezeball

[hcpxvi]

Wait a minute, I thought that the drug in the jug was the pill from the till. Or was that in the gateau from the chateau? Maybe I'm just being distracted by the thought of Vikki Michelle in WWII-era silk nightwear ...

Re:sleezeball

[DrXym]

After Unity, I think Ubuntu is no longer anyone's favorite.

If Unity pisses you off then I wouldn't go looking to FC 15 for answers. At least with Unity you can fallback on Ubuntu Classic mode which is a GNOME 2.x desktop. In FC 15 the default is GNOME 3 which arguably has it's own annoyances and the fallback is a desktop-ish GNOME 3 missing a pile of functionality found in GNOME 2.x. A simple example being making shortcuts on your desktop - you can't.

Re:sleezeball

[gomiam]

"If I fear someone forking my project and competing with me, why should I open the source code?"

Fixed that for you :P

Joking aside, if you fear competition you don't give ammunition. Then again, free and open source is about cooperation (and coopetition).

Re:sleezeball

[dokc]

Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.

Not exactly true. They charge for commercial Cygwin usage: http://www.redhat.com/services/custom/cygwin/

Re:sleezeball

[sarhjinian]

Nah, Ubuntu only contributed polish, consistency, user experience and millions of desktop users. This was especially notable back when RedHat's workstation distribution was a small step above, say, OpenWindows or CDE. It's hard to appreciate it now, and it's possible they've since jumped the shark, but Ubuntu really changed the game.

Yes, Canonical didn't contribute as much code. RedHat and Novell didn't contribute much in the way of usability. They're complementary skillsets, and it's kind of sad how many "developers" don't recognize the value of the former.

(saying this as someone who's really enjoying GNOME 3)

Re:sleezeball

[Registered Coward v2]

Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.

Not exactly true. They charge for commercial Cygwin usage

From what I could see, you can license it so that software developed from it does have a gpl license. Assuming they are the sole copyright holder or have any other copyright holders permission to re-license the code there is nothing wrong with that.

Having various licenses for copyrighted material is not uncommon, for example you can license a Dilbert cartoon for use in a presentation, for use in a presentation and any handouts, and at various licensed size tiers. The BBC licenses some programs for educational and training use as well.

Re:sleezeball

[dokc]

From what I could see, you can license it so that software developed from it does have a gpl license. Assuming they are the sole copyright holder or have any other copyright holders permission to re-license the code there is nothing wrong with that.

Having various licenses for copyrighted material is not uncommon, for example you can license a Dilbert cartoon for use in a presentation, for use in a presentation and any handouts, and at various licensed size tiers. The BBC licenses some programs for educational and training use as well.

My reply was on:

Redhat doesn't charge for the software.

I just wanted to say following:
1. if we suppose (for each) x (Redhat doesn't charge for x) where x is a software
2. commercial version of cygwin is a software
3. cygwin belongs to Redhat

we get that proposition 1 was wrong.

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what you're position is on emulators or Google.

"You are position"? What the heck does that mean?

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

Canonical hasn't contributed much to Gnome 3. Again, that would largely be RedHat developers.

Re:sleezeball

[Joce640k]

GPL doesn't say you're not allowed to charge, just that you have to release all source.

Re:sleezeball

[DMiax]

It seems to me that we are saying the same thing. Those definitions do not apply here: that is why this is not open source software.

Re:sleezeball

[dokc]

GPL doesn't say you're not allowed to charge, just that you have to release all source.

Next time, please read the link I sent before replying. I quote:

A Cygwin License Contract provides you with:
- the ability to distribute your applications without being bound by the GPL. You are not required to provide your applications in open source code form.
- a license to distribute unlimited quantities of Cygwin libraries with your applications.

Re:sleezeball

[hairyfeet]

But I would argue that the reason Windows gained so much traction in the first place is that the programs simply were never written for OS/2. I ran OS/2 for awhile back in the days of Win 3.x and frankly even with only 4Mb of RAM it was more like WinXP than Win3.x, as it had multitasking, the ability to play audio and video without crashing or turning into a sideshow, it was frankly awesome!

So why did I quit and go to win95, even though frankly OS/2 was MUCH nicer than Windows at the time? Simple because there weren't any programs for it while the store shelves were filled with Windows programs! Remember that these were the days before the Internet was fast enough to do much more than checking email and Net Shopping hadn't taken off yet so the vast majority bought their software at B&M stores. While the few of us who knew about the "better Windows than Windows" knew we could run win 3.x software, how many of the general pop knew that? On the boxes it plainly says it needs Windows, so I better get Windows!

Like BeOS which also died hard in that time, or I'd even argue Linux today, an OS is only as good as its programs and IBM simply didn't have the programs to entice buyers, I'd argue in large part because developers simply could resell their windows apps without bothering to port and by the time Windows 95 came out OS/2 was already in decline and so they never bothered.

If they would have written for the OS/2 native APIs their programs would have been head and shoulders more impressive than anything on windows, but because they did not those that saw OS/2 running simply saw it as a very pretty Windows clone that could only run a partial list of the current programs.

Now does that mean IBM marketing didn't suck? nope, they certainly didn't help their cause with one bad move after another. but like BeOS what we had with OS/2 was a case of the MUCH more technically advanced OS losing against a frankly piss poor at the time competitor. And while it is true the more RAM you had the better it ran you could easily run a couple of programs on OS/2 with 4Mb of memory which is 1 more than you could run with Windows during the Win 3.x period. It was simply other than a small handful of programs IBM wrote there simply weren't any progs that took advantage of what OS/2 had to offer.

Re:sleezeball

[mr_gorkajuice]

Your corrective statement includes an "if" which has already been adressed and proven false.

Re:sleezeball

[TheRaven64]

Ignoring the fact that the upstream code isn't under a Free or Open Source license, your argument implies that proprietary software is an even worse 'poisoned chalice'. I can't legally make money by selling copies of my OS X DVD, even though I paid Apple for it! Or, to put it another way, if someone took QEMU, bundled a binary-only build of it with a copy of Windows 7, and sold it for $20 in the Google App Store, do you think they would be in more trouble for GPL violation from the QEMU authors or from the distribution of Windows?

Re:sleezeball

[aix tom]

Exactly. Just the same way that you are allowed to sell commercial applications that run on Linux, you can sell commercial applications that run on Cygwin.

You can even sell a commercial application that call GPL programs in the background. Just like, for example, most install programs for commercial apps for Linux rely on tar/bash/perl/gcc/.. to do their stuff, you can for example call scripts from your non-GPL software that do stuff like call ImageMagick to do something.

Re:sleezeball

[MikeBabcock]

GP had a very valid point and your comments don't seem to understand them.

Porting a fully open source base you didn't pay a cent for is not worth much unless someone's paying you to do it. Expecting income from it is just silly. If you do get paid, good for you, but the expectation shouldn't be there.

Re:sleezeball

[jo_ham]

I'm not sure that you are understanding my position - it is that OSS is *not* a poisoned chalice, and I was addressing what I saw as the OP's wider rant that profiting from OSS code you didn't personally write was immoral, which I don't necessarily think is true (licences permitting).

Re:sleezeball

[cdrguru]

The problem is that outside of Richard Stallman's world there are two very different groups of people. The first group RHS is familiar with and it includes people that can program computers and pick up just about any piece of code in any language and instantly be able to adapt and modify this piece of code. Why would this group of people pay anything for something from open source?

The second group of people, which RHS claims (implicitly) does not exist, is actually in reality a far larger group. It consists of people that cannot program a computer, couldn't write a "hello world" program in any language at all, including LOGO or BASIC. It also includes people that are being paid lots of money to write programs for a particular platform and a particular environment and really don't have the time, energy or inclination to get involved with some other environment.

Now this large group might just pay someone for a port of some open source thing to a different platform. Heck, they might pay someone for a cleanly complied binary with all of the dependencies taken care of wrapped up in a neat installer for whatever platform they wanted it for. Sure, they could do it, but how long would it take? If you are being paid $100 an hour to write stuff for Windows and would really like a rsync implementation for Windows but don't have one how much would you pay? (Hint: rsync has some really major dependencies and is available or free ... just not installable neatly on Windows.)

Gosh, they might actually pay quite a bit. So this guy was catering to the non-programmers of the world and people were paying him. Imagine that.

In Richard Stallman's world apparently there are programmers and there are pampered cats. If you aren't a programmer, well, you are incapable of exercising the sort of "rights" that he envisions as being really important. Obviously, non-programmers are at best second-class citizens because they can't exercise their rights. More like a pampered cat because while they can imagine they are battling fierce prey they are in reality batting at a stuffed mouse toy held by their owner - someone that can program.

Much like landowners and serfs, only landowners (programmers) have rights. The serfs are utterly dependent on their landowners.

Re:sleezeball

[mmj638]

Where do the major OSS licences forbid you making money?

They don't. You're missing the point. He stole source code from open source applications without attributing it or releasing the source, both of which are required by the license in order to use the source. It was therefore a copyright infringement.

He then made money out of this code which he stole.

Re:sleezeball

[mmj638]

BTW the code he stole was from a variety of sources, not just snes9x. And snes9x isn't technically "open source". But my point still stands: by violating the terms of the software license he was stealing code.

Re:sleezeball

[dokc]

Exactly. Just the same way that you are allowed to sell commercial applications that run on Linux, you can sell commercial applications that run on Cygwin.

You can even sell a commercial application that call GPL programs in the background. Just like, for example, most install programs for commercial apps for Linux rely on tar/bash/perl/gcc/.. to do their stuff, you can for example call scripts from your non-GPL software that do stuff like call ImageMagick to do something.

It's a little bit different. There a two ways how you can sell commercial application that run on cygwin:
1. just as you said, you can develop an application and tell a customer to first install cygwin and then your application on top of it
2. to deliver your application with cygwin dll in which case you need to have Redhat commercial license

Re:sleezeball

[Anonymous Coward]

you honestly think Google is combing through the hundreds of thousands of apps on Android Marketplace to evaluate which might be in violation of some FOSS license?

Google pulled these emus because they want Sony's Playstation Android phones to succeed, plain and simple

Meh...

[AngryDeuce]

I mean, is this really anything more than a minor hiccup? It's pretty easy to install apps around the App Store. It's not like iOS (yet)... There's a ton of free emu's out there for Android. Pick a substitute and game on.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

I mean, is this really anything more than a minor hiccup? It's pretty easy to install apps around the App Store. It's not like iOS (yet)... There's a ton of free emu's out there for Android. Pick a substitute and game on.

Its ridiculous... Apple is hated so much that even though Android Market is also known everywhere as Android Market were gonna call it App Store anyway, even though minor confusion will occur (Since when can Android users access the App Store? Can iPhones access Android Market, too?) just because it pisses Apple off. And yet... if Apple is so hated, why are the haters so eager to try and be like Apple and decide to call their proprietary package management system "App Store," too? Excuse me while I update my sources for my ubuntu app store, do some version checking with my red hat app store, and my NetBSD app store (remember pkgsrc? must be an app store, too, right?)... oh, and I better check my Windows 7 Android Market for security updates from Microsoft (does it work all ways? Can we just start using proper names for package managers interchangeably???).

Re:Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is allowing Apple to trademark 'app store' any different from allowing Kroger* to trademark 'grocery store'?

*You guys still have those, right?

Re:Meh...

[AngryDeuce]

You need to climb down off the clock tower and take a few deep breaths there, guy...

I use the term "App Store" because it's a store for Apps. I do not mean it in the sense App Store®© as in Apple's "App Store". Either way, I think you missed your fucking meds today...

Have a nice night.

Re:Meh...

[Vintermann]

The free emulators for Android tend to suck. Really. Compare ADosBox with AnDosBox for instance. The former doesn't even use Android's input system, and so is unusuable on any device that doesn't have a physical keyboard. The C64 is a simpler system than the SNES, but all the C64-emulators in the marketplace are ported on a non-commercial basis, and ... they're not very good. Amiga is in the same boat, basically.

Yong Zhang (and others) have done real work to port emulators to android, that no one else seem willing (or able) to do. They should get paid. (Of course, they should also respect license agreements. At least the AnDosBox guy does now - minimally).

Re:Meh...

[kiddygrinder]

if apple had wanted to avoid confusion they should have called it the iApp store or something, no-one pops a vessel when i go open a window. The blame lays solely on apple.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

Even though no one used "App Store" globally to refer to package management prior to Apple, I couldn't care less about the trademark... But now every package manager is known as an app store, instead of what it is... a package manager. This is what is retarded. Hate Apple all you want. Deny them the trademark, who cares? But its childish to do as they do if you hate them. Its fucking anathema. This particular instance of others copying Apple is far more annoying than any other time Microsoft ever copied from them.... because it's a name not a technology. This is like naming all your children "Bruce," in some misguided attempt to benefit from Bruce Lee's fame.

Re:Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

ah... so, just because Apple was first, you're gonna start calling all package managers "app stores." Funny... most people try to avoid sounding like a fool.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

No... the issue is we've already had a name for it for 40+ years. 40 years of bliss calling software that manages packages for what it is, the venerable package manager . And then Apple had to go and name their package manager App Store, and all the retards come out of the woodwork to rename ALL package managers app store. It would be the same if we started calling all operating systems "Windows." I think if you refered to Linux this way a few vessels might pop.

Re:Meh...

[TheRaven64]

There are two differences between an app store and a package manager:

1. An app store sells you things. You don't buy programs through a package manager, you just install them and keep them up to date.
2. An app store is just for apps. A package manager manages other things, like libraries. If you download something from an app store, then it will be self-contained. Something downloaded by a package manager may pull in other dependencies.

Aside from some superficial similarities, they are not the same thing at all.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

I half expected this spitting hairs argument. So... the App Store only sells you things? It doesn't have free apps? Oh... it does have free apps... so it does sells free apps. All other package managers "sell" free apps too. And you are flatly incorrect about libraries... if a library is necessary, it is installed with the app, and all its dependencies that may be missing from the OS are also installed with the app. Basically, your argument fails when you try to distinguish between the App Store and something like Cydia. Cydia is a package manager... it is a front end for apt, and it also sells apps, tracks dependencies and installs libraries... by your argument, Cydia is NOT an app store. And I agree with you for the correct reasons... Cydia is Cydia, a package manager, App Store is App Store a package manager, and Android Market is Android Market, a package manager.

Re:Meh...

[kiddygrinder]

yeah, but we've called applications apps for 20+ years and stores stores for a lot longer, so once again, blame apple for generic naming. they even had a strong brand they could of used so their marketing team failed miserably on 2 levels then decided they couldn't be bothered any more and started throwing lawyers at it.

Re:Meh...

[iocat]

So Yong Zhang deserves to get paid... for putting hard work into violating license agreements and porting other people's emulators which are used for... what exactly? Certainly not playing stolen videogames! Because then you might need to go up the chain a bit and feel bad for the software creators who weren't being paid. But no one ever seems to give a shit about them when something gets in the way of playing stolen games.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

yeah, but we've called applications apps for 20+ years and stores stores for a lot longer, so once again, blame apple for generic naming. they even had a strong brand they could of used so their marketing team failed miserably on 2 levels then decided they couldn't be bothered any more and started throwing lawyers at it.

ah... so... because we've had burgers for 60 years, and kings for thousands of years... and we've had taco's and bells for as long, so Burger King and Taco Bell are also a generic by your logic. And there's plenty of other examples... BMW, Petsmart, Bank of America, ... and, well... Fine. But anyone that decides to call all burger joints burger kings and all taco bars taco bells would likely be borderline retarded. What's anathema is none of these competitors would have used "App Store" had Apple not successfully marketed it. So what is happening is exactly as Apple suggests: competitors are unlawfully using Apple's trademark to promote their own package managers. And idiot editors think its clever to stir up comments by inexplicably and incorrectly referring to Android Market (also 2 generic terms put together!) as App Store. It is absolutely your right to be incorrect. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.

Re:Meh...

[kiddygrinder]

sure, if we had burgers where we get kings or kings where we get burgers, your argument is just dumb. maybe you see a lot of bells constructed from tacos where you live? the name they have chosen is a generic term describing a function and tried to trademark it. They don't even have the trademark yet and may never get it.

Re:Meh...

[catmistake]

The trademark wouldn't even be necessary if Apple's competitors had an ounce of creativity and didn't ALWAYS immediately knee jerk in the direction Apple is going. Cross pollination of technologies is one thing. But when one company does something, and then every other competitor subsequently attempts to do the same thing, their feigned motivational innocence is suspect.

Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[byuu]

Which has a strict non-commercial license. The developers do not want their work being sold for profit.
So in that instance this has nothing to do with the GPL. Not sure about the other two.
Personally, I'm happy to see this one pulled.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[Aug Leopold]

Looks like nesoid is based on FCE Ultra (GNU GPL) and gameboid was based on gpSP (GNU GPL).

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[Lanteran]

Yeah, but the guy was withholding source code too.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[Exophase]

yongzh has received a relicense for gpSP by me, the sole copyright holder of the source he forked off of (he isn't using any code from any of the other forks). So Gameboid isn't violating any license agreements. It getting pulled is either at Google's discretion due to complaints against the owner in general or, more likely, Nintendo pressuring him. Remember, Google makes money off of his sales too. I doubt they'd remove emulators that didn't directly correlate to any particular person's specific complaint (nor would they take a complaint from some random non-copyright holder seriously). Nintendo, on the other hand..

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[yeshuawatso]

But what claim does Nintendo have in this case? An emulator doesn't violate Nintendo's right to copy, and the patent for emulation on mobile devices by Nintendo wouldn't be applicable to Google since Google is only distributing software. yongzh might be on the hook for patent infringement, but I dont see how he's violating Nintendo's copyrights nor trademarks.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[Exophase]

I don't think they really have any legal standing, but that doesn't mean that they can't coerce Google. I just can't really see why Google would ban yongzh instead of just removing the emulators where they've (allegedly) received complaints from copyright holders. While they may have some interest in making an example of him or sticking to a pretty zero tolerance terms of service on this they're also depriving themselves of a substantial amount of income.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[gl4ss]

gameboid has a "download roms" link straight from the app(goes to a site with his referrer id attached, so some money there), so did his other emus. he walked a fine line with that.

what he should have done, to keep the sw alive forever, would have been to publish them off-market, and linking to a sleazy roms website definetely didn't help.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X

[lordDallan]

Thank you for posting this. Yong claims to have all his "licensing" in order, this seems to back that up. He also claims that it was Sony that caused this takedown and that he'd seen evidence pointing to that. See ZodTTD's homepage for more information about how this WASN'T because of licensing abuse/misuse.

Now to all the Android fans. It's OK to like Android just like it's OK to like Apple. It's OK to like one or the other more. It's NOT OK to delude yourselves that Google is your "open" buddy free from commercial interests. Short version, they aren't. Google is a a very large corporation, and like all other very large corporations they are extremely focused on making lots of money off of you, the consumer. There's nothing sinister about this, but IMHO you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking otherwise because they embrace some "parts or principles" of open source. This also means they're not afraid to shit all over a developer if they think that developer is impugning upon their "money-makin'-turf". It SEEMS like that's what happened here.

My biggest beef with this, and with Google in general, is that their "sleazy corporate moves" always seem to me to be back handed. Oh, we're holding back this source now. Oh, we're letting carriers do shady shit now. Oh, we're pulling developers post-approval because a key partner or two complained. For the record, I personally prefer Apple as a company to Google. Mostly because they are out-in-front about wanting to "screw you"/profit off of you. Apple say's they want your money upfront, and in exchange for that, they guard you and your info like a jealous lover.

I'm not claiming that Apple's way is the best way of doing things, I don't know if there is a "best" way and wouldn't presume to know what that "best" way was, is, or will be. I am saying that Apple's up-front "dickishness" is the way I prefer for a company to treat me. I know Apple overcharges me and are dicks about letting me access certain information. I consider it a fair trade in exchange for their "openness" about how they screw me, as well as their efforts to protect their walled garden in which I dwell. I spend MY money with Apple accordingly, others are free to spend THEIRS where they will.

Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[PocketPick]

"While most speculate that one of the Big Three are behind the purge–Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft"

Why even speculate which of the Big Three it was? The emulators were for:
  - Nintendo SNES
  - Nintendo Gameboy
  - Nintendo NES
  - Nintendo N64

Call me crazy, but if it wasn't pulled because of licensing issues, shouldn't it be obvious who would of had the beef with this guy?

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly Sony had a problem with people having fun while playing video games. Even if it's a competitor's game, it violates their TOS. They are demanding the credit card #s of anyone who purchased the apps for...safekeeping.

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even speculate which of the Big Three it was? The emulators were for:
    - Nintendo SNES
    - Nintendo Gameboy
    - Nintendo NES
    - Nintendo N64

You forgot a few:
  -Atari 2600
  -Sega Genesis
  -Sega Mastersystem/Gamegear

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that because the Sony and Microsoft game systems don't have enough decent games to make emulation worthwhile? ;)

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[shoemilk]

Going on this comment and this entire thread I'm going to go with option H: You're crazy

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled

[Anonymous Coward]

Gensoid has also been pulled, which was a Sega Mega Drive (Genesis) emulator. I know this because I purchased the NES, SNES, Gameboy and Genesis emulators and they no longer update through the market.

If he was in breach of the license then he needs to get that sorted out, I had no problem paying the ~£2.50 for his emulators because they were ad-free and worked brilliantly. If SEGA or Nintendo wanted to release a similarly capable emulator/system I'd buy that. But since I can't buy Sonic the Hedgehog for my phone...

Which brings me to another point does anyone else struggle to find non ad versions of products? I would rather spend a few pounds on a application and have it not require an internet connection then have a free one with ad's. But you can't get things like Angry Birds, Bluetooth File Transfer, etc.. without ad's.

"App Store"?

[smitty97]

This is why apple is trying to trademark "app store". I thought the story had something to do with where I get my iPhone apps.

Re:"App Store"?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Don't worry, soon this story will lead to conversations about where iPhone apps come from.

Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats why i am staying away from evil and sticking to android.

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

reading comprehension fail

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Humor comprehension fail.

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it wasn't funny.

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If only one could somehow install apps on Android not through the app-store...

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

~whooooosh~

Re:Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that this guy can still throw his app up on a webpage & sell it from there. Google might have kicked him to the curb, but his program is popular enough that people would probably good it & find his page in no time.

The Robot Revolution is coming

[zanian]

A piece at Android Police has further mention and some more background on the legal position of emulator software.

android snes emulation

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as snes is concerned "snes9x ex" is far superior to snesoid

Well, maybe a small wall around the garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, good thing nobody's telling you what you can install on your Android.

Re:Well, maybe a small wall around the garden

[mjtaylor24601]

Yes it's such a shame you can only install apps that come from the Android Market.....oh wait

Re:Well, maybe a small wall around the garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, good thing nobody's telling you what you can install on your Android.

You are obviously an iPhone user and have never used an Android device.

This is what is great about Android. This is ONE market place. They don't offer what you want? Go to a different store! SHOCKING!

Get it, there are MANY "App Stores" not just "1" that Apple offers. I can get my Apps where I choose.

If Apple pulls an emulator I'm f'ed unless I jailbreak my device. Android, I just go to the next App store or website I choose that offers what I want.

Just because Google pulled it from their Market doesn't mean it's not offered at a 1000 other Android Markets. Try that with your iPowned.

Re:Well, maybe a small wall around the garden

[Anonymous Coward]

God I love the mental gymnastics some people go through.

"You have to jailbreak your iPhone to do this. It's horrible. This is the worst thing to happen in the history of ever."

"OMFG I rooted my Android phone to put Cynaojiggawhat custom ROM and modified the bootloader this is the best thing ever I love you Google can I please have sex with you *JIZZ PANTS*"

Don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

The author has a chinese name, I have no pity on him.

Emulators are only used to play pirated games, despite what the non-existant homebrew crew says.

Re:Don't care

[WillyWanker]

Your blatant racism aside, despite what our bastardized copyright laws say I don't see anything wrong with playing a 10-30 year old console game in an emulator, even if *gasp* you didn't buy it. Even more so if it's a game that's currently not available for a modern platform.

And what if I actually *DO* own the games I play in an emulator? Then it's absolutely positively 100% LEGAL.

Re:Don't care

[erroneus]

Read the article. It references some very useful information including the fact that there are most certainly legal exceptions to these "obsolete" games out there.

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

Re:Don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

No it isn't.

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes, it is. All these people are out there 'stealing roms' yet Nintendo's Virtual Console, for example, is quite successful.

Citation.

Needed.

Re:Don't care

[donaldm]

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

echo "Emulators are only used to play pirated games"| sed -e s,only,mainly,

That should have fixed it. :)

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A year ago I would have beleived that, but we're not seeing the death of a bunch of ROM sites or a dip in the value of used games. It is easy to believe that emulators are all about 'free games', but darned if anybody could actually prove any effect of it.

I am starting to think that most emulation enthusiasts are people re-living the nostalgia of games they've already paid for.

Re:Don't care

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Only if you dump them.

But really, no one's going to track you down because you downloaded a copy of Zoop! for the Genesis.

Re:Don't care

[PyroMosh]

A quick Bit Che search shows that right now there are 14,000 seeders and 4,000 leechers for the torrent with the hash ed25fbe9a48b5335de86fbfc61100698e06876c0

That's just the top seed I found on my first search. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of seeders and leechers for other torrents RIGHT THIS SECOND.

Not exactly the same topic, but related.

About two years ago, I posted to a different slashdot story here:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1325079&cid=28949323

In that thread I challenged slashdoters to provide instances of backup software. All the people who install bypass chips INSIST that they're mostly used for legal purposes and that just because they can be used illegally, that doesn't mean it's common.

I never received a response. Not to that slashdot thread, nor via the email address I set up for my little experiment.

There are MY citations. They may not be indisputable, but they're what I've managed to obtain so far. What do you have to offer for the other side?

Also, two questons:

1) How do you know Nintendo's VC is successful?
2) If it is indeed successful, how does this prove that piracy isn't wide spread and harmful? Can't both states be true?

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

A quick Bit Che search shows that right now there are 14,000 seeders and 4,000 leechers for the torrent with the hash ed25fbe9a48b5335de86fbfc61100698e06876c0

Okay, so what does that actually mean?

In that thread I challenged slashdoters to provide instances of backup software. All the people who install bypass chips INSIST that they're mostly used for legal purposes and that just because they can be used illegally, that doesn't mean it's common.

I wouldn't get too excited about that. We don't even read the article, why would anybody take the time to take photos of backups? I know I'd be hard pressed to do it, like I want photographic proof that I'm copying games.

There are MY citations. They may not be indisputable, but they're what I've managed to obtain so far. What do you have to offer for the other side?

Nintendo's Virtual Console is just fine. People are still selling games from the 80's and 90's on eBay. Nobody has been able to actually show a loss, even on games where the pirated version was out before the release version. In fact, we've seen nothing but growth from the video game market.

1) How do you know Nintendo's VC is successful?

Nintendo keeps releasing games, the prices haven't changed, and the 3DS will get a version of it. It's obviously worth Nintendo's while.

2) If it is indeed successful, how does this prove that piracy isn't wide spread and harmful? Can't both states be true?

Are you using the term piracy to mean 'copyright infringement' or 'theft'? If you mean the former, then sure, I think they can be true. I don't think piracy really causes any harm at all, at least not until you you start doing stupid things like preventing your paying customers from being able to use the product. I don't think, though, that the question's all that fair.

You mention seeders and leeches, but neither of those are numbers of people who are downloading the games and playing them. The people I've met that go around doing that really aren't players, they're collectors. They might fiddle a bit, but they're not really getting out of it what the game developers imagined. I haven't the foggiest idea how one would go about finding out what the actual ratio is, but this is where we get back to this point that no losses have actually been measured.

I'm going to mention something so you can understand a bit about where I'm coming from on this: Not long ago I had software for sale on-line. Somewhere in the middle a crack was released for it and people downloaded it. With that knowledge in mind, you could not look at a graph of my sales and even guess when the crack actually came out. I'd also like to mention that the work I do involves copyright and my living depends on people buying content. You may first assume that I am trying to justify some sort of behaviour, but I want you to understand that if people pirated to the point that money wasn't flowing, I'd be back in my home town pumping gas for a living.

Re:Don't care

[91degrees]

Seriously?

Unless you take that "only" absolutely literally, then I think it's pretty naive to assume that almost emulator users get any of their games legally. The whole point of an emulator is to play retro games. This is why everyone I know uses them. And most games are not available in a legal format for emulators. So the emulator fans acquire copies unlawfully.

Even if you download a copy of a game that you own, you're still infringing copyright! There is not an exception for this.

And you know what else? I don't care! These games have no commercial viability! If they had the makers would be selling them.

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If I had it to do over again I would have asked for a clarification of how he was using the word 'pirate'. Are we discussing infringement or theft? I thought he meant the latter.

Re:Don't care

[91degrees]

Pirate typically means an unauthorised copy. So I presume he means infringe.

Re:Don't care

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Eh, I suppose, but that takes a huge bite out of his statement.

Very interesting information

[erroneus]

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 FR 68472-01"

I realize this exception is being stated for video games and computer programs, but it rather reminds me of Disney's Dong of the South in laser disc format.

Re:Very interesting information

[BancBoy]

" it rather reminds me of Disney's Dong of the South in laser disc format.

Thanks for that!

Re:Very interesting information

[julesh]

[...] formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware [...] shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace

Interesting, but this doesn't apply to the current discussion. The emulators in question were for Nintendo Gamecube (with which the Wii is backwards compatible), Nintendo Gameboy (with which the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible), NES and SNES (for which Nintendo offer emulation on the Wii), so there is no requirement for original hardware in this case.

Re:Very interesting information

[Anonymous Coward]

NES and SNES would fall under that exemption. Unless one can insert the original cartridge into the Wii and play it, it's an obsolete format. Simply allowing me to re-purchase the same game for a new system does not let it avoid that clause. Now if Nintendo offered the emulated games for free provided one had the original cartridge then MAYBE it would, but they do not. Also all that only has to do with the DMCA which covers technical copy protection mechanisms, not emulation. Granted they are slightly entwined these days.

Re:Very interesting information

[westlake]

In this notice, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announces that during the period from the time of this notice through October 27, 2009....

[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)][Rules and Regulations][Page 68472-68480]

Expired?

How did the LOC define a library or an archive?

The general impression I have is that this was an academic/istitutional excemption.

The LOC on this same ruling rejected circumvention of CSS to allow DVD play under Linux. Rejected circumvention to play region-encoded DVDs.

There were licensed DVD players for the Linux OS. There were many inexpensive ways to play DVDs from other regions and many still legitimate reasons for region encoding.

The burden is always on the one demanding an excemption.

Re:Very interesting information

[Lanteran]

What? A gamecube emulator on a phone? I knew the hardware was underpowered, but damn!

Re:Very interesting information

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize this exception is being stated for video games and computer programs, but it rather reminds me of Disney's Dong of the South in laser disc format.

They stole my high school nickname!

Re:Very interesting information

[egranlund]

[...] formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware [...] shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace

Interesting, but this doesn't apply to the current discussion. The emulators in question were for Nintendo Gamecube (with which the Wii is backwards compatible), Nintendo Gameboy (with which the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible), NES and SNES (for which Nintendo offer emulation on the Wii), so there is no requirement for original hardware in this case.

Wii emulation (of games besides the gamecube) requires you to repurchase the material that owned for the older system though.

Re:Very interesting information

[erroneus]

OMG, among the worst typos ever....

Re:Very interesting information

[elvesrus]

but it is reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. at least as far as NES, SNES, and the sega genesis. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Gaming-System-Not-Machine-Specific/dp/B001LVH80M

Re:Very interesting information

[w_dragon]

NES and SNES games are not 100% available in the commercial market. Try getting a copy of the original FF-III, for example. The virtual console only has a small selection of games, compared to what was available.

Re:Very interesting information

[Phoobarnvaz]

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

This would be true if there were no other machines you could purchase which would play these game cartridges. Right now on several online sites...I can buy for about $40-50 US machines with the ability to play NES/SNES cartridges. Since you can find these games used at garage sales...used game stores or numerous other venues...you can purchase a new machine which will allow you to play them...it's an EPIC FAIL using this part of copyright law to prove the point the guy was using code which wasn't his to make money.

Re:Very interesting information

[BancBoy]

OMG, among the worst typos ever....

Could've been worse, you could've said Disney's Dong of the South in Laser Dick format.
:D

And of course you can sideload the apk ...

[Wrath0fb0b]

... so yeah, not really comparable. Even if Google Market had rules as strict as the iTunes store, it would still be fine with me because the user ultimately has control over what is installed. Google is free to provide a "protected space" (whether or not it's a good idea is a different story) if they want to -- users that want to install other apps are free to do so.

Even AT&T, who used to restrict sideloaded apps, have said they will remove the restrictions via firmware updates. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/05/att-sideload-android-amazon/ -- those of us on SPCS/VZ/TM never had the restriction to being with.

So this is a story about what? Google having a market that they control? We knew that.

The author ripped off other people's projects

[Anonymous Coward]

He took open source emulators, made ports, and charged for the ports. That's wrong and he's a charlatan and a cheat.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[icebraining]

The author took the time to port multiple OS emulators for the benefit of thousands of people who would never had access to them on their smartphones and charged a few bucks for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, that's expressly permitted by the GPL (though not the SNES9X license, apparently). If you release software that says "you can feel free to make money off this", and I make money off it, how have I done anything wrong?

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[Anonymous Coward]

I stole your car but used it to deliver pizzas to hundreds of people, and charged a few bucks for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he should have released the source code and complied with the license, and everyone would have been happy.

How happy do you think were the people he ripped off the code from? How encouraged to continue developing that emulator? Even in the scene you don't sell releases. This guy was a scumbag.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[RobbieThe1st]

If you don't release the source, you're in violation. If you do, you're fine.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[tepples]

If you release software that says "you can feel free to make money off this", and I make money off it, how have I done anything wrong?

Two of the emulators that people port to everything under the sun (VisualBoyAdvance and FCEUX) are GPL. In this case, if you fail to pass on the copylefted source code, then you've done something wrong. And if you do pass it on, you haven't done anything wrong, but anybody else will have the right to rebuild it to APK and submit it as a free app to Amazon, AppsLIb, and SlideME.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[Lanteran]

The author took the time to port multiple OS emulators for the benefit of thousands of people who would never had access to them on their smartphones, charged a few bucks, and closed the source code illegally for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

FTFY

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects

[Lanteran]

not to mention that the snes emulator specifically prohibited charging for redistributions.

no supposedly about it

[godsfilth]

He sold gpl apps without attributing the original authors, though afaik not a breach of the gpl still a dick thing to do, when asked for source by paying customers (me included) , if he answered at all, he said he had no need to show the source. I have also seen people talking about his ports of snes9x, which he called snesoid and i believe his genesis emulator, gensoid, being ports of applications released under a no commerce license and he sold those as well, and again without attribution to the original author, i have yet to confirm anything on those.

Walled Garden

[Sasayaki]

And once again Apple's knee-jerk restrictionist, bizarre App Store(tm) policy comes around to bite ANOTHER innocent developer who most definitely wasn't engaged in any unethical behaviour at all.

Shame on you, Apple. Shame on you. This is a prime example of why everyone should buy Android devices, because the bits just want to be free, man. Open your mind! ...

Internet dickery aside, seriously, these apps deserved to be pulled for a number of reasons and Google did the right thing. But people should be under no illusions... speaking as a huge Google fanboy here (who uses an iPhone 4, lol, go figure) just because it's Google instead of Apple who control the gates of the garden doesn't mean the walls still aren't there... they just protect against different things and have different interests at heart.

Re:Walled Garden

[MimeticLie]

fanboyism aside

Fixed that for you. Banning an app from one store is not equivalent to banning it from a device (and no, jailbreaking and sideloading are not equivalent).

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in this case I think they both protect their companies from lawsuits. There is no special, noble motivation for Google here.

Re:Walled Garden

[Anonymous Coward]

What gate are you talking about? I don't understand this equating Google to gatekeepers.

http://www.dkszone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/unknown_sources_non_market_android.jpg

Thanks, but I'll continue to live in my illusion that they're not gatekeepers. They can ban all the software they want from Android Market or have dictatorial control over the market. I'll just simply move to one of the other many other markets that cater to my wants, needs, and / or desire to support the good fight -- or if I'm lazy, just grab the APKs from the author's website (if they choose to continue distributing the software there.

That's why I've never really complained about any bans from the Android Market. I know that if I feel it was censorship (due to political cartoons, or VOIP software being under review for 8 months -- lord forbid if they needed to patch something), I can get it directly from the developer / distributor.

Emulators are legal

[nurb432]

Just ask people like VMware, or Microsoft or sun.. ( oracle ).

What you do WITH the emulator may or may not be, but why is that a valid reason to pull something? Most anything can be used in a nefarious way, even bricks..

Re:Emulators are legal

[Anonymous Coward]

But what you can do with gaming console emulators is almost exclusively illegal. It's not like anybody is creating a significant number of new games for legacy consoles, is it?
I still think they should be legal, but it is understandable that the original creators of the consoles in question are annoyed about them.

Re:Emulators are legal

[Travelsonic]

But what you can do with gaming console emulators is almost exclusively illegal.

Uh... no. Playing ROMS == not, it is how you GET THE RMS that causes the issue.

GBA is discontinued

[tepples]

Nintendo Gameboy (with which the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible)

The Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Advance SP, and Game Boy Player are all discontinued. Nintendo no longer makes hardware capable of playing Game Boy Game Paks.

NES and SNES (for which Nintendo offer emulation on the Wii)

Except for those games that haven't yet been republished on Virtual Console. Let me know when Earthbound is available.

I don't see what this man did wrong.

[dopefish7590]

This guy had ported emulators, and allowed you to get them on your phone for free. He wanted to get money from this of course, so he also released a payed version with a little bit of extra functionality as incentive. Emulators are fully legal, the only thing that may be illegal is what you do with them. The emulators that were ported were free too. SNES9x had a non-commercial license attached to it, but in the end, he allowed you to use it for free. The payed version was little more than a "service fee" if you will. I am sad to see his work pulled, and if this could be resolved in any way, I would be all for it.

Re:I don't see what this man did wrong.

[Kenja]

I'll try to explain using smallish words. He took other peoples emulators, ported then to Android, and charged money. These other peoples emulators had licenses on them that either required he make the source code for his changes available (which he did not do) or forbade charging money (which he did). It has nothing to do with emulators being OK or not. It has to do with copy write and what he was and was not allowed to do with other peoples code.

New Google Slogon

[jsse]

Don't be Evil

...for everything else, there is Google.

Not Just Zhang

[ForgedArtificer]

This has nothing to do with Zhang. ZodTTD also had his account suspended and all of his apps removed, which included numerous emulators such as PSX4Droid.

My money is on Nintendo for this. They already went on a witch hunt recently against any app involving Pokemon getting many of the best removed.

Is it just me, or is the big N getting just a little crazier than usual lately, when you add to all of this the 3DS TOS issues?

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing open source code and then selling it without providing said code and in fact downright refusing to do so is a douche thing to do and explicitly forbidden in the license to said code. I'm glad they removed it, regardless of the reasoning (though I certainly hope that is what it was)

hfghgf

[Anonymous Coward]

there is much that only assumption is only .
http://play-makeover-games-online.coolgames.im/

A very large percentage of Android Market Apps ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... are products stolen from other. How do you think the 20% of the apps ended up being trojans.

That is a dirty fact that Google tried to hide for years and is apparently finally trying to take care of it.

Open Source, eh?

[quickgold192]

"Zhang allegedly violated the open source licenses for projects that parts of his programs were derived from"

How ironic that Google would punish a developer for doing that...

Existing customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought Snesoid on a lark a few months ago when I first bought my phone; obviously, it would have been better if I did my research and realized that it was stolen FOSS code, but at less than $5, I didn't feel the need to research things too closely. I actually never even installed it on my phone.

Today, it's no longer listed with my other purchases in my Google marketplace account. This is obviously not so surprising. But seeing as how I gave money to Google for the app, I would have expected a refund or at least a notification. I can only assume that they aren't actively deleting copies of the app, but to toss it into the memory hole on their end seems almost as bad.

At least Amazon passed out refunds at the same time they pulled those copies of 1984 (and more later, when the shit hit the fan)

Firmware?

[drolli]

Did he make sure his emulators use firmware in the right way?

It's because of Google TV

[mykro76]

Nintendo quite frankly didn't care about these emulators when they existed on sub-1Ghz phones - they ran slowly and the control mechanisms were abysmal. But the prospect of those same emulators running on Google TVs with controllers using Android 3.x's USB host support - now THAT is a serious threat.

Re:It's because of Google TV

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to people just using those emulators that he took the code from on their computer's hooked up to a TV monitor instead, which they can do now. I could understand your point if it made sense but it kinda doesn't.

I will say one thing though, I bought several of those emulator's (nes, genesis, and snes) without realizing that he stole the code and it is nice to have a linux platform that all those emulators run on reliably. My 64 bit machine has a hell of a time running any NES emulator's, even when I compile from source because of some strange SDL issues.

Wait I'm not sure whether to be pro or anti...

[91degrees]

reads

"What!? Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have interfered with these products! How dare they! intellectual property is a myth! It's not costing them anything anyway, and I see no reason to respect their copyrights!"

reads more

"What! This developer shamelessly ripped off the open source developers!? How dare he cost the legitimate manufacturers money! How dare he disrespect the open source developers copyright!"

Lame

[yoyhed]

I just installed a new ROM on my phone, and I was disappointed to see all the -oid emulators missing from the market. I had assumed Nintendo pressured Google into removing them, but a GPL violation seems just as likely. Anyone know where I can get the .apk's?

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

https://slideme.org/user/yongzh

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you kindly SIR

POV from developer of one of the ported emulators

[sa666_666]

Strictly from my POV as one of the maintainers of the one of the emulators (Stella), this person asked for permission to release a port of Stella, but without releasing the changes under the GPLv2. Of course we said that was against the license, and he responded that he would figure out another alternative instead. Then a little later, the software was ported and source code not provided. It's almost as if he asked permission, and then when the answer wasn't what he wanted, he went ahead and did it anyway.

I suspect this happened for a number of other emulation projects too, and enough of the emulation authors (rightfully) complained and had them removed. The weird thing about it is if he'd just followed the licenses, the software would still be in the app store. I don't think most authors were concerned about another port, just that he was unjustifiably making profit from it.

Ah the slashdot double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Google pulls an app from the Marketplace:

"So? Just sideload it. Or root your phone and install it. Google is doing what's right, what's the big deal?"

Apple pulls an app from the App Store:

"OMFG this is censorship BULLSHIT, Steve Jobs is LITERALLY coming to my house and having his goons put a knife to my throat and tell me what I am not allowed to put onto my phone. I shouldn't have to jailbreak, this is fascism!"

Android Market = Shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as bad as Apples App store but no one here will admit it because its android.

Where do I get a refund?

[thetartanavenger]

I realise this guy broke software licenses, but I bought these. Now that they're no longer available is Google going to hand out refunds to all those customers who have lost access to their software?

I'm actually not really bothered given I bought them ages ago, I just thought it was an interesting question of what happens when Google pulls something.

Re:Where do I get a refund?

[levis501]

You might see two or three cents if there's a class action against the developer.

There is no money to be made in selling emulators

[Anonymous Coward]

anyway. Most have licenses for non-commercial use and cannot bundle ROMS or BIOS with them according to their license.

There once was a StarROMs web site that had permission to sell Atari ROMs, but only after a license from Atari. These days many systems have retro games based on classic arcade and video game console units. Like a Sega Genesis 40 games collection on Steam, and for video game consoles like the PS3, etc. So there is a market for playing the classic games, just need permission from the emulator developers and video game companies to bundle the emulator with games or convert the games to a new system without an emulator. Just my two cents anyway. :)

Re:POV from developer of one of the ported emulato

[Tacvek]

Except that the GameBoy emulator was (apparently) authorized by the copyright holder, if this is accurate.

As for the ones he did not obtain an alternative license for, that is definitely not acceptable. After all he still could have made money by selling the emulators even with source provided, as putting it in the market provides a service some people are willing to pay for (Automatic updates, and not needing to compile it yourself).

Mupen64Plus

[DrWho42]

I'm the maintainer of Mupen64Plus, an open source N64 emulator. I've heard rumors that 2 distributors (yongzh and zottd) were violating the GPL license of my project by distributing derived versions on the Android market without any offer for source code. I was going to contact the SFLC to go after these guys but haven't taken the time to do so yet. If google has pulled their products down already then it saves me the trouble of going after them. Breaking the spirit of OSS; bad karma for them.