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

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

[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

[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

[flowwolf]

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

[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

[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.

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

[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..

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: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.

Way to go apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:He violated the GPL

[countertrolling]

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

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: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: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: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.