Hacking Luma3DS - Noob-proof 3DS Custom Firmware

[TuxSH]

true meaning of the GPL

So you're implying Richard M. Stallman's own interpretation of the GNU GPL is wrong?

all of you short-sighted thin-skinned emo millennials

Everyone that has been involved in 3DS development is instead thick-skinnded. Seriously fuckers like you and some others legacy/""minimalist"" trolls who can't do anything but complain, complain, complain, and complain again can just f*ck off. You're just making everyone else lose their time by listening to your pointless rant and preventing end-users to actually get helped. GTFO.

Maybe the developers can actually get some bug reports now that people don't have to choose one or the other.

People had a lot of time to reports such bug, and no such bug was actually reported.

 

[RustInPeace]

People had a lot of time to reports such bug, and no such bug was actually reported.

Actually since 8.1.1, the only crashes I had stopped. When opening up BootNTRSelector sometimes it would crash, but now it's never done that. Also sometimes when connecting at certain points using PKMN-NTR, crash. Not anymore. The only crash I've gotten so far was using TWLSaveTool to read a pirated Platinum cartridge, I figured that would happen anyways, so it's a non-issue. That cart was temperamental from the start. As a lowly end-user, any bugs Rosalina had, I guess were all ironed out in the latest stable release. Reporting that shouldn't get the "fanboy" criticism by the way, everything just works now.

 

[astronautlevel]

But you used the GPL, something that's intended to keep software free and open, as an excuse to not provide it. This is for the few people who actually stood up for the true meaning of the GPL.

Am I seriously going to have to explain this again? We're not using the GPL as an excuse to not provide the source; its that the GPL itself does not require you to provide the source when you don't provide binaries. Again, I contacted RMS, the leader of the GNU project, personally over email to verify this. You can see his response to me here. If you are saying that the founder of the GNU project is interpreting his own license incorrectly, you may want to reconsider your views.

And all of you short-sighted thin-skinned emo millennials that ridiculed me can officially bite me (especially AL and Jupiteer).

I can assure you, I'm not some short-sighted thin-skinned millennial, and I'm especially not an emo (what even gave you that idea?) And I don't think I ever really ridiculed you, the only one ridiculing anyone here is you.

Seriously, I have no idea what your problem is. We cleaned up our repository to get rid of a deprecated branch. I removed the builds from my site as a lot of people download from my site and it is more or less the official luma nightly service, and it would be illegal for me to distribute the old legacy binaries since the source was deleted. You can still find the legacy source in any of the 227 forks of Luma3DS there are on github. So I don't know why you got up on your high horse and attacked the Luma project because we cleaned up our repo.

 

[TuxSH]

Reporting that shouldn't get the "fanboy" criticism by the way

If issues are real and correctly reported in the issue tracker then they are fixed (and in case of user error you're told how to fix it), so I'd encourage reporting issues, at least ones that aren't obvious user error.

What I do hate is people spreading bullshit and/or complaining about false truths.

 

[The Catboy]

What I do hate is people spreading bullshit and/or complaining about false truths.

I just want to say that I am not here to complain about legacy being removed nor to state any personal opinions on Luma3DS. I know I made some comments in the past and I apologize if I got a bit emotional/overboard.
I just happened to notice a post that didn't include source and had comment. My comment isn't meant to be mean or personal, just stating a compliance issue regarding the GPL.

 

[TuxSH]

I just want to say that I am not here to complain about legacy being removed nor to state any personal opinions on Luma3DS. I know I made some comments in the past and I apologize if I got a bit emotional/overboard.
I just happened to notice a post that didn't include source and had comment. My comment isn't meant to be mean or personal, just stating a compliance issue regarding the GPL.

I have no issue with that particular comment, it just seems that @pbanj has gone to sleep anyways

 

[astronautlevel]

I just happened to notice a post that didn't include source and had comment. My comment isn't meant to be mean or personal, just stating a compliance issue regarding the GPL.

Ironic, given that you had the exact same GPL issue with your build of ReiNAND and yet didnt seem to care until I noticed it and pointed it out a month later.

 

[suzsuzuki]

You can get the latest version of Luma Legacy, Luma Rosalina and other homebrews here:

https://jenkins.hakujou.fr/job/3DS/

 

[The Catboy]

Ironic, given that you had the exact same GPL issue with your build of ReiNAND and yet didnt seem to care until I noticed it and pointed it out a month later.

At that time I wasn't familiar with the GPL3 requirement and I should be updating my post to include the source code (once I get it that is, as I don't have it at this very moment.) If I can't provide the source code, then I shall remove the binary and Crimson will have push one that does comply with the GPL requirement. It takes being aware of an issue to actually fix the issue.

 

[Kazuma77]

So you're implying Richard M. Stallman's own interpretation of the GNU GPL is wrong?


Everyone that has been involved in 3DS development is instead thick-skinnded. Seriously fuckers like you and some others legacy/""minimalist"" trolls who can't do anything but complain, complain, complain, and complain again can just f*ck off. You're just making everyone else lose their time by listening to your pointless rant and preventing end-users to actually get helped. GTFO.

If the way AL was using the GPL is correct, then I will find another free license to support.

I just wanted to make one small change to the source for a personal use I had just come up with. And you guys happened to do something no one does -- delete something from Github, at exactly the wrong time. When I decided to try to change the path it uses to replace the aging Puma for launching my 9.2. So I asked for a link. What I got was a never ending wave of attacks from AL and his friends. And I'm not the type to just sit there and take someone's BS. And you're calling me a minimalist troll? That's rich. I like Rosalina. I've said it's going to be the best thing since chainloaders several times. I'm all for moving forward. I just don't like this whole deleting thing.

You know, you used to be a nice person when I met you. I don't know what happened, and frankly, I don't want to.

Am I seriously going to have to explain this again? We're not using the GPL as an excuse to not provide the source; its that the GPL itself does not require you to provide the source when you don't provide binaries. Again, I contacted RMS, the leader of the GNU project, personally over email to verify this. You can see his response to me here. If you are saying that the founder of the GNU project is interpreting his own license incorrectly, you may want to reconsider your views.


I can assure you, I'm not some short-sighted thin-skinned millennial, and I'm especially not an emo (what even gave you that idea?) And I don't think I ever really ridiculed you, the only one ridiculing anyone here is you.

Seriously, I have no idea what your problem is. We cleaned up our repository to get rid of a deprecated branch. I removed the builds from my site as a lot of people download from my site and it is more or less the official luma nightly service, and it would be illegal for me to distribute the old legacy binaries since the source was deleted. You can still find the legacy source in any of the 227 forks of Luma3DS there are on github. So I don't know why you got up on your high horse and attacked the Luma project because we cleaned up our repo.

I ASKED if someone could give me a link. If you didn't want to help me, you didn't have to go waving a "license to not help me." You could have simply not replied. Can you not see how people might consider that arrogant and rude?

 

[TuxSH]

If the way AL was using the GPL is correct, then I will find another free license to support.

Feel free to do so. I don't think any popular license guarentees the same liberties, however.

I just don't like this whole deleting thing.

Because that's a useless maintenance chore.

You know, you used to be a nice person when I met you. I don't know what happened, and frankly, I don't want to.

Sorry if I sound rash, but you can't go complain & make snarky comments and expect me to turn a blind eye when it gets too noticeable.

 

[astronautlevel]

If the way AL was using the GPL is correct, then I will find another free license to support.

Good luck. Maybe try the Apache 2.0 License, though it's far, far, laxer in terms of source requirements.

And yes, there's no IF about it - again, see my email with RMS.

You know, you used to be a nice person when I met you. I don't know what happened, and frankly, I don't want to.

You accuse other people of insulting you and then pull this? Tux is a really nice guy, he just, as you so eloquently put it, is "not the type to just sit there and take someone's BS."

I ASKED if someone could give me a link. If you didn't want to help me, you didn't have to go waving a "license to not help me." You could have simply not replied. Can you not see how people might consider that arrogant and rude?

This started when you accused us of deleting things without warning, despite having given 2 weeks warning, and you calling me "evil." Don't try to act all innocent here.

 

[SirByte]

the GPL itself does not require you to provide the source when you don't provide binaries.

To paraphrase The Bobs from Office Space, if there's no source released, and there are no binaries released... what would you say you release here?

NM: just had the quarter drop that it's about older versions.

 

[nl255]

If issues are real and correctly reported in the issue tracker then they are fixed (and in case of user error you're told how to fix it), so I'd encourage reporting issues, at least ones that aren't obvious user error.

What I do hate is people spreading bullshit and/or complaining about false truths.

Well there is one big one that won't be fixed despite breaking a bunch of homebrew including ctrhexen as it has been classified as WONTFIX with the only "solutions" given being either to convince the developer to return and fix it or learn to write 3ds homebrew and fix it yourself.

 

[astronautlevel]

Well there is one big one that won't be fixed despite breaking a bunch of homebrew including ctrhexen as it has been classified as WONTFIX with the only "solutions" given being either to convince the developer to return and fix it or learn to write 3ds homebrew and fix it yourself.

Those projects are all based on a very old version of ctrulib that only had the *hax environment in mind. When ran in a non *hax environment (such as Rosalina), they fail miserably. The reason that these are marked WONTFIX and Issue with External Software is because you need to recompile them with the latest ctrulib, which may require editing the project to get it up to date. This isn't a bug with Luma/Rosalina, this is a flaw of old versions of ctrulib.

 

[TuxSH]

Well there is one big one that won't be fixed despite breaking a bunch of homebrew including ctrhexen as it has been classified as WONTFIX with the only "solutions" given being either to convince the developer to return and fix it or learn to write 3ds homebrew and fix it yourself.

Not really, you just need to download the latest devkitARM toolkit & rebuild the homebrew from source, by typing "make" in the project's folder. For rather recent homebrew anyways.

 

[nl255]

Not really, you just need to download the latest devkitARM toolkit & rebuild the homebrew from source, by typing "make" in the project's folder. For rather recent homebrew anyways.

Unfortunately I don't think that will work given that it uses an older devkitARM and newer versions are almost certainly not backwards compatible. I am guessing there is no guide to porting older homebrew to newer versions of devkitARM that doesn't require spending months to fully learn C/C++ programming first.

 

[Kazuma77]

Feel free to do so. I don't think any popular license guarentees the same liberties, however.


Because that's a useless maintenance chore.


Sorry if I sound rash, but you can't go complain & make snarky comments and expect me to turn a blind eye when it gets too noticeable.

Sorry, but, no one's perfect. Had yesterday been one of my better days, I would have just reported all the replies I was getting and let the mods sort it out. But you pick the wrong day to mess with the bull, and you get the horns.

Good luck. Maybe try the Apache 2.0 License, though it's far, far, laxer in terms of source requirements.

And yes, there's no IF about it - again, see my email with RMS.


You accuse other people of insulting you and then pull this? Tux is a really nice guy, he just, as you so eloquently put it, is "not the type to just sit there and take someone's BS."


This started when you accused us of deleting things without warning, despite having given 2 weeks warning, and you calling me "evil." Don't try to act all innocent here.

The way you presented the information made it look like you were using a license that's supposed to keep things free to obstruct instead. You don't want to help me, fine, I know you're not legally obligated to. I was just asking for a favor. But then you said that we couldn't re-upload the binary because the source had become unavailable. That looks like obstruction to me. It seemed like an abuse of the GPL's intent to me and others the way you worded it. And you're seriously going to take "used to be nice" as a major insult? Just chill. It's not like I called him an asshole or anything. It was more of a plea not to let the anti-civilization change him.

Well there is one big one that won't be fixed despite breaking a bunch of homebrew including ctrhexen as it has been classified as WONTFIX with the only "solutions" given being either to convince the developer to return and fix it or learn to write 3ds homebrew and fix it yourself.

Well, I tried to recompile some of these. It worked for ctrQuake. I got ctrWolfen working by compiling the binaries with actual names and ditching the launcher. I have compiled ctrHexenII successfully, but I get errors if I try to replace the included version of ctrulib as Tux advised. I got eDuke3D compiled, but it wouldn't even run in *hax (probably wants older versions of the audio libraries it uses or something). Spectre3DS just gives me errors on several files when I try (though I was in a rush so I just downloaded the zip file, maybe if I cloned it properly). 3DSCraft does something newer versions of libctru apparently don't support. I found a version from around when it was compiled just to see if I could get it to compile. It did, but would not run, and was even graphically glitched in *hax.

I've posted the ones that work in their respective threads. And I tagged the author of eDuke3D in a post and didn't get a response. At least there are CIAs for ctrHexenII and eDuke3D. It's Spectre that's the biggest casualty left by far. I will see if cloning it makes a difference. I've setup a second EmuNAND on 9.2 running Menuhax because I'm not hurting for space. The modified legacy I released a page or two back boots it well (I put it on Y). And yes, that's that's pretty much all I'm planning to use it for, guys. Some people might think I'm crazy for running two EmuNANDs, but, cards are cheap now, so, what's 2 GB?

 

[astronautlevel]

Unfortunately I don't think that will work given that it uses an older devkitARM and newer versions are almost certainly not backwards compatible. I am guessing there is no guide to porting older homebrew to newer versions of devkitARM that doesn't require spending months to fully learn C/C++ programming first.

The biggest hurdle is probably porting the old GPU API and switching to use Citro3D. GPU programming is hard and this could actually take some effort.

The way you presented the information made it look like you were using a license that's supposed to keep things free to obstruct instead. It seemed like an abuse of it to me and others the way you worded it.

"and others" except everyone seems to be supporting me, while people call you crazy. I never attempted to use GPL to obstruct anything.

 

[The Catboy]

@Kazuma77
I normally don't like to get to involved in a situation that doesn't directly involve me, but they are completely within the GPL to remove this code. Having run into a situation to which I had to familiarize myself with the GPL, I skimmed through to see if they are within the GPL. To which there are a few things that are important.
1: Binaries need their direct source to be available with them. This means if the source is removed, then the binary mirror also needs to either provide a mirror to each source or remove the binaries. Since the source has been removed and wasn't being mirrored on the nightly site, then it's required under the GPL to remove those binaries.
2: It is completely within the GPL for them to have dropped this branch and delete the source. Just like it was within the GPL to create the branch in the first place.
3: Being based on GPL3 not only is fine to fork this, several people have already forked the Legacy build. This means anyone can pull from those forks and compile their own build. Or anyone can continue to fork it and maintain it.
They haven't violated the GPL and they've worked with the community to give them enough time to either find an issue or fork it.