# What would be considered as a copyright violation for open source code?



## mariogamer (Aug 10, 2018)

So, from gbatemp's rules:



> ...this includes (but is NOT limited to) - licensed and copyrighted software, code, movies, music, video games, magazines, comics, e-books, television shows, illegal torrents, etc. These rules also account for "keygens" and "cracks" including how to obtain, apply or install them.



This mean it is applicable to some software such as the tx sx os.

However, it seems like this rule isn't truly applied for open source software. Most of them in hacking scenes uses the gpl v2 or v3.

Even tho it is open source code, license exist for it. And the gpl is known to permit software distribution if:
a: proper copyright notices were added
b: forked software may stay on the open source domain (and still have the gpl license)

This is appliable to other license, but the gpl is probably the biggest one.

My main question, are open source code treated the same? And what  would be considered as a violation? Answer is already known for the first question ( because of some things certain scenes, you may easily notice that it is not).

How will open source code be treated in this case?


----------



## Drakia (Aug 10, 2018)

Jesus christ. OPEN A GOD DAMN ISSUE ON THE PROJECT. All you are doing is creating drama for no reason, and slandering a project that a group of people are working hard on.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 10, 2018)

Drakia said:


> Jesus christ. OPEN A GOD DAMN ISSUE ON THE PROJECT. All you are doing is creating drama for no reason, and slandering a project that a group of people are working hard on.


sorry, but that one isn't related.
It's an actual question I have. And it is related to sx os, too.
Sorry for being stupid I guess?


----------



## Coto (Aug 10, 2018)

But "open source" licenses is a software license that has the viral clause: 
So if you are the owner of the project, or the project involved is gpl compatible you are "legally" entitled and "licensed". I think the context in there "copyrights" means as a derivative work where you aren't even licensed to do use/distribute such work.

Also software licenses are different from IP and trademarks. I mean software or other licenses is a contract between two or more entities and can hold agreed rules, and in these rules IP, trademarks, etc.

GPL specific:
But AFAIK even if people manage to relicense their own work and they even used a bit of gpl code while at it, they only can license what's considered "their work" and not the gpl parts unless they agree with the gpl rules otherwise their GPL license is invalid and you can use gpl (v2 == v2 , v2+ == v2 && v2+ == v3) while agreeing with gpl rules to redistribute your modified work.

For instance gpl code can't re-license copyrighted work 

(ie1, if user1 directly covered his software work through a closed source license that prohibits sharing without permission, or even sharing, and such work does NOT come from a viral license such as the gpl or realnetworks), and then user2 tries to put a gpl license to that work. 

(ie2, or backwards: user1 tries to relicense using private license where user2 work comes from an "open source" (viral) license, it simply does not affect the ability to user3 to use gpl user1 work, even if user1 cries about it)

In fact two "viral" licenses are incompatible by default as both will try to void the other clause were it enforces own rules.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 10, 2018)

As a general rule GBAtemp does not have time to play open source copyright lawyer. It is absolutely recommended that you make the source of your fork available, even if it is one of those ones that does not and this is for good reason (you never know when something else will change that will need it and if you are 5 years gone*). We are probably not going to remove things as a general rule but if you are harangued for it then you get what it coming to you, and don't be surprised if it does not get shared around. If you are going to start on SX OS borrowing code then meh, or perhaps there is/was a standard in some aspects of law and journalism about things that the public finds interesting vs being of the public interest and SX OS was a leading light in the homebrew push.

*real example. Release of DLDI. Previous libraries made it such that things had to be compiled against specific libraries. New carts coming out, updates and interoperability between carts made this a nightmare. After this it was made such that the libraries were there and compiled into the program such that each program then needed a small patch (which could be automatically applied by the cart, though in practice I only ever saw DS slot devices do it). DS homebrew had been going on for a while by this point so we had fairly extensive libraries (early 2006 was the first passme and things were very popular almost immediately). Most things had source though so quick and dirty recompiles happened. There was not however a ROM dumper in such a state and it would take a little while before such a thing hit the scene (this would be Rudolph's dumpers, August 2007 with DLDI appearing in January of that year or maybe just before) which meant getting hold of kind of rare and hard to come by gear to do it.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 10, 2018)

Coto said:


> But "open source" licenses is a software license that has the viral clause:
> So if you are the owner of the project, or the project involved is gpl compatible you are "legally" entitled and "licensed". I think the context in there "copyrights" means as a derivative work where you aren't even licensed to do use/distribute such work.
> 
> Also software licenses are different from IP and trademarks. I mean software or other licenses is a contract between two or more entities and can hold agreed rules, and in these rules IP, trademarks, etc.
> ...


I know they can only re-license theyre own work. But they must still distribute gpl code.



FAST6191 said:


> As a general rule GBAtemp does not have time to play open source copyright lawyer. It is absolutely recommended that you make the source of your fork available, even if it is one of those ones that does not and this is for good reason (you never know when something else will change that will need it and if you are 5 years gone*). We are probably not going to remove things as a general rule but if you are harangued for it then you get what it coming to you, and don't be surprised if it does not get shared around. If you are going to start on SX OS borrowing code then meh, or perhaps there is/was a standard in some aspects of law and journalism about things that the public finds interesting vs being of the public interest and SX OS was a leading light in the homebrew push.
> 
> *real example. Release of DLDI. Previous libraries made it such that things had to be compiled against specific libraries. New carts coming out, updates and interoperability between carts made this a nightmare. After this it was made such that the libraries were there and compiled into the program such that each program then needed a small patch (which could be automatically applied by the cart, though in practice I only ever saw DS slot devices do it). DS homebrew had been going on for a while by this point so we had fairly extensive libraries (early 2006 was the first passme and things were very popular almost immediately). Most things had source though so quick and dirty recompiles happened. There was not however a ROM dumper in such a state and it would take a little while before such a thing hit the scene (this would be Rudolph's dumpers, August 2007 with DLDI appearing in January of that year or maybe just before) which meant getting hold of kind of rare and hard to come by gear to do it.


Well then, please tell me why copyrighted work ( I'm talking generally, any code that is proprietary but some parts of it are gpl based) aren't treated the same?
I just want to understand this.
(Btw, sx os wasn't really a light. It was more of a light for piracy than anything.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> Well then, please tell me why copyrighted work ( I'm talking generally, any code that is proprietary but some parts of it are gpl based) aren't treated the same?
> I just want to understand this.


I am not following.



mariogamer said:


> (Btw, sx os wasn't really a light. It was more of a light for piracy than anything.)


and? Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am not following.


Well, I'll pick an actual example.

1. "Hy guys, I've made an open source backup loader feel free to fork it  blablabla" - Public not interested
2. "Hy guys, I've made a proprietary backup loader you are allowed to distribute but blablabla " Public not interested
3. "Hy guys, I've made a proprietary backup loader that I sell to you and is fully based on 1 and blablabla. I won't give you the source tho" Public interested.

Compare #3 to this:
"Hey guys I provide a crack of this backup loader"

Explain the differences? why would #3 not be treated like a, for example, sx os crack?

So in gbatemp general rules this is NOT copyright violation and/or won't be treated the same?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

Is that an actual example? Free stuff is always welcomed around here.

There is a quality/ease of use/reliability component at play but if they were three approximately equal setups you can bet the free one would win out.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that an actual example? Free stuff is always welcomed around here.
> 
> There is a quality/ease of use/reliability component at play but if they were three approximately equal setups you can bet the free one would win out.


Welp that's not what hapenned in the switch scene for some reason (namely public stupid stuff).

Also, this is exactly what xecuter did. They copy pasted tinfoil (installer) and did some customIzation to it. Not to mention the sysmodules they have stolen to atmosphere.
The only thing new that xecuter had was piracy stuff. Namely an xci backup loader.

(don't actually forget I'm not only talking about tx. even tho I don't certainly know for other example, this pretty much already hapenned)

Also your real example might not be good, because in this case those are completely random person rebuilding the thing and at an impossible to control timing. On some other case, it's only one big team, and this team copy big stuff.

But my actual example only refers to if the public is interested in this.
If big websites like gbatemp and others apply really the copyright rule we might see the team publishing the source code (tho in some case bound not to happen)


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> So, from gbatemp's rules:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Basically no one cares. The only person that can take direct action against a license violation is the copyright holder.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Basically no one cares. The only person that can take direct action against a license violation is the copyright holder.


Well then tell me the same thing for a possible sx crack? It should be xecuter that take it out?
Or no one cares about open source? That wouldn't surprise me anyways.

And besides, sometime it has been proved many times. (gateway (don't remember the specifics but i think they copied an open source a9lh implementation), xecuter)


----------



## Insidious611 (Aug 11, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> If you are going to start on SX OS borrowing code then meh, or perhaps there is/was a standard in some aspects of law and journalism about things that the public finds interesting vs being of the public interest and SX OS was a leading light in the homebrew push.



Okay so, I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say here, and I'm mostly replying to ask for clarification. Specifically, why are you talking about public interest? Public interest has nothing to do with copyright law, so that's not really answering the question that was asked. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say that SX OS is "borrowing code". The fact is that it has been proven repeatedly that they are taking open source code and, against the license of said code, modifying it, compiling it, and releasing it in binary form without providing the source code. This is a copyright violation, plain and simple.

Now, the question is, is GBATemp really a site that actually cares that much about copyright violation? Sure, you can't link directly to places that offer pirated content, but as you said, "Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here." And really, if people here cared that much about the letter of the law, you have to look at for example the DMCA which says that tools that enable piracy are just as illegal as piracy itself, in which case your FreeShop and stuff like that shouldn't really be distributed here either, yet it is.

My point to FAST is that you're confusing the issue by bringing up something that has no relevance. Bringing up what the "public is interested in" regarding the law is like reading random entries from the Oxford dictionary when someone asks you for the time.

My point to the OP on the other hand is that your question may or may not be valid here. What is clear is the law in this case, what is not is how the people on this site are choosing to apply the law and to uphold or not uphold it on their website.

As to nobody caring about license violation of open source software... I sure hope that none of the people here saying that ever want to become professional or even skilled hobbyist software developers. Because people stealing open source code and marketing it without contributing back to your project happens all the time and can frequently rob a developer of not only potential profits but, in the case of a commercial project that steals your code and is successful, rob you of recognition for your work. You may think that's no big deal, but having a decent portfolio of recognizable work is absolutely necessary for getting a decent job as a programmer. 

Basically, as an open source programmer myself I find the whole fact that the stated policy of this site is that "nobody cares" about GPL license violations, as opposed to ARR violations, to be both absurd and potentially damaging to the very community y'all rely on for your precious hacks and software.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Aug 11, 2018)

What op is saying GBAtemp doesn't give a shit if a shady company is selling license violating stuff, advertise (looking at you gary) and even host (download section) it here. You should give a shit. This is like a punch in the face of those who do the actual work and hurts the community in the long run. This is one of the reasons why the scene devs hate this site so much.

Just my 2 cents. Awaiting fanboys in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

Insidious611 said:


> Okay so, I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say here, and I'm mostly replying to ask for clarification. Specifically, why are you talking about public interest? Public interest has nothing to do with copyright law, so that's not really answering the question that was asked. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say that SX OS is "borrowing code". The fact is that it has been proven repeatedly that they are taking open source code and, against the license of said code, modifying it, compiling it, and releasing it in binary form without providing the source code. This is a copyright violation, plain and simple.
> 
> Now, the question is, is GBATemp really a site that actually cares that much about copyright violation? Sure, you can't link directly to places that offer pirated content, but as you said, "Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here." And really, if people here cared that much about the letter of the law, you have to look at for example the DMCA which says that tools that enable piracy are just as illegal as piracy itself, in which case your FreeShop and stuff like that shouldn't really be distributed here either, yet it is.
> 
> ...


I'm glad someone point this out.

Well they are saying "copyrighted work/software"
 in the rules. So yes it does.


----------



## Ryccardo (Aug 11, 2018)

Insidious611 said:


> Public interest has nothing to do with copyright law


That was _very allegedly_ the reason it was invented: promoting original invention instead of mindless rip-offs... now, there are plenty of other discussion on whether it's ever worked that way (in nowaday's times and culture, and enforcement for money, it certainly fails at that)



Insidious611 said:


> " And really, if people here cared that much about the letter of the law, you have to look at for example the DMCA


Most don't except as a curiosity (that's certainly true of me); and GBATemp is not hosted in that country famous for exporting freedom (with guns/bombs or economical meddling) 



mariogamer said:


> gateway (don't remember the specifics but i think they copied an open source a9lh implementation


They did and managed to make it well inferior to the original A9LH, so they lost the popularity/ePenis contest due to actions of the majority of the "free market", no artificial meddling with required

Is SX a rip-off of other software? Yes, but it's leading because it does what the competition doesn't (allegedly due to prudery of the original developers); similiarly, the first free(ware) and reasonably easy to install 3DS CFW with signature patches (RxPasta, was it?) was an unlicensed hack of RxTools. Did it result in drama? YES! To the point RxTools finally added said feature (admittedly it's significantly simpler than a rom loader is), RxPasta was promptly forgotten, and everyone lived happily after...


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> Welp that's not what hapenned in the switch scene for some reason (namely public stupid stuff).
> 
> Also, this is exactly what xecuter did. They copy pasted tinfoil (installer) and did some customIzation to it. Not to mention the sysmodules they have stolen to atmosphere.
> The only thing new that xecuter had was piracy stuff. Namely an xci backup loader.
> ...



Are you purposely talking in a rather... circumspect manner?
So TX took a bunch of code from different places, brewed it all up and made something head and shoulders above anything else available (we like loading backups/copied games around here, have done since the start. At the time nowt else did it even vaguely as well) and we are supposed to ignore it?

Anyway it sounds like you want GBAtemp to help lean on TX to release the code. It won't accomplish anything. I can however happily say I would like them to release their code, and the same for all other presently proprietary programming code out there.



Insidious611 said:


> Okay so, I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say here, and I'm mostly replying to ask for clarification. Specifically, why are you talking about public interest? Public interest has nothing to do with copyright law, so that's not really answering the question that was asked. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say that SX OS is "borrowing code". The fact is that it has been proven repeatedly that they are taking open source code and, against the license of said code, modifying it, compiling it, and releasing it in binary form without providing the source code. This is a copyright violation, plain and simple.
> 
> Now, the question is, is GBATemp really a site that actually cares that much about copyright violation? Sure, you can't link directly to places that offer pirated content, but as you said, "Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here." And really, if people here cared that much about the letter of the law, you have to look at for example the DMCA which says that tools that enable piracy are just as illegal as piracy itself, in which case your FreeShop and stuff like that shouldn't really be distributed here either, yet it is.
> 
> ...



I read it as the OP was asking why we reported on it/shared it all. If you have something doing better than anything else around and it is otherwise in line with what we do then it gets shared, discussed and otherwise spread. This also leaves aside the timings of it all (the various people doing the analysis on it were behind the announcements and initial release), something retroactive might have been possible but eh really.

The interest of the public and public interest are different things in matters of law and journalism. Typically you will see it discussed for celebrity gossip rags and how it may play to the right to privacy but there are plenty of examples in computer code, hacking and the sorts of things we deal in around here as well. The interest of the public may include certain things but it is not of the public interest which may override that and thus can be shut down in some way. To that end distasteful it might be but it does things people should know about and thus I would argue it is in fact of great relevance to this discussion.

DMCA wise for the most part people ignore it on sites like these (not to mention neither the server nor the owners are in the US). "Anything you do is all on you" then being how it plays out.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

Ryccardo said:


> That was _very allegedly_ the reason it was invented: promoting original invention instead of mindless rip-offs... now, there are plenty of other discussion on whether it's ever worked that way (in nowaday's times and culture, and enforcement for money, it certainly fails at that)
> 
> 
> Most don't except as a curiosity (that's certainly true of me); and GBATemp is not hosted in that country famous for exporting freedom (with guns/bombs or economical meddling)
> ...


We don't actually care if it does things better or not. It IS copyright violation.
Ps.: they did almost nothing better excpet for one big feature that "the public" love that is xci backup loading



FAST6191 said:


> Are you purposely talking in a rather... circumspect manner?
> So TX took a bunch of code from different places, brewed it all up and made something head and shoulders above anything else available (we like loading backups/copied games around here, have done since the start. At the time nowt else did it even vaguely as well) and we are supposed to ignore it?
> 
> Anyway it sounds like you want GBAtemp to help lean on TX to release the code. It won't accomplish anything. I can however happily say I would like them to release their code, and the same for all other presently proprietary programming code out there.
> ...


Seeing your posts actually convinces me that gbatemp doesn't care about it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> We don't actually care if it does things better or not. It IS copyright violation.
> Ps.: they did almost nothing better excpet for one big feature that "the public" love that is xci backup loading
> 
> 
> Seeing your posts actually convinces me that gbatemp doesn't care about it.


Is XCI format backup loading an undesirable feature then? Plenty of people seem to have a great time as a result of it.

GBAtemp cares, however it appears to the response to such concerns is not that which you would want.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Is XCI format backup loading an undesirable feature then? Plenty of people seem to have a great time as a result of it.
> 
> GBAtemp cares, however it appears to the response to such concerns is not that which you would want.


In the current way it is applied, no.

And if they care so much why won't they do anything against? Just because of those 1-2 new features.
And I'll repeat it again and again. It is still a copyright voliation.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 10, 2018)

So, from gbatemp's rules:



> ...this includes (but is NOT limited to) - licensed and copyrighted software, code, movies, music, video games, magazines, comics, e-books, television shows, illegal torrents, etc. These rules also account for "keygens" and "cracks" including how to obtain, apply or install them.



This mean it is applicable to some software such as the tx sx os.

However, it seems like this rule isn't truly applied for open source software. Most of them in hacking scenes uses the gpl v2 or v3.

Even tho it is open source code, license exist for it. And the gpl is known to permit software distribution if:
a: proper copyright notices were added
b: forked software may stay on the open source domain (and still have the gpl license)

This is appliable to other license, but the gpl is probably the biggest one.

My main question, are open source code treated the same? And what  would be considered as a violation? Answer is already known for the first question ( because of some things certain scenes, you may easily notice that it is not).

How will open source code be treated in this case?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> In the current way it is applied, no.
> 
> And if they care so much why won't they do anything against? Just because of those 1-2 new features.
> And I'll repeat it again and again. It is still a copyright voliation.


What would you suggest to people as an alternative for similar ease of use and reliability? Could be XCI format still (and from what I understand it is likely to become the dominant format) or something that achieves the equivalent result.

What do you propose is done against them? I already said it would be nice if they open source it. Further things could be done but we would have to figure out what they are first.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Aug 11, 2018)

Back in the glory Wii hacking days, a developer released a mod of a GPL’d backup loader / softmod suite here at GBAtemp but refused to release the source. The original developer/s complained to the mods and they decided to ban all download links to it. GBAtemp is not always consistent when dealing with such things.


----------



## Ryccardo (Aug 11, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> Ps.: they did almost nothing better excpet for one big feature that "the public" love that is xci backup loading


Exactly, and Fr33 G4m3z is, I strongly bet, THE most desired feature that nobody else is (currently) supplying

Make drugs/guns/* illegal, don't be surprised if a significant number of consumers turns to the black market


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

Actually as i said there is tinfoil for installing. And nsps are probably better. Also tinfoil will probably implement xci installation.
But why is it a must anyways?



FAST6191 said:


> What do you propose is done against them? I already said it would be nice if they open source it. Further things could be done but we would have to figure out what they are first.


Honestly on a website side you may simply tell the user that it has been proven. It won't really fix it, but at least you did something.
Actually doing something against those "** version is out" or review might be good... But welll might be more complexe I guess.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 11, 2018)

If I am hacking a device I want it to be able to install any kind of file it knows, install modified versions of any kind of file it knows, to run code of my choosing from any source, I want cheats (debugging is also nice if good PC emulators do not exist), I want the ability to throw my saves/user data around however I like... basically as though it was a free and clear device to fiddle with according to my whims.
Anything that provides something of that list that another does not will be of interest to me. "will probably" presumably means "not at this point" and as I live in "this point" rather than "possible future" I go with what is easy.

Gamecard formats vs downloadable content formats... I would rather have both but I will take whatever works, or if one is less hassle then that. At the time the gamecard formats seemed to be a better choice.

People already know. We had several discussions on the matter. For the latter stuff why would I want to block news of updates or the opinions of those that fiddled with it?


----------



## Insidious611 (Aug 11, 2018)

FAST: I should clarify that I have no problem with you or anyone reporting on illegal things, especially given this community and its interests. There is nothing wrong with journalism of this sort.

I do have a problem with people violating the licenses of open source projects and acting as though that's a lesser form of copyright infringement when it's just plain copyright infringement, but to be fair you haven't done that explicitly.

As to whether the developers of other CFWs have moral qualms with piracy-enabling software, for one I think it should be acknowledged that it's their right to have said qualms, but I also think that most of the development here is happening on GitHub and many employers for software development GitHub-stalk their developers, so it's probably a good idea not to have that kind of thing going on on your page. As such I somewhat doubt that the entire team's qualms are completely moral, moreso than they're practical and societal.

I'm entirely convinced, for example, that naerhwhert (I can never spell the name right apologies) abandoned his repo after Hekate was incorrectly linked to piracy not because he personally was offended morally by this but because he did not want a project that mentions piracy in the first few google results associated with his handle.

Re: The DMCA it's worth noting that if something is copyrighted in the US, certain provisions of the DMCA, including takedown notices and the obligation as a host of content to remove it, does apply internationally, no matter where you're hosted. This is for the same reason that copyrights from one country apply to others: Treaties that establish the bounds and effects of international copyright law. This is something I learned personally the hard way working systems administration for a web host based in Europe.

It's also worth noting that moderated content exposes the people hosting that content to more liability than unmoderated content for the purposes of DMCA safe harbor. In other words, a place like a forum where people post things and moderators moderate them exposes the moderators, admins, and site itself to liability. And a web host which curates what's allowed to be hosted on its service is exposed to liability for anything that is contained on that service. This is why most webhosts are hands off until a report comes in: It is actually better for them liability-wise to be an unmoderated platform, because in that case you are merely responsible for taking down content on the copyright holders request, you are not liable beyond this responsibility.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 11, 2018)

Insidious611 said:


> I do have a problem with people violating the licenses of open source projects and acting as though that's a lesser form of copyright infringement when it's just plain copyright infringement, but to be fair you haven't done that explicitly.


It's actually the problem that I see. 

Why are you always falling back on "what the public want"? We both know the public won't apply any copyright rules.
website rulers should care more, because it woild be a nice way to get it fixed.

Off topic:


Insidious611 said:


> the development here is happening on GitHub and many employers for software development GitHub-stalk their developers,


What do you mean Github-stalk?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 12, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> It's actually the problem that I see.
> 
> Why are you always falling back on "what the public want"? We both know the public won't apply any copyright rules.
> website rulers should care more, because it woild be a nice way to get it fixed.
> ...



On the *stalk thing then when network computers became a thing it turns out you could go through histories to find out things, just like a real life stalker. Companies looking to hire coders will see if they have contributed to open source software and as github is/was the most popular place to do a project... That way you can see how much coding they do, what languages they lean on/are proficient in, what sorts of projects they do, how many and what their errors are, what sort of tests they run, what their non interview coding style is... all far more effective than getting someone to do a fizzbuzz variant or whatever you half remembered and never understood in whatever edition of "programmer interview techniques for non coders" you have to hand. Most commonly you will see the phrase facebook-stalk or probably "cyber-stalk", classic one being someone looking up their ex boyfriend/girlfriend and seeing what they are doing now.

I agree the public generally does not give two hoots about copyright (see also how many times you would have to explain the differences between copyright, patents and trademarks, never mind something most have never heard of like design rights, registered designs or the nuances of patents). However the idea that we should consider not reporting on updates, releases and such that may bruise open source IP concerns, especially when the results are something people would want to know about, seems very strange to me.


----------



## smf (Aug 12, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> And I'll repeat it again and again. It is still a copyright voliation.



Maybe, not all source code can be copyrighted. Nintendo could argue that parts of Atmosphere are derivatives of Horizon OS and can't be released under the GPL either (Nintendo could also argue that the rest of Atmosphere is a DMCA violation).


----------



## Insidious611 (Aug 12, 2018)

The latter would be more likely to hold up in court than the former. The right to reverse engineer has been repeatedly affirmed in both European and US courts, and as long as said reverse engineering is "clean" (ie, did not involve directly looking at existing code) it is generally considered legal. Proving this would involve a long, involved code audit.


----------



## linuxares (Aug 12, 2018)

Insidious611 said:


> Re: The DMCA it's worth noting that if something is copyrighted in the US, certain provisions of the DMCA, including takedown notices and the obligation as a host of content to remove it, *does apply internationally*, no matter where you're hosted. This is for the same reason that copyrights from one country apply to others: Treaties that establish the bounds and effects of international copyright law. This is something I learned personally the hard way working systems administration for a web host based in Europe.



First, the DMCA have no jurisdiction outside the US. It's an American law, nothing more, nothing less. For more information for the EU it's here: https://www.dmca.com/faq/European-DMCA-Takedown-process
We have discussed SX OS before as Moderators. What we have decided or not is not up for discussion.

Second, The Reswitched team know very well how to contact us if they wish to discuss more.


----------



## Insidious611 (Aug 12, 2018)

I stand corrected re the DMCA. 

As to the latter bit, I'm not certain how that has anything to do with me.


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 15, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> On the *stalk thing then when network computers became a thing it turns out you could go through histories to find out things, just like a real life stalker. Companies looking to hire coders will see if they have contributed to open source software and as github is/was the most popular place to do a project... That way you can see how much coding they do, what languages they lean on/are proficient in, what sorts of projects they do, how many and what their errors are, what sort of tests they run, what their non interview coding style is... all far more effective than getting someone to do a fizzbuzz variant or whatever you half remembered and never understood in whatever edition of "programmer interview techniques for non coders" you have to hand. Most commonly you will see the phrase facebook-stalk or probably "cyber-stalk", classic one being someone looking up their ex boyfriend/girlfriend and seeing what they are doing now.
> 
> I agree the public generally does not give two hoots about copyright (see also how many times you would have to explain the differences between copyright, patents and trademarks, never mind something most have never heard of like design rights, registered designs or the nuances of patents). However the idea that we should consider not reporting on updates, releases and such that may bruise open source IP concerns, especially when the results are something people would want to know about, seems very strange to me.


Thanks for explaning.

If updates are about new features, you might actually promote what is new but still say it is wrong to blablabla. However thoses features are copy paste.



linuxares said:


> First, the DMCA have no jurisdiction outside the US. It's an American law, nothing more, nothing less. For more information for the EU it's here: https://www.dmca.com/faq/European-DMCA-Takedown-process
> We have discussed SX OS before as Moderators. What we have decided or not is not up for discussion.
> 
> Second, The Reswitched team know very well how to contact us if they wish to discuss more.


That's real. They need to contact you. (for something they still established since a while).
eh forgot to mention would tx need to contact you for removing a crack?


----------



## mariogamer (Aug 21, 2018)

Actuallly another bump. Surprised that no one has answered after a week.

I also might add that tx updates always get on the front page while clwarly being copies.

(Tho this is not only about tx, as I said earlier)
E


----------



## mariogamer (Sep 11, 2018)

May I ask again why this isn't a priority while cracks of sx os are "illegal" on the site.
(sorry for these repetitive message, but no one answers)


----------



## tbb043 (Sep 12, 2018)

SXOS is a commercial product, of course cracks against it are going to be taken more seriously then "boo hoo you stole the open source free shit and copied it" whiny stuff. Same reason romz and warez aren't allowed on the site, they want the site to continue to exist and allowing paid for stuff to be infringed on is more serious (to the authorities) than free stuff.


----------



## mariogamer (Sep 12, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> SXOS is a commercial product, of course cracks against it are going to be taken more seriously then "boo hoo you stole the open source free shit and copied it" whiny stuff. Same reason romz and warez aren't allowed on the site, they want the site to continue to exist and allowing paid for stuff to be infringed on is more serious (to the authorities) than free stuff.


I'd get why people are thinking like this. But cppyright 'n licenses matter as much in private and open source softwares.
Big companies actually need to respect gpl, or they'll get sued (and it already hapenned).


----------



## Quantumcat (Sep 12, 2018)

mariogamer said:


> May I ask again why this isn't a priority while cracks of sx os are "illegal" on the site.
> (sorry for these repetitive message, but no one answers)


Reswitched said they have no interest in taking any action against TX so it is probably safe to say the site isn't in any danger from it.


----------

