Exactly the same. And when I try to revert it or whatever, it comes up as unknown.
This is actually quite the conundrum.
On the one hand the GPL clearly states that source must be released, and it must be possible to compile the source. this means the source given must compile to a working .firm file. The anti tivoization clause in gpl 3.0 applies here.
On the other hand, their fork contains proprietary data and code, so naturally they want to keep that data secret. Of course this is exactly the sourt of situation that that provision was put in there to stop.
So questions
1) are they now required to release the encryption source to decrypt their firmware now?
2) is there some way to remain compliant to the GPL and keep their proprietary data secret?
I expect what will happen is it gets reversed anyway, the carts get added to mainline flasher, and after then they will probably release the source.
On the one hand the GPL clearly states that source must be released, and it must be possible to compile the source. this means the source given must compile to a working .firm file. The anti tivoization clause in gpl 3.0 applies here.
On the other hand, their fork contains proprietary data and code, so naturally they want to keep that data secret. Of course this is exactly the sourt of situation that that provision was put in there to stop.
So questions
1) are they now required to release the encryption source to decrypt their firmware now?
2) is there some way to remain compliant to the GPL and keep their proprietary data secret?
I expect what will happen is it gets reversed anyway, the carts get added to mainline flasher, and after then they will probably release the source.
(
I'm pretty sure that's unrelated; if you have GPLv3 software running but the device requires that software be properly signed, you must provide the signatures to let anyone sign the software. that isn't exactly the case here.
I'm not a lawyer of course but that's how I understand it.
yes, they modified a GPLv3 program and released a binary for it. the source now must be provided upon request.
probably, but I doubt it.
the intent of the anti-tivo rule is that the source must provide a working binary. whether it's encryption keys or the proprietary code need to perform the flash, it must be there.
because they forked a gpl 3 program and teir fork contains their flasher code, they must release it to be compliant.
because they forked a gpl 3 program and teir fork contains their flasher code, they must release it to be compliant.
So they released a ntrboot_flash fork without the source code and said flasher also bricks people's carts? Wow
These cards should really only be used in my opinion as "un-brickers" for those that can't flash an R4i Gold RTS themselves. Otherwise just buy that card as it's proven to work both ways without errors. I mean buying them both if your bricked is still less than the cost of one 3DS game including tax; especially if you want a working flashcard as well. If you brick your B9S, you only got one use out of it anyway.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Playing the Judge Dredd arcade game prototype lol I can see why they didn't finish it but at the same time I think it would have turned out pretty good with some minor tweaks to the gameplay -
-
