Hacking Discussion GPL 101 - Atmosphere and SX OS

[blahblah]

What if I told you this thread came as a personal request from one of the moderators? I'm not trying to change your opinion but if you don't want to be here, no one is forcing you.

What if I told you that I do not....care? This forum does not need more places for concern trolling. People with basic intellect can Google 'GPL' and learn how the license works. The kind of people who should be modifying their consoles already know.

 

[jakkal]

Don't care
Reswitched team is dead now anyway

That's what happens when a load of self righteous anti piracy warriors get together

 

[Draxzelex]

What if I told you that I do not....care? This forum does not need more places for concern trolling. People with basic intellect can Google 'GPL' and learn how the license works. The kind of people who should be modifying their consoles already know.

If you don't care, then why are you trying to shut down the thread?

 

[blahblah]

If you don't care, then why are you trying to shut down the thread?

Reading is fundamental. A moderator allowing a thread does not change what I think. That is what I was saying.

 

[Draxzelex]

Weird that I saw my edits then they went away afterwards. Hopefully it looks and stays neater this time by breaking the information down into tabs.

 

[Dabiolos]

Thank you.

... But TX must include a copy of the GPLv2 with the work and provide its source code when someone asks for it (what they obviously don’t). Also, the GPL states that anyone who receives a copy has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not....

Are you sure they have to release the full source?

My understanding was: If there is no interaction between the backup loading portion and the stolen unmodified code (you could see them as plug-ins/different programms since everything could be released separately) they only would need to release the stolen code source (pointing to the original github would have been enough?) and make the stolen part accessible for free... and give credit/addGPL. Is this wrong?

See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins

Didn't know that hbloader was not licensed... But as long Reswitched doesn't care nothing will happen and tx will get away with it...

 

[Revard]

...Are you sure they have to release the full source?

My understanding was: If there is no interaction between the backup loading portion and the stolen unmodified code (you could see them as plug-ins/different programms since everything could be released separately) they only would need to release the stolen code source (pointing to the original github would have been enough?) and make the stolen part accessible for free... and give credit/addGPL. Is this wrong?...

That's where the GPL is somewhat vague...
If you think the programs are “reasonably considered to be independent and separate works in themselves” then yes, but only "when you distribute them as separate works".
But are they independent and separate works? The backup loader starts through the homebrew loader and should be useless without it.

 

[Dabiolos]

That's where the GPL is somewhat vague...
If you think the programs are “reasonably considered to be independent and separate works in themselves” then yes, but only "when you distribute them as separate works".
But are they independent and separate works? The backup loader starts through the homebrew loader and should be useless without it.

I see... I have no switch yet, just guessed they added the homebrew launcher as last minute update (think I read this somewhere) and so the backup launcher is separated.

But even then I guess they don't have to release sources. Compare it to Android development. Kernel is gpl (without it nothing works...) but still they use proprietary blobs and closed source software when distributed (unfortunately for custom Rom development...).

I like the idea that you should have free access to knowledge and information and also the fact that devs should work together to create better code, it's sad that tx is just in for the money and doesn't contribute or give credit to the open source community (which made their solution possible)

Thanks again for the effort

 

[DbGt]

what people keep forgetting is that TX are first and foremost pirates and a business, they are not an open source community like reswitched. TX has always been about enabling piracy and they have always sold their products. They surely dont care about a GPL violation and neither most people.

What i do care is that thanks to both -tx and reswitched- I now have a switch with all the games I could ever wanted plus even DLC. Its stupid to take sides, im happy both of them are working on the switch, the more devs and hackers the better for us. Theres no "evil" tx or rs, the only evil is us, people who pirate

 

[Revard]

what people keep forgetting is that TX are first and foremost pirates and a business, they are not an open source community like reswitched. TX has always been about enabling piracy and they have always sold their products. They surely dont care about a GPL violation and neither most people.

What i do care is that thanks to both -tx and reswitched- I now have a switch with all the games I could ever wanted plus even DLC. Its stupid to take sides, im happy both of them are working on the switch, the more devs and hackers the better for us. Theres no "evil" tx or rs, the only evil is us, people who pirate

Yes, most people don't care about GPL as they use it privately and then it's even legal. But a business should care about it, because they can get fined (if they are in the US/Europe or relevant states).

 

[xabier]

In recent days, some discussions popped up about TX stealing licensed code.
Some say Atmosphere is free and could be used in any way because it is open source.
Others state that it is illegal to sell open source software.
Many think "don't know, don't care!"
To put it short: Many users have a misconception about open source software.

So, this thread is to inform users and also discuss about what open source software is.
With the example of TX and Atmosphere I'd like to show how licensing of software affects the distribution of software.

How it all started (brief sum up)

How it all started (brief sum up)What is software licensing?What means that for TX?

1. 
   
   • TX started advertising their modchip SX Pro all the way back in January 2, 2018.
   • Development of Atmosphere officially started on January 18, 2018.
   • TX released their SX OS "CFW" for free on June 18, 2018.
   • Shortly after began the SX OS cracking challange.
   • On June 27, 2018 hexkyz tweeted a pic of the decrypted SX OS V1.0 source code which contains an easter egg that just so happens to also be in the homebrew launcher used in Atmosphere which is licensed under GPLv2. It should also be worth noting that most of the proof comes from hexkyz, a hacker who is part of ReSwitched. He is the one who supposedly decrypted SX OS in the first place.
   • Compared to nx-hbloader from plutoo with the easter egg in its raw form one can easily spot the similarities.
   • A tweet comparing SX OS V1.2 to V1.3 from July 4, 2018 shows very clear evidence that they knew others found the easter egg when their SX OS was supposedly cracked, so they changed it by obfuscating the original easter egg.
   • Here's a tweet from SciresM (one of the main developers behind Atmosphere and a part of ReSwitched) that details another GPL violation. Most of the recent tweets contain more supposed evidence of multiple GPL violations.
   • Lastly for the evidence, these are all of the supposed claims to all of the violations TX made in word form according to hexkyz.
   • Here is a link to the python script used to decrypt all versions of SX OS (except 1.1) if you want to assure yourself.
2. 
   
   Very popular FOSS licenses are GPLv2 (which is explained next) and its siblings LGPLv3 and GPLv3.
   
   GPLv2
   
   • What is GPLv2?
     The General Public License (GPL) version 2 is an open source software license. Works based on GPL-based code must be subject to the same terms as the original code. Which means the entire work must be made available in source code form and without license fee obligations. The problem with the GPL is that the license terms are not firmly specified and vague.
   • What does that mean?
     Anyone is allowed to modify, distribute and even sell GPLv2 licensed software. At the same time, you cannot be held liable and charged for damages which the software may could produce.
     To use these rights, there are some obligations, however, which are as follows:
     • You must include or give instructions to obtain the original software.
     • The source code must be provided alongside the distribution.
     • It requires stating significant changes made to software as well as including the full text of the GPLv2.
     If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times, which means it could be modified and distributed by the copyright holder (e.g. sold as improved product) without providing the source code.
   • When does it apply?
     GPLv2 is organized into 3 (relevant) sections:
     • Section 1 deals with reproduction and distribution of verbatim copies of the Program’s source code.
     • Section 2 deals with modifying the source code.
     • Section 3 deals with reproduction and distribution of binary code.
     Under a plain reading of section 2, if the licensee does not modify the original GPL-licensed program, the Modification Condition and all of its explanatory provisions in section 2 simply do not apply. That leaves sections 1 and 3, governing rights to copy and reproduce in binary or source code forms, neither of which contain any language whatsoever to the effect that merely combining independent works with GPL-licensed code renders the independent works subject to GPL as well.
     Even assuming that section 2 regulates the licensee even in the absence of modifications, the GPL's inheritance requirements in section 2 apply only to "works based on the Program".
     The GPL defines a “work based on the Program” as “any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it ….”
     This definition can only sensibly be construed to mean derivative works as defined by applicable copyright law, and not merely collective works or compilations.
     Under US law, a derivative work is defined under the US Copyright Act as a work that is:
     If the new work contains the program or a copy of it, but nothing more – no modifications, recastings or transformations of that original program – then such work is the functional equivalent of pasting postcard art (linking GPL-licensed code) with ceramic tile (proprietary or non-GPL code).
     
     But if the new code that is added to or linked with the original GPL-licensed code, then the GPL applies to the entire bundle.
3. 
   Under the assumption that TX used GPLv2 licensed code and modified it (there is enough proof of that), TX has the right to sell copies. It’s part of the definition of free software.
   But TX must include a copy of the GPLv2 with the work and provide its source code when someone asks for it (which they obviously have not nor plan to). Also, the GPL states that anyone who receives a copy has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not.
   
   While the dongle and JIG may be legal, the “CFW” called SX OS definitely is not.
   The easter egg is only visible in the nx-hbloader repo which is not licensed at all and therefore it’s All Rights Reserved:
   
   Leading to a copyright infringement by TX caused by using nx-hbloader.

Please leave us all comments, queries, and possible suggestions down below. And remember, keep it civil!

Before starting this thread you should learn the differece between free software and open source software.

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and many other companies "steal" open source software for their closed source products and it's fine and completely legal, this would be a BSD style license most of the time, a free software license GPL licenses require you to distribute the source code with the binaries, and the GPL v3 requires you to release the source for online services that do not distribute the binaries.

Many known phone vendors do not publish the full kernel sources from their products, big companies like Sony, Samsung and related.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
https://opensource.org/licenses

After reading the links, you could know by now that atmosphere is under a free software license, thus you are not allowed to get code without giving it back to community, whereas getting code from an open source project and not giving it back to community is completely legit.

 

[Cubuss]

better call saul

 

[xabier]

Yes, most people don't care about GPL as they use it privately and then it's even legal. But a business should care about it, because they can get fined (if they are in the US/Europe or relevant states).

It would be funny when the mentioned countries start to block all the phones, routers and other devices that fail to comply with GPL. I m pretty sure that you have got one of those devices at home probably, even governments buy this devices with tax money.

 

[Limajho]

the person does not have the money to buy the SX PRO and keeps creating these things ... pathetic

 

[goulien82]

Hi.

I've only signed up here at GBATemp (although I'm following this forum for more than 10 years now) to let the OP(s) know how much I like the idea behind this thread and that I find it to be very informative! Please keep up this good work!

Please excuse any errors concerning spelling or punctuation as English is not my native language.

 

[The14thfly]

TL;DR:

"Team-xecuter is breaking the law."

Uh, yeah, their os is mean't for piracy, i'm pretty sure they won't stop there. Most people using their OS don't give a single shit about this. Do we really need another thread about how "TEAEEM EXCUUTTEER IS BAED" ?

First it was that their os is closed source, secondly it was that they're charging money for it, then it was that you'd get most likely banned for using their os, and after that it was that they had a brick code in their os, and then it was that they used atmosphere code (which there was no evidence for, and if there is other than SciresM providing a screenshot of some hex code then please provide it, i'm genuienly interested). People we're grinding their teeth over them having brick code, now when they removed it people are back to the GPLv2 bullshit.


I swear, you people sound like a hypocritical judge dredd making threads and comments like "PIRACY AND BREAKING LICENSES IS AGAINST THE LAW!" but then salivating over having sxos cracked (which I support).

If reswitched is against this or if you are, please go ahead and sue team-xecuter. If not, then stop making these useless threads about shit we already know.

 

[Dabiolos]

TL;DR:

"Team-xecuter is breaking the law."
.

scnr

 

[Revard]

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and many other companies "steal" open source software for their closed source products and it's fine and completely legal, this would be a BSD style license most of the time, a free software license GPL licenses require you to distribute the source code with the binaries, and the GPL v3 requires you to release the source for online services that do not distribute the binaries.

Many known phone vendors do not publish the full kernel sources from their products, big companies like Sony, Samsung and related.

Yeah, because they don't have to if they used e.g. BSD licensed software.

After reading the links, you could know by now that atmosphere is under a free software license, thus you are not allowed to get code without giving it back to community, whereas getting code from an open source project and not giving it back to community is completely legit.

Atmosphere is under GPLv2 which means getting code from it and not giving it back to community is NOT legit, because it is distributed every buyer should have the right to get its source code.

I swear, you people sound like a hypocritical judge dredd making threads and comments like "PIRACY AND BREAKING LICENSES IS AGAINST THE LAW!"
... stop making these useless threads about shit we already know.

Obviously some people don't have enough knowledge about it AND are writing "hypocritical judge dredd making threads and comments".
This is a thread about GPL on the EXAMPLE of TX and Atmosphere to actually inform people. (if they want to be informed )

 

[EIREXE]

What about play "backup games"/homebrew and Nintendo Policy?

If local law allows such things the most nintendo can possibly do is ban you from using their service, as agreements can't override law.

Thank you for making this thread by the way, I am a free software developer and have built a bunch of things over the years and have contributed to other free software projects, I would like the license that others chose for their projects to be respected just like people have (so far) respected the ones I've chosen for my personal projects.

 

[xabier]

Yeah, because they don't have to if they used e.g. BSD licensed software.

Atmosphere is under GPLv2 which means getting code from it and not giving it back to community is NOT legit, because it is distributed every buyer should have the right to get its source code.


Obviously some people don't have enough knowledge about it AND are writing "hypocritical judge dredd making threads and comments".
This is a thread about GPL on the EXAMPLE of TX and Atmosphere to actually inform people. (if they want to be informed )

Hence stop using open source for atmosphere and use Free Software.

The funny thing is that atmosphere and xecuter are both tools that break licenses, even if you don't use them piracy.