Hacking Discussion Team Xecuter Attempted to Bribe RetroNX Developers

[linuxares]

I can only say: This thread does make me see the errors of my way! I get bribed every day to do some software work. It even sometimes involves modifying GPL code! And I don't even publish the changes. DANG!

/s

On further note: if working for a company, you personally are not required to publish GPL code changes. Also using GPL code in server software only is legal.

You really need to learn what the GPL means. Because everything you said is wrong.

 

[anhminh]

I would call it a "job offer" if it was Nintendo who calling, not some shady company selling shitty piracy device in China. And if it actually an offer they would have make it open to the team, not going behind everyone back and contact just m4xw.

 

[sj33]

I mean, let's be clear here - TX know full well that libretro is an open source licensed under GPLv3 and yet were still prepared to ignore that and pay for a bespoke closed version using that source.

 

[Insane]

You really need to learn what the GPL means. Because everything you said is wrong.

Now I want to learn, can you tell me what is my error and where in thr GPL I can find this?

 

[VinsCool]

I mean, let's be clear here - TX know full well that libretro is an open source licensed under GPLv3 and yet were still prepared to ignore that and pay for a bespoke closed version using that source.

If they really wanted their own version they would have done it by themselves, I guess.
Honestly there is no point doing so, considering that it's already being working for free for everyone.

Maybe they aren't as capable as they claim they are. If they really were, they would already have forked it privately and released it as RetroXecuter, replacing Nintendo's NES online.
That without credit, of course.

 

[Localhorst86]

You really need to learn what the GPL means. Because everything you said is wrong.

The GPL requires you to publish any changes to the GPL Code, but doesn't that only apply if you make the changed product available to others (either for free or for a fee)?

If you solely use the changed code for yourself (or internaly in your company as an entity), I don't think you do need to publish any changes.

Either way: if the "incident" happened as described, it would definatly be a bribe. But then again, maybe there was a miscommunication?

 

[Deleted User]

I wouldn't really call that a "bribe."

You're 100% correct! I'd call it a shit bribe!

 

[sj33]

The GPL requires you to publish any changes to the GPL Code, but doesn't that only apply if you make the changed product available to others (either for free or for a fee)?

If you solely use the changed code for yourself (or internaly in your company as an entity), I don't think you do need to publish any changes.

Either way: if the "incident" happened as described, it would definatly be a bribe. But then again, maybe there was a miscommunication?

But that's somewhat moot. TX weren't paying $6000 for m4xw to create software to use in their company lounge. If they release a derivative work using some or part of that code, they have to release that derivative work under the same or compatible licence.

 

[Localhorst86]

But that's somewhat moot. TX weren't paying $6000 for m4xw to create software to use in their company lounge. If they release a derivative work using some or part of that code, they have to release that derivative work under the same or compatible licence.

It was a little bit off topic as @Insane argued that he, in his job, takes GPL code, uses it, and doesn't publish the changes to the code, whereas @linuxares argued that this was against the license. It's to a certain degree off-topic. I was not specifically arguing the TX case when mentioning the GPL. I appologize if that wasn't clear.

Obviously, *IF* the claims of the bribe are true, TX would have asked for a breach of the GPL license, that's out of the question. I am not trying to defend TX here, but atm we only heard one side of the story. It could have been a miscommunication, allthough to me it seems plausible that TX would try to pull such a stunt.

 

[Reploid]

Exclusive to their 'hardware'? To a dongle it means? Sounds like poorly crafted slander.

 

[Brawl345]

Why put in time for something to give for free? For a thank you?

Normally I wouldn't agree with you, since open-source is the spirit of the Homebrew community. But for this scene... not so much. Not in relation to m4xw, he did a wonderful job porting RA.

 

[guitarheroknight]

This smells like a retroarch implementation into the rommenu if you ask me. Prepare for another wave of epic shit storms.

 

[NeoSlyde]

This smells like a retroarch implementation into the rommenu if you ask me. Prepare for another wave of epic shit storms.

Why not?

 

[RattletraPM]

https://twitter.com/libretro/status/1046891214824460293

You can't make this shit up. They offered over $6,000 to the RetroNX team to stop all development and pick back up exclusively under SX OS. A violation of LibRetro's license and illegal. Based @m4xw and @natinusala not falling for the chinaman's tricks!

I'm technically still waiting for my Switch to be delivered but jesus, it's hard to ignore how some people to cover their eyes and ears to defend what TX is doing. It's obvious that they're hurting the scene in general now, I could make a shopping list of things they've done that could be considered morally or plain wrong and yet usually the people who defend these practices are the same who complain about how shitty the scene is. Mind you, I'm no stranger to 'buying to run homebrew/"backups"' and in fact I'm not even blaming them for offering a paid solution, but I'd say that with the recent events they've crosed the line and done more harm than good to the scene.

About the ones saying that refusing the money was a bad idea, are you aware that sometimes open source developers have refused way greater amounts for much more reasonable things? For example, one time the maintainer of VLC refused tens of millions of Euro to put ads in the software. Sure, this is VLC we're talking about, but think about this: no licence violation would've happened whatsoever, the offer was perfectly legal. The maintainer simply refused by saying "I have a moral". Here TX offered an insignificant amount compared to that to a team porting a definitely-smaller-yet-still-widely-used software to literally break their licence and do something illegal. Think about that for a second.

 

[Dan-the-Rebirth]

guess what will happen with all The interresting entrys in The bounty?

 

[sj33]

Lol this community? Half the people here bitch and never satisfied. I would never give away my set of skills for free. Why put in time for something to give for free? For a thank you? Thank you doesn't pay. Similar to the IOS exploiters, they can exploit the IOS and make a exploit and give it to someone to jailbreak and get a thank you. What do they do? Turn it into apple for cash.Libretro would not sue for any illegal activity. The amount money to go to court for people who do something for free. Come on man, most you'll get is a thread blowing up.

Yes, let's deny the entire 40 year history of open source development. Why would people do it for free? /s

 

[m4xw]

This smells like a retroarch implementation into the rommenu if you ask me. Prepare for another wave of epic shit storms.

Well thats what they wanted me to do

 

[Varia]

This is some good advertisement for TX, probably a bunch of people looking at this and thinking they could get some money for making their stuff exclusive for TX lol.

 

[andyhappypants]

Surely this is no different to what companys like apple and microsoft do all the time? Take some of the jailbreak communitys work and feature the good stuff as the latest iOS release? Is it only an issue when TX do something like this??

Personally couldnt care 2 shits about Retroarch or any emulation homebrew. I prefer real hardware with real controllers

 

[kumikochan]

Surely this is no different to what companys like apple and microsoft do all the time? Take some of the jailbreak communitys work and feature the good stuff as the latest iOS release? Is it only an issue when TX do something like this??

Personally couldnt care 2 shits about Retroarch or any emulation homebrew. I prefer real hardware with real controllers

No they don't do that. They hire people to help make software for them and give them a monthly wage. What they don't do is force them to make everything closed source they were making and had made and make it so that it only runs on their platform. It's a really BIG difference than what you're claiming since they hire them to make NEW shit