Hacking Discussion Team Xecuter Attempted to Bribe RetroNX Developers

[ghjfdtg]

@yanhaot
Except EULAs are not legally binding. It is a whole different story if you violate the EULA than it is to break a legally binding license.

 

[fadx]

All the threads revolving around TX end up being a giant shouting match between 2 sides that have a 0% chance of changing their minds. Neither side care what arguments the other side have to offer. You're all wasting your time pointlessly arguing. This whole thread is people saying the same points over and over and over again and then the other people saying the counter points over and over and over again.

 

[LibretroRetroArc]

Also just a quick note: there is nothing in the GPLv3 which disallows you from modifying the GPL software so it only works with a very specific hardware. You are only not allowed to modify the hardware, so it only runs one program under GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

Read the part about TIVOization in specific -

One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered software that you can't effectively change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer knows people will want to change, and aims to stop people from changing them. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise.

Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should suffice to keep nasty features to a low level. Perhaps competition alone would avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut down between 1pm and 5pm every Tuesday”, but even so, a choice of masters isn't freedom. Freedom means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you.

In the crucial area of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—nasty features designed to restrict your use of the data in your computer—competition is no help, because relevant competition is forbidden. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws, it is illegal, in the US and many other countries, to distribute DVD players unless they restrict the user according to the official rules of the DVD conspiracy (its web site is http://www.dvdcca.org/, but the rules do not seem to be published there). The public can't reject DRM by buying non-DRM players because none are available. No matter how many products you can choose from, they all have equivalent digital handcuffs.

GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization.

The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers is to be expected, even occasionally. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations.

Presuming that they would still decide to go through with this despite the current controversy that already exists (I would recommend they do not - the software is already open and available for free, and given how badly they screwed up their own OS at this point and got basic features wrong, I highly doubt there is any engineering talent there to be able to make such a venture worthwhile. We would certainly NEVER support this version, that is for sure), IF Team Xecuter won't allow you to replace their version of RetroArch with another version of RetroArch that is compiled elsewhere and replace the version on their device, that is TIVOization, and that is against the license. This license specifically got made because of Tivo, read more about that here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo#GNU_General_Public_License_and_"Tivoization"

You have to allow for a modified version of the software to be ran on your device. You can't dance around this part the way you could with GPLv2.

it is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? A 'modchip company' that in the past was all about removing 'handcuffs', now suddenly they put their own handcuffs on the users buying their device with DRM, bricking, and whatnot? What a shame and travesty honestly this entire 'homebrew/hacking' scene has become. What a betrayal of the hacker ethos if anything. I guess nobody cares as long as somebody gets some money somewhere down the line.

If DRM, self-bricking upon tampering is all you're getting out of a 'device' like this, you might as well stay official for all the additional 'freedom' that homebrew/hacking affords you. This is stuff one would expect Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft to do, a platform holder residing over its locked-off silos, not a modchip company that purports to be giving people 'freedom' to unlock the restrictions.

 

[Insane]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

Read the part about TIVOization in specific -



Presuming that they would still decide to go through this despite the current controversy that already exists, IF Team Xecuter won't allow you to replace their version of RetroArch with another version of RetroArch that is compiled elsewhere and replace the version on their device, that is TIVOization, and that is against the license. This license specifically got made because of Tivo, read more about that here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo#GNU_General_Public_License_and_"Tivoization"

You have to allow for a modified version of the software to be ran on your device. You can't dance around this part the way you could with GPLv2.

But TX has no code on their device that locks you down. You are fully capable of creating your own boot.dat and running arbitraty code with their device.

You have the full right to not publish your changes to the world, but only to your one customer. You are also allowed to take your source code down, if you stop distributing the binary. Thats why forking is so important... Look at hekate and naehrwerts decision to remove his repository!

The only issue that remains is that TX would not publish their changes.

 

[LibretroRetroArc]

But TX has no code on their device that locks you down. You are fully capable of creating your own boot.dat and running arbitraty code with their device.

This is a strawman. Read again what that article states. They need to allow for a user to be able to recompile RetroArch, be able to deploy it on their device, and replace their OWN version of it, that might come with additional restrictions for monetary benefit, or whatever. The user cannot be handcuffed by their own version of it that might be restricted in several ways. Whether it is restricted or not does not matter, it is a right granted by the license that you should be able to remove their version and replace it with a version of your own making. This is a key tenet of GPLv3, and nearly the entire reason it got made. Stop trying to invent strawmen around this or trying to think you are too smart for your own good and that you see a 'loophole' where there is none, and read actually what it states. There would have been no reason to make a GPLv3 if you could still do that, it specifically got made to stop the kind of abuse perpetrated by the likes of Tivo.

 

[ghjfdtg]

But TX has no code on their device that locks you down. You are fully capable of creating your own boot.dat and running arbitraty code with their device.

Which only happened because the community opened it up. Otherwise you would not be able to boot shit directly with the dongle.

 

[subcon959]

Er, the deal didnt actually happen so its all straw man at this point. Unless, Ive missed some big SX update that included a locked down version of RA?

 

[The Catboy]

Er, the deal didnt actually happen so its all straw man at this point. Unless, Ive missed some big SX update that included a locked down version of RA?

First, that's not what a strawman is. Second, that's literally not the point, it's the fact that they were willing to this in the first place that people should be concerned with. They are willing to illegally pay someone into giving them an advantage in the market. Equally it should be concerning that they are willing to actually harm the community by removing open source code just so they can sell you that code. People can't keep ignoring the overwhelming issues revolving around the SX Team.

 

[Insane]

Which only happened because the community opened it up. Otherwise you would not be able to boot shit directly with the dongle.

Except with the chainboot feature. I am fully aware. The python script to create the boot.dat and derivatives of that are community work.

I just can't stop to wonder what would have happenend if in the beginning somebody asked TX nicely for its GPL sources.

Also I agree from a license perspective TX should open source their code under GPL. But realistically asking somebody to close source their work is not illegal, just an interesting business practice.

 

[subcon959]

First, that's not what a strawman is. Second, that's literally not the point, it's the fact that they were willing to this in the first place that people should be concerned with. They are willing to illegally pay someone into giving them an advantage in the market. Equally it should be concerning that they are willing to actually harm the community by removing open source code just so they can sell you that code. People can't keep ignoring the overwhelming issues revolving around the SX Team.

Actually, it's the very definition of a straw man argument. The SX OS deal did not go through, therefore an argument involving if it had and some locked down version of RA as a result is precisely what I would call a straw man argument.

 

[The Catboy]

Actually, it's the very definition of a straw man argument. The SX OS deal did not go through, therefore an argument involving if it had and some locked down version of RA as a result is precisely what I would call a straw man argument.

Expect you are completely wrong and misusing the term. That and still not what the topic is even about. It's pretty apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[gizmomelb]

For who?

If you want a nation of workshy layabouts looking for something to be offended by, then I agree.

But the rest of us have (or had) to work for a living...

you have no idea what socialism means do you?

 

[subcon959]

Expect you are completely wrong

Honestly, I can't be bothered, I know you live for the drama and politics but I just don't have the motivation. You keep doing you.

 

[RattletraPM]

But realistically asking somebody to close source their work is not illegal, just an interesting business practice.

The thing here is that m4xw did all the porting work but libretro itself isn't made by him. This means that he, or anyone playing around with libretro's source code for that matter, must abide by the original license it was released under (GPLv3) unless he had explicit consent by the owner to change that license. Doing so without the owner's consent is a GPL violation.

 

[m4xw]

The thing here is that m4xw did all the porting work but libretro itself isn't made by him. This means that he, or anyone playing around with libretro's source code for that matter, must abide by the original license it was released under (GPLv3) unless he had explicit consent by the owner to change that license. Doing so without the owner's consent is a GPL violation.

Not only the owner, but everyone that ever contributed

 

[ghjfdtg]

@Insane
They could remove the chainloader any time they want (of course they won't). That's the point. It's designed to be locked to their software. Thankfully the boot.dat format and encryption/obfuscation got figured out. So the only locked part left is the payload on the dongle itself (the one which loads boot.dat from the Switch microSD).

 

[RattletraPM]

Not only the owner, but everyone that ever contributed

Yeah, should've specified owner(s)/contributers. Sorry ^^"

 

[Insane]

The thing here is that m4xw did all the porting work but libretro itself isn't made by him. This means that he, or anyone playing around with libretro's source code for that matter, must abide by the original license it was released under (GPLv3) unless he had explicit consent by the owner to change that license. Doing so without the owner's consent is a GPL violation.

Never said he should change the license. It is fine as is. As we said before: working in private, closed source on GPL code is legal. Giving the GPL binary and code under terms of GPL is legal. As long as he doesn't distribute it to someone else.

 

[Beware]

Fascinating that nearly 40 pages deep people still don't see anything wrong with the beyond outlandish shit TX (and garyopa) have claimed about this scenario. You have practically the entire RetroNX team here explaining exactly what happened and exactly what ways it violated exactly what license and the "community" response amounts to "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EMAILS?!" Shameful.

 

[Insane]

@Insane
They could remove the chainloader any time they want (of course they won't). That's the point. It's designed to be locked to their software. Thankfully the boot.dat format and encryption/obfuscation got figured out. So the only locked part left is the payload on the dongle itself (the one which loads boot.dat from the Switch microSD).

That I assume is the payload.bin from their website. No sources of course. The boot.dat format is actually pretty straight forward and the encryption itself is not mandatory. There's a flag in the header asking it to boot unencrypted payloads..