My paper airplanes in school were literally 200IQ (which I was tested for and certified at the time) long-flight contest winners. I was born to winAnybody recall the "double-ply hardstock paper-sploit hax"?
My paper airplanes in school were literally 200IQ (which I was tested for and certified at the time) long-flight contest winners. I was born to winAnybody recall the "double-ply hardstock paper-sploit hax"?
As long as they use the code in a manner that follows the licenses, they can do what they want. In the case of GPLv3 which libretro itself is licensed under, they have to release the source code to their derivative work. Some specific cores also prohibit commercial use however, so that might make the whole thing impossible regardless.ok so theoretically.. could TX officially licence / integrate RA into their CFW as long as it didn't lock out running the homebrew standalone versions of RA?
Yes, 100%It is because they haven't released their source code. If they release the sources, problem solved (at least, from a strictly legal standpoint).
Which is exactly my point. Nothing can/is being done. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it unprecedented.The challenges of defending GPL are pretty well documented, and not just with libretro. I don't think that justifies intentionally ignoring it though. Hyperkin, Cybergadget, Retro-bit and the like all deserve to be critisised just as much as TX. libretro have done their best to bring the issue to light, but they don't have the resources to fight it.
You... know i was kidding, right? But tell me, how do you know TX is telling the truth, and m4x is lying about the reason he backed out? I havent seen any of the fabled 'proof' that he is lying about the reason being them wanting him to use licensed code.
I'm not sure where you are going with that though. People should let it lie because it can't be prevented anyway? All people can do make sure the people well aware of the issues and why it is a problem.Which is exactly my point. Nothing can/is being done. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it unprecedented.
For those in the back: TX are violating GPL and we all know it. Now what?
maybe he was a pompey pirate! (god i miss those days)Yeah? What BBS boards would I know you from back in the Amiga/Atari ST and SNES scenes?
I'm not going anywhere at all with it. I have no solution in mind. If there is demand, TX will supply it, and it is as simple as that.I'm not sure where you are going with that though. People should let it lie because it can't be prevented anyway? All people can do make sure the people well aware of the issues and why it is a problem.
We'd like to think that people understand the issues quite well, but this very forum demonstrates otherwise. The amount of people who still think that the issue with SX is merely the lack of 'credit' given, or the commercial use, or that FOSS is a free-for-all with no conditions, is staggering.
Not entirely (there's evidence of them using the ARR licensed project nx-hbloader), but yes, for the rest they could resolve it by releasing the source under GPLv3.This is the crux of the problem with SX OS itself. The problem was never the fact that it is being used commercially, or that people aren't getting 'credit'. It is because they haven't released their source code. If they release the sources, problem solved (at least, from a strictly legal standpoint).
the only one i can remember now is The Small Vegetable PatchYeah? What BBS boards would I know you from back in the SNES scenes?
No it doesnt. Saying he sided with them doesn't mean there was any chance of his going the other way. He was interested before he found out exactly what they wanted him to do, and backed out when it became clear it involved stealing code. He asked for the 6k because they had a legitimate business deal, but then tx started telling him to break laws and screw people over.fact - m4x said he wanted to see how far it would go
fact - it went as far as him asking for $6000 around page 30 !
that's how very far it went.
and from the first post in this long thread, the tweet by liberto 'Unfortunately for them, m4xw sided with us!' that to me means liberto believed there was a possibilty of him working with TX.
Well, that's certainly your version of events. Lots of assumptions, have you seen the logs and have some info the rest of us don't?No it doesnt. Saying he sided with them doesn't mean there was any chance of his going the other way. He was interested before he found out exactly what they wanted him to do, and backed out when it became clear it involved stealing code. He asked for the 6k because they had a legitimate business deal, but then tx started telling him to break laws and screw people over.
I never painted him as infallible, I just asked for proof that was he was saying was false since theres people on here acting like they know its not true, and then i pointed out that what the person i responded to said does not show that m4x was lying at all, and is very misleading. The person I was responding to was claiming that the fact he asked for money meant that he couldnt have backed out due to having been asked to do something illegal, and that RA thought he might betray them and give their code to TX.snip
Non SX OS users would be left with no development on RetroArch for the switch as m4xw is the main dev for that platform and according to m4xw he was told to stop working on it if the deal went through.Question time:
If the deal went through, us non-SXOS users wouldn't be left without RetroArch, aye?
They would have their custom Retro port on SXOS, aye?
And m4x would have money to blow on hookers and dope, aye?
TX could at least talk to the devs or post a bounty, actually..
Problem is that they couldn't do that anyway when it comes to RetroArch, since it's licensed under GPLv3, which would mean making SX OS open source, which they aren't doing.
Exactly, they keep doing it anyway lolWell, they could do it. They would have to violate the licence by keeping it closed source. Given the current state of things, that would be a reasonable assumption.