Hi everyone!

I noticed there was a project called switch-nfp-mitm, which had lots of forks, but none of them properly working (people reported it barely worked, and with some games), thus I decided to try to fix it, or to improve it as much as I could. Well, the results were that good, that I've just managed to get it working perfectly, even with a nice system of combos for Amiibo swapping, in just 2 days.

So, well, here's the result:

emuiibo

emuiibo is a virtual amiibo (amiibo emulation) system for Nintendo Switch!​

It consists on a background process (and service), which intercepts Nintendo Switch's internal NFC/NFP services to support virtual amiibo emulation, plus an overlay to easily control it.

• For more detailed information, check emuiibo's GitHub repository: https://github.com/XorTroll/emuiibo​

• Releases: https://github.com/XorTroll/emuiibo/releases/latest​

Have fun playing around with custom virtual amiibos!

 

[AD2076]

Your request got heard fast!

Yeah. I'm June15th

 

[blawar]

No - not true. The original project (https://github.com/spx01/switch-nfp-mitm) has no license file so according to GutHub's ToS, it falls under the GitHub Open Source License. OP Is free to modify it as he/she wants.

The issue isnt modifying the code, the issue is copyrighting code that he did not write. I am not disputing that he can use the code, I am saying he cant slap a GPL license on code he did not write, that is theft.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You are now just projecting. Please stop this is pathetic drama, you are the last person on the planet to criticise others about license violations.

Once you open source your code I will give you some breathing room in this regard. Until then this is some excessive hypocritical bullshit.

Which software license am I violating, that everyone else isn't violating? You can't overlook software license violations for dev's you like. Well maybe you can, but I will still call out your BS

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No - not true. The original project (https://github.com/Subv/switch-nfp-mitm) has no license file so according to GutHub's ToS, it falls under the GitHub Open Source License. OP Is free to modify it as he/she wants.

Edit: Fixed link to original project.

There is a difference between using the code, and slapping your own copyright on code you did not write (the latter is theft). Putting a copyright notice on code, is saying this code is owned by you. This is not true. People do mental gymnastics to support illegal behavior they like

 

[stitchxd]

The issue isnt modifying the code, the issue is copyrighting code that he did not write. I am not disputing that he can use the code, I am saying he cant slap a GPL license on code he did not write, that is theft.

The original source code has the same copyright as this release. Just stop.

 

[linuxares]

That is not how licenses work. He cannot copyright the code. Just because your project is opensource, does not mean you can violate licenses with impunity. The hypocrisy here is palpable. Jakibaki stole code doing similar shit: https://github.com/jakibaki/sys-ftpd/issues/22 . The scene should not condoen this behavior, or shut up about license violations from SX. I was under the impression that gbatemp did not allow software projects that violated licenses to be linked to here @linuxares ?

5. License Grant to Other Users
Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

Sorry but he have all the rights on his side.

 

[stitchxd]

5. License Grant to Other Users
Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

Sorry but he have all the rights on his side.

Of course he does, he never violated copyright The copyright holder is the same in the original code and this released code.

 

[blawar]

5. License Grant to Other Users
Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

Sorry but he have all the rights on his side.

The copy isnt the issue, the issue is him copyrighting code he did not write. He is allowed to use and post the code, but he cant slap a copyright right (GPL license) on it.

 

[stitchxd]

copyright right (GPL license)

The copyright is the same in both the original code and this release in OP. At this point I am starting to question why you are pressuring this so much now?

 

[Asia81]

this guy is so much toxic

 

[blawar]

The copyright is the same in both the original code and this release in OP. At this point I am starting to question why you are pressuring this so much now?

The code hs forked is not GPL, that is the issue: https://github.com/spx01/switch-nfp-mitm

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

"Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder"

XorTroll is not the copyright holder, and he cannot release it under GPL. That is the issue.

Xortroll openly admits he didnt write all of the app, therefore its an open and shut case: he cannot release it under GPL.

 

[linuxares]

The copy isnt the issue, the issue is him copyrighting code he did not write. He is allowed to use and post the code, but he cant slap a copyright right (GPL license) on it.

https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license

He have all the rights according to Github ToS. He must add the license however, because of other parts used by the software, like the things from Reswitched.
He haven't claimed ownership as far as I can see.

 

[Brawl345]

This topic got derailed fast by "who would've guessed"....
Did XorTroll murder your family or why are you on such a hate crusade? Why hasn't a moderator stepped in yet?

 

[blawar]

https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license

He have all the rights according to Github ToS. He must add the license however, because of other parts used by the software, like the things from Reswitched.
He haven't claimed ownership as far as I can see.

That doesnt apply in this case, because SPX's code was not released under a license. And its an open question whether SPX wrote all of the code he used. Many believe he copied code from Dave's Devil. XorTroll cannot copyright code he didnt write, its really that simple, and I am surprised so many people here think he can.

 

[stitchxd]

The code hs forked is not GPL, that is the issue: https://github.com/spx01/switch-nfp-mitm

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

"Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their software under these terms. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder"

XorTroll is not the copyright holder, and he cannot release it under GPL. That is the issue.

It's not GPL licensed. (BTW GPL allows anyone to release the code.)

Xortroll openly admits he didnt write all of the app, therefore its an open and shut case: he cannot release it under GPL.

It's not GPL licensed. It's GPLv2 - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html (My mistake on claiming GitHub License, but the point still stands THERE IS NO VIOLATION HERE)

 

[blawar]

It's not GPL licensed. (BTW GPL allows anyone to release the code.)


It's not GPL licensed. It's GPLv2 - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html (My mistake on claiming GitHub License, but the point still stands THERE IS NO VIOLATION HERE)

The origina code XorTroll used was not licensed to GPL, that is the issue. GPL only allows you to license code you wrote, which XorTroll admits he did not write all of it.

 

[XorTroll]

That doesnt apply in this case, because SPX's code was not released under a license. And its an open question whether SPX wrote all of the code he used. Many believe he copied code from Dave's Devil. XorTroll cannot copyright code he didnt write, its really that simple, and I am surprised so many people here think he can.

Asked spx, he claims that Dave's code is other one and close sourced. Can't tell then.

 

[linuxares]

That doesnt apply in this case, because SPX's code was not released under a license. And its an open question whether SPX wrote all of the code he used. Many believe he copied code from Dave's Devil. XorTroll cannot copyright code he didnt write, its really that simple, and I am surprised so many people here think he can.

Please read the terms and conditions of Github. This is most likely an oversight. If you got an issue, ask spx to add an license.

Else let's end to discussion here, any more and I will start delete it.
All evidence points to this being fully ok to be GPLed or else it should be stated otherwise.

 

[blawar]

Asked spx, he claims that Dave's code is other one and close sourced. Can't tell then.

Can't tell isnt a defense to copyright infringement. I know first hand that dave sent SPX the code. Just because Dave didnt post the code, doesnt mean you are allowed to copyright it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Please read the terms and conditions of Github. This is most likely an oversight. If you got an issue, ask spx to add an license.

Else let's end to discussion here, any more and I will start delete it.
All evidence points to this being fully ok to be GPLed or else it should be stated otherwise.

All evidence does not suggest this is OK. XorTroll admitted to the license violation, it reall yfeels like gbatemp is trying to end discussion over the license violation to protect a developer they like.

SPX stole the code from dave's devil, xortroll cant claim "I didnt know it was stolen, so i can copyright it"

 

[XorTroll]

Can't tell isnt a defense to copyright infringement. I know first hand that dave sent SPX the code. Just because Dave didnt post the code, doesnt mean you are allowed to copyright it.

How can you proof he did so?

 

[blawar]

How can you proof he did so?

Technically, I dont need to prove it. All I need to do, is get you to admit you didnt write the code, which you did, which means you cant GPL code you didnt write.

 

[stitchxd]

Subv is the original owner of the repository SPX cannot change the license even if he wanted to at this point.

Subv's code (original) also has copyright to Atmosphere-NX

which you did, which means you cant GPL code you didnt write.

If the original code is GPL - then the modified source MUST be GPL as well. GPLv2 (The actual license) explains this very well. You should read it.