This whole thread is a bunch of hearsay and bull until actual evidence of the above is posted.
Sure, but the more interesting aspects for me come from "assuming it is the case then". For that matter I should probably also throw in an "I am not a lawyer" seen as I am presently sitting in the US.
But it's inherently a breach of Libretro's GPL License, which makes it illegal and thus a clear bribe. TX was very well not going to make the end product free for non-commercial use nor open-source.
Plus, tbh, they completely forgot the whole purpose of Libretro -- not as a frontend for emulation, but as a library for developing games on. This would almost-certainly break this core facet of RA's being.
Discuss whether or not this is bribery, fine; but you can't say this is, in any way, legal.
The bit I saw had them making their own UI and TX looking to purchase that. Even if said UI was GPLed the author would still have the right to rescind it or simply drop it -- the currently ongoing spat in Linux kernel development hinging upon said concept. If said author was being paid to snapshot the open codebase, effectively create a private fork which then gets released closed only but wide then that would be a different matter and almost certainly contravene some legal regulations. Some seem to think that is what was taking place, personally I see the need for more context as it does not appear to be that or at least is rather ambiguous, to say nothing of the means they have to still release things open source but have it for most practical purposes tied to them.
On the matter of commercial use it has no real bearing on the GPL. Some of the other stuff in there does have commercial use restrictions (an earlier comment started to contemplate some workarounds for that*) but that is a different matter.
Similarly on the nature of purpose then I would point to the uncountable number of examples in software development of someone taking some obscure facet of a program, busting out the cheque book and it being the new focus. Spinning it a different way then something like the beats of rage engine being for fighting games or to "emulate" streets of rage is one thing, few would look at anything other than the emulation aspect here though.
*mame (or at least the older versions -- it went GPL a few years back) is the archetypal example of restricting commercial use in emulation. In those cases people still built "arcade game playing cabinets" and left it to end users to install MAME.
Well, until TX gets their act together and starts writing their own damn code to flaunt their exclusivity epeen, they're only doing it out of spite, or "because they can". I still fail to see why people support them in such a sycophantic manner. Not you, but a lot of people on here seem to.
This does not seem like a move out of spite. Direct financial self interest is the far more believable motive, both under basic logic and from what has been shared.
Similarly I don't know that I would claim sycophants. There are doubtless some fanboys that can't appreciate nuance but I would look at hyperbole so commonly issued from the TX is bad people set and people reacting to that. The overwhelming amount of discussion concerns said hyberbole from where I sit (which admittedly not the most comprehensive position -- I frequently join these sorts of threads but I don't make an effort to watch all of them like I might for various ROM hacking sections/discussions.
