canceled​

 

[duckbill007]

There's no "source repository" in the gpl. He can send you sources on CD by post.

 

[Foxi4]

There's no "source repository" in the gpl. He can send you sources on CD by post.

He can send you 4FIR by post on a CD too then, so there’s no problem.

EDIT: For the record, you’re wrong. In the exact phrasing of GPL v3 and higher, source code must be “made available” and modified code must be annotated with the modifications and included.

GPL v3 Requirements

The license terms of GPL v2 and GPL v3 are similar. They require users of the code to:

1. Include a copy of the full license text
2. State all significant changes made to the original software
3. Make available the original source code when you distribute any binaries based on the licensed work
4. Include a copy of the original copyright notice

In addition, GPL v3 states that anyone who includes the code as part of a consumer device has to include any installation information necessary to update and reinstall the software.

Using the Licensed Code
The GPL v3 license permits users of the code to:

• Use the code for commercial purposes: Like GPL v2, GPL v3 imposes no conditions on the internal use of the software.
• Change the code: Users can change or rework the code, but if they distribute these changes/modifications in binary form, they’re also required to release these updates in source code form under the GPL v3 license.
• Distribute copies or modifications of the code: As long as these modifications are also released under the GPL v3 license, they can be distributed to others.
• Place warranty: Distributors of the original code can offer their own warranty on the licensed software.

- FOSSA.com

I bolded the relevant parts for you. The changes *or* the source are not made available - at present you have to request both and be subject to the whims of the author. That’s not how we roll. The code must be “made available” to anyone who downloads the binaries, which de facto means that it must be included or otherwise linked with the package. It cannot exist “upon request”, that’s nonsense - it must be easily accessible at a moment’s notice.

The single most convenient, easiest way to do so is to create a repository. That’s been the accepted way of sharing open source software for many years now. That’s what’s expected here.

 

[linuxares]

He can send you 4FIR by post on a CD too then, so there’s no problem.

EDIT: For the record, you’re wrong. In the exact phrasing of GPL v3 and higher, source code must be “made available” and modified code must be annotated with the modifications and included.

I bolded the relevant parts for you. The changes *or* the source is not made available - at present you have to request it and be subject to the whims of the author. That’s not how we roll. The code must be “made available” to anyone who download the binaries, which de facto means that it must be included or otherwise linked with the package. It cannot exist “upon request”, that’s nonsense - it must be easily accessible at a moment’s notice.

It's also 2023. Not 1997.... honestly it's such a cheap cop out. Just say you don't wanna release the source instead.

 

[duckbill007]

Sources are available. Repository not required. You can get 4ifir sources and build it. At least I can do it.

 

[Lumince]

Sources are available. Repository not required. You can get 4ifir sources and build it. At least I can do it.

Even if this "up-to-date source code" is available somewhere. I think you are still missing #2 State all significant changes made to the original software

 

[alex61194]

one says is the best software ever and other that is a scam i dont know what to believe

 

[Foxi4]

Sources are available. Repository not required. You can get 4ifir sources and build it. At least I can do it.

As far as I can tell, the source code on the previously linked website was not up-to-date at least until today, and once it was updated, it still did not include a change log of any kind. The individual binaries are also not accompanied by any reference to the original source code, which they *must* do in order to be distributed. The release continues to be non-compliant with GPL, and will not be linked here until it is.

 

[deathblade200]

one says is the best software ever and other that is a scam i dont know what to believe

there is a reason he hates CTCaer (the guy that works on hekate) and thats because CTCaer absolutely destroys every one of his lies

 

[Foxi4]

there is a reason he hates CTCaer (the guy that works on hekate) and thats because CTCaer absolutely destroys every one of his lies

I said it once and I’ll say it again - GBAtemp is not an arena where people can duke it out like drama llamas. This kind of nonsense won’t be discussed here - it’s a release thread about a specific application, not a court of anyone’s character. We’re not interested in who has a beef with who and why - people can work that out in private, or not, nobody really cares. If anyone wanted to watch some real life drama, they’d tune in to TLC.

 

[Chrisssj2]

one says is the best software ever and other that is a scam i dont know what to believe

Yourself!

 

[deathblade200]

I said it once and I’ll say it again - GBAtemp is not an arena where people can duke it out like drama llamas. This kind of nonsense won’t be discussed here - it’s a release thread about a specific application, not a court of anyone’s character. We’re not interested in who has a beef with who and why - people can work that out in private, or not, nobody really cares. If anyone wanted to watch some real life drama, they’d tune in to TLC.

regardless such things should bring credibility into question especially when even his disclaimer itself says only people that hate CTCaer can use it

 

[Foxi4]

regardless such things should bring credibility into question especially when even his disclaimer itself says only people that hate CTCaer can use it

Wait till you look through the acknowledgements in Tinfoil, you’ll have a blast. We’re not the politeness police.

 

[duckbill007]

You always can ask for latest sources and get them. That's all gpl requires. If you need list of changes you can diff. At least I can do it. So from my point of view there's no gpl violation. I can get sources that gives me the same binaries and I can see changes.

 

[Foxi4]

You always can ask for latest sources and get them. That's all gpl requires. If you need list of changes you can diff. At least I can do it. So from my point of view there's no gpl violation. I can get sources that gives me the same binaries and I can see changes.

Your point of view is wrong then, and you should read the terms of the license (which I conveniently listed for you).

 

[duckbill007]

Ok man. In this case you have a problem and do not.

 

[Lumince]

Ok man. In this case you have a problem and do not.

Sounds like you aren't wanting to accept that you are incorrect when FACTS have been presented to you and staff have stated that it is not enough for this "project" to be on gbatemp. No one wants to ask for the new source code everytime an update is pushed out. Its not welcome on this site until it meets the requirements and has been stated multiple times. No point in arguing with a staff member becauze you cant accept that you are wrong.

 

[duckbill007]

Ok. Do not use if you do not like it. But millions of other users outside this site will continue to use it and you can do nothing with it.

 

[Foxi4]

Sounds like you aren't wanting to accept that you are incorrect when FACTS have been presented to you and staff have stated that it is not enough for this "project" to be on gbatemp. No one wants to ask for the new source code everytime an update is pushed out. Its not welcome on this site until it meets the requirements and has been stated multiple times. No point in arguing with a staff member becauze you cant accept that you are wrong.

GPL is very clear on this. Any open source program may be modified for a user’s convenience and nobody has to provide those modifications to anyone *unless* they choose to release it themselves for public use. If they do, they are *required* to publish those modifications under the same license, along with notices of what was changed (a change log, if you will).

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
(#ModifiedJustBinary)
No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
(#UnchangedJustBinary)
Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.

I want to distribute binaries via physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP?(#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet)
Version 3 of the GPL allows this; see option 6(b) for the full details. Under version 2, you're certainly free to offer source via FTP, and most users will get it from there. However, if any of them would rather get the source on physical media by mail, you are required to provide that.

If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via FTP.

- GNU.org

Since Cooler is distributing the software online, he should provide both the source and the change log online. If @duckbill007 wants to argue about the terms of the GNU license with GNU, he can knock himself out. There is no “my repository is out of date”, there is no “well, just run a diff”, either you’re compliant or you’re not, end of discussion. He’s been given *a year* to comply with the license, and he *chose* to take the downloads off the site when I asked him when he’s planning to post what is *required* of him. I didn’t pull the plug on it, he did. He’ll be allowed to link his software to his heart’s content as soon as he provides:

1. Consistently up-to-date source code
2. An accurate change log
3. He will do so online, because he’s distributing his software online, so no weird requests, no mailing CD’s and no other assorted shenanigans

The *easiest* and mostly automatic way to do all that is with a source code repository which will keep track of the changes *for him*, and provide all the necessary links to anyone who needs them. That is what I suggested and that is what I expect to see if he intends to release his software here.

 

[Lumince]

*Mod Snip*

GBATemp staff aren't "trying to prevent others from using it". They are blocking it from being posted on the forums because its not following the requirements that the license requires. If you don't want to understand that, idk what to tell you.

 

[Foxi4]

Since there’s no binary, no source code, no change log, no repository and, realistically, no nothing besides a consistent torrent of tears, this thread has no reason to exist. If @Cooler3D decides to be reasonable and creates a proper release with a proper repository that tracks commits like every other developer out there, we can have further discussion. If he doesn’t, no harm done.