The fact of the matter is davebaol is in the wrong here. However, 99% of you guys aren't going to do anything useful with the source code anyway (or even know where to start doing so) so just stfu about it. davebaol, you should technically be including source with *any* binary release but I don't actually care so I'm not hounding you about it, just letting you know... but the thing I will stress is that you cannot tell someone else that they can't redistribute a GPL binary. I understand you don't want beta-quality binaries floating around to the general public while you're still testing them but that's just something you're gonna have to deal with. You can refuse to offer support to users using those betas, but you can't disallow redistribution. By not giving out source, those people redistributing obviously can't redistribute the source either so technically that redistribution is breaking the license, but that is secondary to the original offense of not giving out the source in the first place.
;tl/dr davebaol should have released the source with ANY binary release, and can't disallow redistribution, so go ahead and post links to the betas (if you're uploading them as wads, that's a worse copyright offense anyway...). If you want the source, PM davebaol and become a tester. Everyone else, move along.
;tl/dr davebaol should have released the source with ANY binary release, and can't disallow redistribution, so go ahead and post links to the betas (if you're uploading them as wads, that's a worse copyright offense anyway...). If you want the source, PM davebaol and become a tester. Everyone else, move along.
No, he has no obligation to release the source. The GPL only stipulates that anybody who distributes binaries must provide source if requested. If nobody that davebaol gave the binary to directly requested the source from him, then he has followed the GPL. Anybody who has the binary is distributing illegally if they are unable to access the source, if they want to, then need to request it from the person who provided the binaries to them (assuming they have the source).
no he is not required to distribute it alongside, thats just the common way to do it because its often more convienient then dealing with requests
yes he can not disallow redistribution, but as he is not doing it that is not a problem
the tester is not allowed to distribute the binary while not having (and offering) the source
he would have to request and recieve the source first, but according to davebaol no one has done so
The post cited was never about a request for source
@Slowking
you'd better edit your post and remove that link since I've never released d2x v7beta sources.
It means that link is breaking GPL rules and this is not tolerated on gbatemp.
Be patient, I'll release it officialy sooner or later
it was Dave being in the wrong for citing a rule stipulating that the GPL prevents others from releasing source archives because the person they recieved it from was not happy with them releasing it.
As i followed on with, if he wants that kind of power over his code, a custom license is the only way to go.
Exactly, so asking that they be removed from a link is outside of your control as well.
GBATemp following through and removing a user just because they posted code outside of your control would just be an abuse of power.
Basically, it just means anyone posting code that the dev isn't happy with is an ass for not waiting.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,845
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Cyprus, originally from Toronto
- Website
- modmii.github.io
- XP
- 9,842
- Country
I hope this particular subject just gets dropped *hint hint*
back on topic, I can't wait for the next official release
back on topic, I can't wait for the next official release
This was nothing to do with binary and source distribution, the user he "warned" gave a link to a source package, which given he has the files in hand, said user also has the freedom to rehost or derive from those source files.
You took it in an entirely wrong direction im afraid ;p, which confused others and put Dave off when i was only trying to tell him that there was no such restriction in the gpl/.
I hope this particular subject just gets dropped *hint hint*
back on topic, I can't wait for the next official release
There is nothing to add. I agree with you.
Honor davebaols work and stop wracking your brains about GPL!
If he gave them the source and binary and they only leaked the binary then yes, it is them that violated the GPL.
If they only received the binary and leaked it, then it is dave that violated it.
If it were 100% the work of dave then it wouldn't be a problem, because he could release it under a different license.
But waninkoko released it as GPL & it's his copyright that is currently being violated.
I don't care that much, but it's pointless to make stuff up about the GPL.
It would be annoying though if dave did stop developing cios d2x and left us without the latest source (which is basically why the GPL was written the way it was).
Hogwash. Witholding the source is not a secret way of preventing GPL binary distribution. The person that distributes it doesn't have to be able to provide it, as long as they can tell you who to ask for it... and the person to ask for it is dave. We could play it by the book and contact everyone that has leaked it and if they don't provide the source we could get the FSF to sue them, then they would be forced to ask dave for it anyway and if he doesn't provide it the FSF could sue him too. But that is pretty heavy handed, don't you agree? Much better for everything to resolve itself amicably.
I don't understand why dave would refuse to distribute the source anyway, unless it was a misguided attempt at trying to limit binary distribution.
Bullsit
Lets say I download ubuntu install CD (which comes without source) and upload it to sharehoster for you guys to get. (I do NOT download the source from somewhere else too.)
Then it is not Canonical who violates the GPL, it is me because I can't provide the source to you.
Witholding the source would prevent GPL compliant binary distribution (but violate the GPL too).
But the point is that no one that claims that davebaol did that.
Who provides the binary has to provide the source too, linking to a 3rd party is not sufficient.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,845
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Cyprus, originally from Toronto
- Website
- modmii.github.io
- XP
- 9,842
- Country
I'm begging everyone, just drop it. This situation will resolve itself in a little bit of time, but only if we don't discourage davebaol by continuing on this discussion (otherwise there is a very real possibility of the d2x project being dropped). If this issue hasn't resolved itself after a few days or weeks then fine, bring it up again. But I don't think this issue should be the topic of constant debate every single day.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 11,005
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The Twilight Zone
- Website
- www.hacksden.com
- XP
- 4,339
- Country
Dave and the rest of the "known" guys in cios dev. Thank you , you guys are the best.
Remember there are people adoring your work. Most complaining people are just jealous I think.
Remember there are people adoring your work. Most complaining people are just jealous I think.
Well, i would not go ar far as ADORING, but i hope we can drop this too.
Davebaol should have said GBAtemp rules don't allow linking to dol files and such if the dev. did not gave his/her permission..
After that it got out of hand again...which was not needed..and thats all i am going to say about it.
Davebaol should have said GBAtemp rules don't allow linking to dol files and such if the dev. did not gave his/her permission..
After that it got out of hand again...which was not needed..and thats all i am going to say about it.
Any idea on when a final version of v7 will be release.
I want to play with some of the nand stuff on usb loader gx but I don't want to install the beta stuff and than an official v7 gets released soon after.
If it's gonna be a while, (like next year) than I'll install the beta, but if a public V7 is gonna be release soon, than I'll wait.
I want to play with some of the nand stuff on usb loader gx but I don't want to install the beta stuff and than an official v7 gets released soon after.
If it's gonna be a while, (like next year) than I'll install the beta, but if a public V7 is gonna be release soon, than I'll wait.
I was actually coming to this thread to ask the same thing. I currently use/have V7 Beta for everything but 249 and 250.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
I haven't played my Switch n a month or so, just been playing Xbox, and just picked to play lil and Damn that A and B, X and Y being reversed always gets me. -
@
slaphappygamer:
I havent played my xbox360 is a couple of years. My switch got much use the last few days. Tears of The Kingdom is great+1 -
@
BigOnYa:
I agree Tears is great. I even played thru it completely twice. I've been hooked on playing thru Fallout 4 again though, after they released the next gen version for Series S/X. Is pretty cool update.
-
-
@
NinStar:
tears of the kingdom is not the type of game I would ever intentionally start over unless it had a new game plus -
@
NinStar:
because I already got burned out with breath of the wild, which for the most part is essentially the same game, and then again with master mode, which doesn't work as a new game plus (that always felt bizarre to me)
-
-
-
