Hacking Configurable USB Loader

[xander150]

And usually i don't send the current version, but one before that, partially to avoid forks and quirks and unofficial builds and mods. And i still think this mostly complies with the license.

Isn't this tool just a fork/quirk/mod, too?

Of the official loader?
I guess nobody will try to sue you, but some people will proscribe you because you don't follow the GPL.
You can't mostly comply with the license, either you do, or you don't

I guess it's the second. Because of the thing with source for every binary release (at least) on request and so on.
It's nice that you uploaded the sources. But people want to understand the FAT access, v44 doesn't really help there

This is GPL, even if somebody makes a new mod, Who cares? We have to live with it. If he just codes shit it won't last long, if he's good you can team up.
Why do you fear mods that much? You have to remeber that you are just coding a mod too, nothing more. If Wanin hadn't released the source this tool wouldn't even exist. (And as far as I remember he released the source with his latest release, too)

 

[Jodiskett]

hi oggzee

just little question does wbfs_file create smallest size of .wbfs by default ?

 

[Wiimm]

And usually i don't send the current version, but one before that, partially to avoid forks and quirks and unofficial builds and mods. And i still think this mostly complies with the license.
I think you don't understand GPL2. One idea is that everyone can build a fork without discussion. And your UL-CFG is a fork of an other loader, or?

QUOTE(oggzee @ Oct 30 2009, 06:33 PM) Ayway here's v44 source:
http://sharebee.com/154938b2

You are working now at v46 and that means that the previous version is v45 and not v44. In v44 i miss the license file.

 

[inAcrysis]

To Oggzee, Dr. Clipper & anyone else to do with the fantastic work you do.
I don't think you should give out ANY code (look what happened to Steve Jobs when he lent 3 Macs to Bill Gates)

LOL
Watched the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" last night (again!)
Whether it's 100% true or not I don't know but guys KEEP your code for now!

It will only get used by some spotty kid for his own gain.

 

[Dr. Clipper]

I read an FAQ about the GPL2 a short while back, and what I understood from there is that the author does not have to publicly release the code, but must comply with any written requests for the code from interested parties within a period of three weeks or something. You can guarantee that a full release of v46 will arrive within three weeks of the launch of v46a, so stop complaining unless you know this understanding to be incorrect.

 

[oggzee]

The one hand, you're right, but if you use one component that's under GPL (for example WBFS) you're obligated to publish the source code. That's just the way it is. Set up a SVN repository or something else and commit the release versions, then you're "clean" and no one will discuss.

Yes, that is what the license says. But I can choose not to comply, then what? The only thing that is left for you to do is sue me or call me names. So, no i'm not making a public svn access.

Isn't this tool just a fork/quirk/mod, too?

Of the official loader?
I guess nobody will try to sue you, but some people will proscribe you because you don't follow the GPL.
You can't mostly comply with the license, either you do, or you don't

I guess it's the second.

Ok then I don't. And I won't. Consider it official now, cfg is not GPL compliant.

Because of the thing with source for every binary release (at least) on request and so on.

Yes and I can choose to demand those requests being written on paper and sent over snail mail, and send you the sources back on floppy disks, and I can even choose to charge you for the costs of sending them out, and after you get them, you can distribute them per your liking, that's what the license says.

It's nice that you uploaded the sources. But people want to understand the FAT access, v44 doesn't really help there

This is GPL, even if somebody makes a new mod, Who cares? We have to live with it. If he just codes shit it won't last long, if he's good you can team up.
Why do you fear mods that much? You have to remeber that you are just coding a mod too, nothing more. If Wanin hadn't released the source this tool wouldn't even exist. (And as far as I remember he released the source with his latest release, too)

Because I have chosen to.

I think you don't understand GPL2. One idea is that everyone can build a fork without discussion. And your UL-CFG is a fork of an other loader, or?

Yes that's the idea of GPL, but I'm breaking the rules. To prevent unofficial mods one could trademark a name, like redhat is doing, but it's of course not something i would like to do. So, I'm just not releasing the source of the latest release.

QUOTE(Wiimm @ Oct 30 2009, 09:20 PM)

You are working now at v46 and that means that the previous version is v45 and not v44. In v44 i miss the license file.

It's missing? Sorry about that, it was not intentional, anyway you can just copy it over from the release.

Anyway, I know what GPL means, but since I'm not respecting it you have no other option than to sue me or ignore me or call me names, and even suing would just end in a cease and desist.

 

[Jman69]

And a special 222-fat version, which starts with ios=222-mload and partition=FAT1
by default, so that the IOS gets loaded only once in case that's your preferred setup:

http://sharebee.com/d9778a5f
SDUSB-Loader_cfg46b-222-fat.dol

Thanks for this, the load of FAT partition and games is very fast now!

What is the difference of this special version and the other?
I prefer IOS223 but, if there is a good speed improvement, I can use IOS222...

Is this special version identical to the standard version with ios=222-mload and partition=FAT1 in the config, or is there something else special about this build that makes it different?

 

[quepaso]

I dont give a crap about you releasing the source, and you should just ignore anyone saying otherwise. Its your software, use it as you like it. And again, there are so many of us that are insanely greatful for the work you've done. So just keep on truckin!

 

[newwolf]

Hey,

I just updated to 46b and my wbfs drive gives a error "wbfs error: hd num sector doesn't match"

When I had 46a2 there wasn't this problem is there somethink to fix this?
(yes I know a little bit back I also mentioned some problem with my partition)

Maybe this can fix it.

grz.,
Newwolf

 

[oggzee]

Is this special version identical to the standard version with ios=222-mload and partition=FAT1 in the config, or is there something else special about this build that makes it different?

It's otherwise identical, only the ios and partition defaults are changed.
But that means less ios reloads at startup if your setup is 222 & fat.

With the normal release, if you put ios=222-mload and parition=fat1 to your config, what will happen is this:
- IOS249 is loaded
- config is read and then
- IOS222 with FAT module is reloaded.

While the special 222-fat version will skip IOS249 completely, and load IOS222 with FAT module. Second IOS reload won't happen and thus make the startup faster.

 

[Skizzo]

Anyway, I know what GPL means, but since I'm not respecting it you have no other option than to sue me or ignore me or call me names, and even suing would just end in a cease and desist.

Well, the only real possible consequence I can see is that perhaps the next great coder to come along and develop something unique and original might think twice before opening up his code. Thank goodness the coders whose code you used (and which was released in the 'spirit' of GPL) didn't have the luxury of knowing their wishes for their code would be openly disrespected in such a fashion. It's kind of ironic that when you do give out the source privately, you ask the recipients to respect your wish that they not share it with anyone else. Anyways, I guess we know your position and should now put the lid back on the can.

 

[oggzee]

Hey,
I just updated to 46b and my wbfs drive gives a error "wbfs error: hd num sector doesn't match"
When I had 46a2 there wasn't this problem is there somethink to fix this?
(yes I know a little bit back I also mentioned some problem with my partition)
Maybe this can fix it.
grz.,
Newwolf

Oh that's an unfortunate coincidence for you, while implementing the partition= option, i re-enabled the wbfs partition size consistency checks, and so it errors out on you because you have made an unsupported partition resize. I might change that error to a warning in the release. But what I suggest you do is copy your games off the partition, reformat the wbfs partition and copy the games back, so that you have a consistent state. With the way you have it now it's just waiting for a corruption to happen, by either installing additional games overwriting the partition that follows the wbfs partition, or writing to the partition that follows corrupting your games. Depends of course of the partition size and the used amount.

 

[Skizzo]

I dont give a crap about you releasing the source, and you should just ignore anyone saying otherwise. Its your software, use it as you like it. And again, there are so many of us that are insanely greatful for the work you've done. So just keep on truckin!

You ever heard the word sycophant? They're mostly useless, and often resort to speaking half-truths or worse. Not that I'd ever call you one, lest the mods think I was flaming you by telling you the truth. LOL.

 

[Jman69]

Is this special version identical to the standard version with ios=222-mload and partition=FAT1 in the config, or is there something else special about this build that makes it different?

It's otherwise identical, only the ios and partition defaults are changed.
But that means less ios reloads at startup if your setup is 222 & fat.

With the normal release, if you put ios=222-mload and parition=fat1 to your config, what will happen is this:
- IOS249 is loaded
- config is read and then
- IOS222 with FAT module is reloaded.

While the special 222-fat version will skip IOS249 completely, and load IOS222 with FAT module. Second IOS reload won't happen and thus make the startup faster.

That makes perfect sense, thanks.

Moving forwards, are there any plans to make 222-mload the default in the main release. I'm just thinking that even if I use the special version, when I run an update from within the loader, it will overwrite the special version with the default one. I guess you could have 2 streams of releases, so the 222-fat version gets updated with a new version that is also 222-fat, and the 249 version replaced by the 249 version. A bit more work, but it saves me having to manually put the special version on my SD card

 

[oggzee]

Well, the only real possible consequence I can see is that perhaps the next great coder to come along and develop something unique and original might think twice before opening up his code. Thank goodness the coders whose code you used (and which was released in the 'spirit' of GPL) didn't have the luxury of knowing their wishes for their code would be openly disrespected in such a fashion. It's kind of ironic that when you do give out the source privately, you ask the recipients to respect your wish that they not share it with anyone else. Anyways, I guess we know your position and should now put the lid back on the can.

I take it that you are referring to waninkoko by coders whose code I used? And in what aspect does he better respect the GPL license than I do? His cIOS uses linux ehc (usb2) drivers which are GPL and that is just the first component I have checked, there might be others integrated. Oh right, WBFS code is GPL and is integrated in the cios too. And do we see the source of his cios anywhere? no. So why are all of a sudden all of you giving me a hard time? Why don't you all go pestering waninkoko for not releasing the cios sources?

 

[giantpune]

i say when you mail out the source to these people, you put it on a zip disc or a 5.25 floppy or a tape drive. hell, write it on McDonalds napkins.

 

[quepaso]

i say when you mail out the source to these people, you put it on a zip disc or a 5.25 floppy or a tape drive. hell, write it on McDonalds napkins.

Using the McDonalds BBQ Sauce as the ink!!!

 

[Pip_X]

Well, the only real possible consequence I can see is that perhaps the next great coder to come along and develop something unique and original might think twice before opening up his code. Thank goodness the coders whose code you used (and which was released in the 'spirit' of GPL) didn't have the luxury of knowing their wishes for their code would be openly disrespected in such a fashion. It's kind of ironic that when you do give out the source privately, you ask the recipients to respect your wish that they not share it with anyone else. Anyways, I guess we know your position and should now put the lid back on the can.

I take it that you are referring to waninkoko by coders whose code I used? And in what aspect does he better respect the GPL license than I do? His cIOS uses linux ehc (usb2) drivers which are GPL and that is just the first component I have checked, there might be others integrated. Oh right, WBFS code is GPL and is integrated in the cios too. And do we see the source of his cios anywhere? no. So why are all of a sudden all of you giving me a hard time? Why don't you all go pestering waninkoko for not releasing the cios sources?

They are jealous of you, trying to bring you down for their own fame.

 

[zektor]

You know, I never saw anybody causing such a crying stink over code for this loader not being released PRIOR to the addition of the FAT32 support. Oggzee had already stated that the code would be released with v46 final, so what is the issue? Other than of course the yearning desire by others to have the code implemented into other loaders.

If I were the author, I would separate my FAT32 code from the main source and create my own module that was NOT under GPL....then have the source simply point to that module. This way, I could release the main source and keep my FAT32 code closed source. The only thing you would be able to obtain is a standard source with pointer code to the module. Afterward I would let the crying commence!

 

[olliepop2000]

Why would you want to keep the souce private? it's not for profit so why would you not want to have many minds looking over your latest work? having more people could check for bugs or look for ways sections that could be improved, it could be all for the greater good?