Separate names with a comma.
By G0dLiKe, Sep 3, 2011
800,171 4,287 18
There's no such thing as a private google code repository.
Yep, I noticed that Need to find another private way to start off... suggestions?
I don't see any problem regarding the GPL, granted permissions, not granted permissions etc. if you can freely post illegal files on gbatemps own download database.
Those files are legal. HBC installer may be questionable, not sure if Team Twiizers asked for it not to be rehosted back then or not.
And that is irrelevant anyway. The current discussion was over whether or not SDHC code was included in the source code sold. That is completely unrelated to any files hosted on filetrip, legal or otherwise.
Congratulations to the partner who acquired the project God my Lite it would be appreciated if achieved that work well or better than what is how it works with the bootmi boot2 lucky fellow.
No to both of your claims. All three files are illegal if you know what GPL and copyright means.
1.) This here is NOT an open source alternative to the homebrew channel. It's closed source and uses GPL libraries, not a good combination. Why do you think it supports NTFS? Because it is built with libntfs (which is GPL). Its GUI is made by Tantrics libwiigui, which is also GPL.
2) This here is GPL and contains a license text file, but source and/or link to source is missing. Therefore it's not GPL compliant.
3) This here is Intellectual Property of Team Twiizers. There files haven't been opened for redistribution. Ask them if you don't believe me.
My point is if people can upload illegal files on gbatemps download database then there shouldn't be any problems to use and host sven peters sd code on filetrip regardless whether or not he granted crediar permission to sell his code. Think about it for a second.
It's more likely that these 3 files will be removed shortly.
To my knowledge, the sources of 2 are available. wadmanager_gui was based on it. (and those sources are also available.)
The computer of the Emulator Dolphin are interested in supporting the project God Mine Lite.
What makes you think that to your knowledge the sources of 2 of them are available when there is only the source of the wad manager available? But still that is not good enough for a distribution to be GPL-compliant. A distribution needs the full source code included or a direct link to the full source code to be GPL-compliant. It's not the authors responsibility to provide source code for a foreign redistribution. The redistributor (aka the person that provides a mirror to the GPL program, the uploader) has to provide sources. And if sources are not available in the first place (like for this here), the program is illegal no matter what.
I followed all these GPL related discussions here as a guest in the past and it's really surprising how those discussions have been held in a place like this.
I think he meant "source of 2" as in the source of the 2nd item you mentioned (WAD Manager), not source of two separate items.
How does trying to make sure people follow the GPL translate to trying to hinder development? The idea of the GPL is to ENCOURAGE development, by making sure people that make use of GPL code contribute their changes to it back, so that everyone can benefit. And it's not healthy to not take it seriously. There have been entire companies with that mindset, and they've been sued to force compliance. The last thing we need is more legal action taken because someone doesn't take the GPL seriously.
I'm confused. I was trying to point out that this project wasn't necessarily bound by the GPL, but apparently that translates into bullying people and attempting to halt development?
Funny how the GPL always jumps in.
Even funnier is the the one claiming the violation is never the copyright holder, making the claim useless.
Wad manager: It was my upload, so my mistake. I added a link to the source on the downloads page.
HBC 3.3: Uploaded long before any message from TT. Though I still disabled it in respect of TT.
Homebrew Filter: This may be the problematic one. Regardless, we never got any messages from the copyright holder about it.
Now we had that, please get back on topic. Thanks.
Seems like a fairly real dev to me...
And as he himself said, in this case he was trying to suggest the project may NOT be bound by GPL.
In addition, it is morons like you that make the world the terrible place it is. You somehow don't seem to understand the ridiculously simple concept that once you use GPL licensed code in your project, you are entering a legally binding agreement to follow the terms of that license (same applies for any other license of course, not just GPL).
If you have your own server, set up a git repository. If not, maybe sourceforge or github can do the priavte repo you're looking for (not sure, never used either service myself)
From where they get so much fury, best quiet that they will never anything good with their caught and their hatred, can drop a change.
So can I post ISOs too as long as nintendo doesn't say anything?
Funny how just YOU jump in into this.
You always comes up when these types of discussions comes up.
You are the only one bullying around here
Not understanding the GPL is even more reason to be reminded of what it says
If a nocompliant coder asked what exactly his options were I'm sure there would be more then enough people around to help
If he instead displays your attitude its no wonder his stuff is taken down
It takes only seconds to be compliant if there is need for speed
but if he displays willingness nobody will mind a reasonable delay