HyperKin Retron5 steals code from Emulator Developers.

[Foxi4]

If it's open source, you can use it as long as you include the original license. You don't need to notify anyone, I don't know what gave people the idea that any tribute is required. Releasing your source code online as open source and getting upset that someone uses it is like leaving your wallet on the pavement and getting upset if someone robs you.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Emulators aren't the wrong party here, they're designed to replicate all functions of a certain hardware in software only. Nothing is copied from the source because the source itself is hardware. If software included on specific hardware must be used then emulators are expected to either replicate the calls of that software with new code or the emulator requires the end user input said software themselves. The fact that obtaining the software in a usable format may or may not be difficult (ie, legal backups vs mass distribution of roms) is not at the fault of the developers of emulators.

Blaming the emulator for the piracy they can be used for is like blaming the gun when someone get's shot. It's missing the point entirely.

Spoiler: TL:DR:

Piss off, read it you lazy ass.

I disagree, I feel its more like buying a gun with intent to kill someone. At least in the majority of cases. What percentage of people dump bios instead of downloading it? Bonus points for an actual figure. (and yes I Know not all emu require bios) Now I suppose the devs themselves at as much at fault, but still they know their program will be used for piracy. In the end im just saying, why should we care that it is then copied?

 

[Shadow#1]

LOL this isnt the first time a company stole code for things Nintendo has done it many times for some the ds games that have emulated roms in them

 

[Foxi4]

It's not "stealing" if it's free in the first place and you include the original license, which is something most companies actually do.

 

[Celice]

It's not "stealing" if it's free in the first place and you include the original license, which is something most companies actually do.

So what's the deal if Nintendo patents something that was open-source? Is that even allowed? It feels like this would be taking something open-source and forcing it to be no longer open.

 

[Foxi4]

So what's the deal if Nintendo patents something that was open-source? Is that even allowed? It feels like this would be taking something open-source and forcing it to be no longer open.

You can't patent something that you did not invent - the credit goes to the original licenser, not the licensee. If you do manage to patent a pre-existing "product", whatever that may be, the original creator can easily void said patent by showing what's called "prior art", meaning a set of background information that may cast a shadow on the validity of the patent. Whatever you patent has to be original work, that's how the system works.

 

[Jacobeian]

If it's open source, you can use it as long as you include the original license. You don't need to notify anyone, I don't know what gave people the idea that any tribute is required. Releasing your source code online as open source and getting upset that someone uses it is like leaving your wallet on the pavement and getting upset if someone robs you.

The thing is that they first tried to hide the fact they were using open-source emulators (they were even talking about using hardware emulation, which was a marketing lie all along), they only admitted it when some hackers analyzed the firmware and figured their code was 99% identical to existing emulators. Also, they are still not including or displaying the original license in their product, people who buy the Retron 5 are not informed about the nature of the software they are using unless they go to hyperkin homepage and find the "license" page. Most open-source licenses need you to put the license information in the product itself if it is delivered in bundle form.

There is also the fact that snes9x and genplusgx sourcecode is not open-source and authorized for non-commercial use only. You can argue that the sourcecode is still available so people shouldn't be surprised anyone can do whatever they want with it but that still does not excuse them for not respecting the license. What they should have done is contact copyright owners and ask for a license exception, maybe having to pay some fees to them in compensation... What they did instead was completely ignoring the license, show no respect to original authors and simply use their code to save themselves thousand of hours of software development, to make as much profits as possible

So really, they have no excuse for what they did and should be ashamed, not defended. They lied to their customers and potential buyers, they made profit of others work and they are asking $139 (now even increased to $179 !) for a cheap box with a FPGA board dumping ROM from cartridge and a basic software interface running emulators written by others for free.

In the end im just saying, why should we care that it is then copied?

1) because this is morally wrong: emulator developers usually do not do this for piracy, more for learning new things and because they like console hardware reverse-engineering, they also do not gain anything from their work and do not do it for the money. Companies like Hyperkin, on the opposite, are clearly only interested in making as much profit as possible on the currently hyped retrogaming market. They do not give a shit to original authors, they only took this as a business opportunity to increase their margin on the product by taking already available work and passing it as their own. They are also very much aware that original authors do not have the money or man power to take legal actions against them.

2) because this is sending a bad signal to emulator coders and open-source developers in general: if any company can take the work you basically spent years on without giving a shit to you and without being in trouble, why should you continue to work on open-source emulators for free ? Why not simply ask money for your work and make it closed-source so you have full control on it ? Keep in mind that the only reason we are able to play all these old games for free on hacked consoles like the Wii or Xbox is because those open-source emulators existed in the first place and were improved along all these years by benevolent contributors respecting the original license. If people stop doing this, we will end up with only crappy proprietary emulation "products" like NeoGeoX and Retron5, sold for insane prices, with no other "free" or "open" solutions.

 

[tbb043]

You can't patent something that you did not invent

Sure you can. Happens all the time. That's what patent trolls do. Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it, then sue whoever's already been using it. It's a system even more fucked up than copyrights.

 

[FAST6191]

Sure you can. Happens all the time. That's what patent trolls do. Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it, then sue whoever's already been using it. It's a system even more fucked up than copyrights.

Really? Most patent trolls I see tend to be the ones that buy failing or failed companies for their IP portfolio and use that, others might abuse the system to slide through a patent that would normally get struck down for being obvious, there being prior art or it generally not being all that applicable and counting on the fact that a patent case in actual court is expensive where paying off people is less expensive.

Equally "Find something that hasn't been patented and patent it" would seem to be the object of the system.

 

[raulpica]

I don't get why anyone would EVER want one of these. People who want to use carts are usually people who can't stand emulators and want to use the real thing - and the RetroN5 does exactly the OPPOSITE of that!

The only way to explain this is that Hyperkin with the RetroN5 just wants to scam retrogamers making them think that this ISN'T emulation - otherwise they can do that just fine on pratically everything, Samsung Android-powered fridges included.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't get why anyone would EVER want one of these. People who want to use carts are usually people who can't stand emulators and want to use the real thing - and the RetroN5 does exactly the OPPOSITE of that!

The only way to explain this is that Hyperkin with the RetroN5 just wants to scam retrogamers making them think that this ISN'T emulation - otherwise they can do that just fine on pratically everything, Samsung Android-powered fridges included.

Essentially devices like this are for people who don't want to pirate ROM's, but don't want to go through the trouble of getting and maintaining old systems or having a stack of them by their TV's. It's the convenience of being able to emulate several systems with just one box without ever going into the "grey" area of illegal downloads or the pain of having to dump your cartridges or discs.

As for "trying to hide the use of open source software", the licenses might be embedded into the source code itself, you never know. It's definitely naughty not to mention the original creators in at least a manual though, I'll agree to that extent.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Isn't open source with a paywall for those who're going to use it commercially so they have to pay a fee? I've read that on apps like Team Viewer and such so this shouldn't be any different.

Maybe after Nintendo sues Hyperkin they'll finally get off their asses and develop a new Metroid game.

 

[raulpica]

Essentially devices like this are for people who don't want to pirate ROM's, but don't want to go through the trouble of getting and maintaining old systems or having a stack of them by their TV's. It's the convenience of being able to emulate several systems with just one box without ever going into the "grey" area of illegal downloads or the pain of having to dump your cartridges or discs.

You'd think that people able to question legality to that extent would be stupid to not worry about a MAGICAL 5-in-1 CONSOLE from an UNKNOWN COMPANY which plausibily has NO RIGHTS whatsoever to the consoles in question

tl;dr it's a scam

 

[grossaffe]

Publicly available source code can be freely modified and sold. I don't see what the big deal is if they used publicly available source code in the product they're selling. If the authors wanted a piece of that pie, they should have sold the code closed source.

That's just not true. Just because something is open source, does not mean that anybody can do whatever they like with the source code. Open source code released without any license inherently leaves all the rights with the author. You will often see code released with the GNU Public License, which allows people to modify the source code and sell it, however it requires that all modifications made to the code be made public and released with the same license. There are more permissive licenses like the BSD license which allows you to modify the code, sell it, and not release your changes (OS X, for example, was built off of the BSD Operating System that comes with the BSD license). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, on the other hand, is a distribution of Linux by RedHat, which uses the GPL license, and so even though they sell their operating system, they are also legally obligated to release the source code which has resulted in an equivalent free OS, CentOS.

 

[Foxi4]

You'd think that people able to question legality to that extent would be stupid to not worry about a MAGICAL 5-in-1 CONSOLE from an UNKNOWN COMPANY which plausibily has NO RIGHTS whatsoever to the consoles in question

tl;dr it's a scam

It doesn't have to have any rights to the consoles in question if it doesn't infringe on their patents. That, and it's more a matter of simple comfort of use. The way most people see it, if a product is legally in circulation then it's probably fine to buy it - deliberations about whether or not it's infringing on copyrights is not up to the customer, it's up to the authorities in charge of what gets onto the market and what doesn't. Meanwhile, downloading a ROM is always as illegal as it gets and most people don't want to engage in that when they have a readily available alternative that plays their legally purchased games.

 

[Jayro]

That's just not true. Just because something is open source, does not mean that anybody can do whatever they like with the source code. Open source code released without any license inherently leaves all the rights with the author. You will often see code released with the GNU Public License, which allows people to modify the source code and sell it, however it requires that all modifications made to the code be made public and released with the same license. There are more permissive licenses like the BSD license which allows you to modify the code, sell it, and not release your changes (OS X, for example, was built off of the BSD Operating System that comes with the BSD license). Red Hat Enterprise Linux, on the other hand, is a distribution of Linux by RedHat, which uses the GPL license, and so even though they sell their operating system, they are also legally obligated to release the source code which has resulted in an equivalent free OS, CentOS.

I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.

 

[grossaffe]

I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.

Wow, you're such a rebel. I can only hope to be as cool as you one day.

 

[FAST6191]

Isn't open source with a paywall for those who're going to use it commercially so they have to pay a fee? I've read that on apps like Team Viewer and such so this shouldn't be any different.

Short version. No, not at all and most things that fall under the banner of open source are anything but a paywall for commercial use. Likewise teamviewer is not open source in any capacity that I have ever seen.

Long version... well we would be here all week. I will go for the slightly condensed version

Owing to various well known problems (most notably things like the halting problem) computer programs can be written and have you not easily figure out how does what it does. The way this happens is when something is written in a high level language and is converted (compiled) into machine code. The code in the high level language is known as source code.
As programs count as copyrighted works you can then have a program distributed to do a task but not be edited/dissected easily. You then get to charge for updates, versions with more features, versions that work on other types of computer, versions that work with newer types of format/data.... all that stuff you are used to with upgrades and different versions.

Open source is when a program has its source released, however it goes somewhat further than that and this is where it gets contentious as various groups have various opinions on what counts and what does not. For instance Microsoft recently released the source code to earlier versions of MS DOS ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/microsof...rce-code-also-word-for-windows-source.363749/ ), however the license associated with it is very restrictive if you want to comply with it ( http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsoft-research-license-agreement-msdos-v1-1-v2-0/ ). Other projects that get called open source have all sorts of different things attached to them, almost all of them will allow use of the software for free in any capacity, where it gets tricky is when you modify the source code released, use some of the source code in a library to do a task in your other program* and what you have to do in those cases.
Some open source licenses will see me have to make available the changes I make if I want to distribute my changed version publicly (if I keep it within my company or for myself I do not have to do a thing, I may even be able to put my modded version on a web server and not have to do a thing but allow the public to access that), others will not have that restriction and I can release whatever I want and not have to share my changes, in all cases I can charge for the software, however if it is open source then it is kind of pointless to charge** for the software in a similar model to how I might charge for closed source (someone else can get the code, compile it and distribute that for everybody else) so I instead might charge for support for the software/provide support with the paid version.

*programs interacting with each other can also be fun to work through. For instance me calling a program via the command line probably does not count as me using open source code, me taking said code and making a library from it and using that in my program probably does and it only gets odder from there. Knowing this the GPL license family (one of the main ones to try to force code changes to be released) made the lesser GPL (aka LGPL) which several projects will license or dual license their libraries under.

**several companies still do charge for software, most notably things like SUSE linux though it also then has things like opensuse made from it, also things like CentOS which aims to be compatible with the paid for distribution known as RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux).

Open source also does not mean you, as a developer, surrender your rights to the program either. To that end if I developed an open source program (say under the GPL license) I could still say you can use it under the GPL, or if that is too restrictive then call me up and I will allow you to buy the rights to use it under some other license.

Finally if you think this is tricky I advise you never look at Microsoft's licensing agreements.... not all that large companies may well have a person with a full time job to ensure license compliance with just Microsoft software. As a sneak peak their licenses may vary depending upon how many CPUs you have in your system, how many people are accessing it at once (and this number can be as low as 10 for something as basic as SMB file shares -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb147520(v=winembedded.5).aspx ). And if you think Microsoft is bad never look at Cisco and definitely never look at Oracle databases. Oh and there are no software patents in several countries so you might also have that to deal with (or indeed ignore if you live in a place that lacks them).

 

[Foxi4]

I don't live in your world full of licenses, I just do what I want with whatever code I get my hands on. If people don't like it, they can get in line with the rest of the bitches, and wait for me to give a fuck.

You do live in the same world of licenses, you just haven't been hit in the face with a lawsuit yet. Credit goes where credit's due - if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't code. Don't be a lamer - when you use someone's code, mention that someone in your product.

 

[Jayro]

It's a good thing I can't code anything, I don't even know programming beyond BASIC. But of the BASIC I do know, I can program for the Commodore 64, the Apple II/e, and several Texas Instruments calculators like the TI-82, TI-83, TI-83 Plus, TI-84, TI-85, and the TI-86. Copying and pasting things into Windows batch files are about the extent of my "code borrowing", so calm down.