What would be considered as a copyright violation for open source code?

Discussion in 'Site Discussions & Suggestions' started by mariogamer, Aug 10, 2018.

  1. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    So, from gbatemp's rules:

    This mean it is applicable to some software such as the tx sx os.

    However, it seems like this rule isn't truly applied for open source software. Most of them in hacking scenes uses the gpl v2 or v3.

    Even tho it is open source code, license exist for it. And the gpl is known to permit software distribution if:
    a: proper copyright notices were added
    b: forked software may stay on the open source domain (and still have the gpl license)

    This is appliable to other license, but the gpl is probably the biggest one.

    My main question, are open source code treated the same? And what would be considered as a violation? Answer is already known for the first question ( because of some things certain scenes, you may easily notice that it is not).

    How will open source code be treated in this case?
     
    Last edited by mariogamer, Aug 10, 2018
    m4xw likes this.
  2. Drakia

    Drakia GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Member
    11
    Mar 15, 2008
    Canada
    Jesus christ. OPEN A GOD DAMN ISSUE ON THE PROJECT. All you are doing is creating drama for no reason, and slandering a project that a group of people are working hard on.
     
    tbb043 and Quantumcat like this.
  3. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    sorry, but that one isn't related.
    It's an actual question I have. And it is related to sx os, too.
    Sorry for being stupid I guess?
     
  4. Coto

    Coto -

    Member
    7
    Jun 4, 2010
    Chile
    But "open source" licenses is a software license that has the viral clause:
    So if you are the owner of the project, or the project involved is gpl compatible you are "legally" entitled and "licensed". I think the context in there "copyrights" means as a derivative work where you aren't even licensed to do use/distribute such work.

    Also software licenses are different from IP and trademarks. I mean software or other licenses is a contract between two or more entities and can hold agreed rules, and in these rules IP, trademarks, etc.

    GPL specific:
    But AFAIK even if people manage to relicense their own work and they even used a bit of gpl code while at it, they only can license what's considered "their work" and not the gpl parts unless they agree with the gpl rules otherwise their GPL license is invalid and you can use gpl (v2 == v2 , v2+ == v2 && v2+ == v3) while agreeing with gpl rules to redistribute your modified work.

    For instance gpl code can't re-license copyrighted work

    (ie1, if user1 directly covered his software work through a closed source license that prohibits sharing without permission, or even sharing, and such work does NOT come from a viral license such as the gpl or realnetworks), and then user2 tries to put a gpl license to that work.

    (ie2, or backwards: user1 tries to relicense using private license where user2 work comes from an "open source" (viral) license, it simply does not affect the ability to user3 to use gpl user1 work, even if user1 cries about it)

    In fact two "viral" licenses are incompatible by default as both will try to void the other clause were it enforces own rules.
     
  5. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    22
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    As a general rule GBAtemp does not have time to play open source copyright lawyer. It is absolutely recommended that you make the source of your fork available, even if it is one of those ones that does not and this is for good reason (you never know when something else will change that will need it and if you are 5 years gone*). We are probably not going to remove things as a general rule but if you are harangued for it then you get what it coming to you, and don't be surprised if it does not get shared around. If you are going to start on SX OS borrowing code then meh, or perhaps there is/was a standard in some aspects of law and journalism about things that the public finds interesting vs being of the public interest and SX OS was a leading light in the homebrew push.

    *real example. Release of DLDI. Previous libraries made it such that things had to be compiled against specific libraries. New carts coming out, updates and interoperability between carts made this a nightmare. After this it was made such that the libraries were there and compiled into the program such that each program then needed a small patch (which could be automatically applied by the cart, though in practice I only ever saw DS slot devices do it). DS homebrew had been going on for a while by this point so we had fairly extensive libraries (early 2006 was the first passme and things were very popular almost immediately). Most things had source though so quick and dirty recompiles happened. There was not however a ROM dumper in such a state and it would take a little while before such a thing hit the scene (this would be Rudolph's dumpers, August 2007 with DLDI appearing in January of that year or maybe just before) which meant getting hold of kind of rare and hard to come by gear to do it.
     
    Ryccardo likes this.
  6. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    I know they can only re-license theyre own work. But they must still distribute gpl code.

    Well then, please tell me why copyrighted work ( I'm talking generally, any code that is proprietary but some parts of it are gpl based) aren't treated the same?
    I just want to understand this.
    (Btw, sx os wasn't really a light. It was more of a light for piracy than anything.)
     
    Last edited by mariogamer, Aug 11, 2018
  7. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    22
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    I am not following.

    and? Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here.
     
    andyhappypants likes this.
  8. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    Well, I'll pick an actual example.

    1. "Hy guys, I've made an open source backup loader feel free to fork it blablabla" - Public not interested
    2. "Hy guys, I've made a proprietary backup loader you are allowed to distribute but blablabla " Public not interested
    3. "Hy guys, I've made a proprietary backup loader that I sell to you and is fully based on 1 and blablabla. I won't give you the source tho" Public interested.

    Compare #3 to this:
    "Hey guys I provide a crack of this backup loader"

    Explain the differences? why would #3 not be treated like a, for example, sx os crack?

    So in gbatemp general rules this is NOT copyright violation and/or won't be treated the same?
     
    Last edited by mariogamer, Aug 11, 2018
  9. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    22
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    Is that an actual example? Free stuff is always welcomed around here.

    There is a quality/ease of use/reliability component at play but if they were three approximately equal setups you can bet the free one would win out.
     
  10. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    Welp that's not what hapenned in the switch scene for some reason (namely public stupid stuff).

    Also, this is exactly what xecuter did. They copy pasted tinfoil (installer) and did some customIzation to it. Not to mention the sysmodules they have stolen to atmosphere.
    The only thing new that xecuter had was piracy stuff. Namely an xci backup loader.

    (don't actually forget I'm not only talking about tx. even tho I don't certainly know for other example, this pretty much already hapenned)

    Also your real example might not be good, because in this case those are completely random person rebuilding the thing and at an impossible to control timing. On some other case, it's only one big team, and this team copy big stuff.

    But my actual example only refers to if the public is interested in this.
    If big websites like gbatemp and others apply really the copyright rule we might see the team publishing the source code (tho in some case bound not to happen)
     
  11. The Real Jdbye

    The Real Jdbye Always Remember 30/07/08

    Member
    18
    GBAtemp Patron
    The Real Jdbye is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    Mar 17, 2010
    Norway
    Alola
    Basically no one cares. The only person that can take direct action against a license violation is the copyright holder.
     
  12. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    Well then tell me the same thing for a possible sx crack? It should be xecuter that take it out?
    Or no one cares about open source? That wouldn't surprise me anyways.

    And besides, sometime it has been proved many times. (gateway (don't remember the specifics but i think they copied an open source a9lh implementation), xecuter)
     
    Last edited by mariogamer, Aug 11, 2018
  13. Insidious611

    Insidious611 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Oct 23, 2010
    United States
    Okay so, I'm not really sure what the hell you're trying to say here, and I'm mostly replying to ask for clarification. Specifically, why are you talking about public interest? Public interest has nothing to do with copyright law, so that's not really answering the question that was asked. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say that SX OS is "borrowing code". The fact is that it has been proven repeatedly that they are taking open source code and, against the license of said code, modifying it, compiling it, and releasing it in binary form without providing the source code. This is a copyright violation, plain and simple.

    Now, the question is, is GBATemp really a site that actually cares that much about copyright violation? Sure, you can't link directly to places that offer pirated content, but as you said, "Backups/copied games is a thing we do around here." And really, if people here cared that much about the letter of the law, you have to look at for example the DMCA which says that tools that enable piracy are just as illegal as piracy itself, in which case your FreeShop and stuff like that shouldn't really be distributed here either, yet it is.

    My point to FAST is that you're confusing the issue by bringing up something that has no relevance. Bringing up what the "public is interested in" regarding the law is like reading random entries from the Oxford dictionary when someone asks you for the time.

    My point to the OP on the other hand is that your question may or may not be valid here. What is clear is the law in this case, what is not is how the people on this site are choosing to apply the law and to uphold or not uphold it on their website.

    As to nobody caring about license violation of open source software... I sure hope that none of the people here saying that ever want to become professional or even skilled hobbyist software developers. Because people stealing open source code and marketing it without contributing back to your project happens all the time and can frequently rob a developer of not only potential profits but, in the case of a commercial project that steals your code and is successful, rob you of recognition for your work. You may think that's no big deal, but having a decent portfolio of recognizable work is absolutely necessary for getting a decent job as a programmer.

    Basically, as an open source programmer myself I find the whole fact that the stated policy of this site is that "nobody cares" about GPL license violations, as opposed to ARR violations, to be both absurd and potentially damaging to the very community y'all rely on for your precious hacks and software.
     
    Last edited by Insidious611, Aug 11, 2018
    Sono and mariogamer like this.
  14. ghjfdtg

    ghjfdtg GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Jul 13, 2014
    What op is saying GBAtemp doesn't give a shit if a shady company is selling license violating stuff, advertise (looking at you gary) and even host (download section) it here. You should give a shit. This is like a punch in the face of those who do the actual work and hurts the community in the long run. This is one of the reasons why the scene devs hate this site so much.

    Just my 2 cents. Awaiting fanboys in 3, 2, 1...
     
    Sono, Insidious611 and mariogamer like this.
  15. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    I'm glad someone point this out.

    Well they are saying "copyrighted work/software"
    in the rules. So yes it does.
     
    Last edited by mariogamer, Aug 11, 2018
  16. Ryccardo

    Ryccardo and his tropane alkaloids

    Member
    12
    Feb 13, 2015
    Italy
    Imola
    That was very allegedly the reason it was invented: promoting original invention instead of mindless rip-offs... now, there are plenty of other discussion on whether it's ever worked that way (in nowaday's times and culture, and enforcement for money, it certainly fails at that)

    Most don't except as a curiosity (that's certainly true of me); and GBATemp is not hosted in that country famous for exporting freedom (with guns/bombs or economical meddling) :P

    They did and managed to make it well inferior to the original A9LH, so they lost the popularity/ePenis contest due to actions of the majority of the "free market", no artificial meddling with required

    Is SX a rip-off of other software? Yes, but it's leading because it does what the competition doesn't (allegedly due to prudery of the original developers); similiarly, the first free(ware) and reasonably easy to install 3DS CFW with signature patches (RxPasta, was it?) was an unlicensed hack of RxTools. Did it result in drama? YES! To the point RxTools finally added said feature (admittedly it's significantly simpler than a rom loader is), RxPasta was promptly forgotten, and everyone lived happily after...
     
  17. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    22
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    Are you purposely talking in a rather... circumspect manner?
    So TX took a bunch of code from different places, brewed it all up and made something head and shoulders above anything else available (we like loading backups/copied games around here, have done since the start. At the time nowt else did it even vaguely as well) and we are supposed to ignore it?

    Anyway it sounds like you want GBAtemp to help lean on TX to release the code. It won't accomplish anything. I can however happily say I would like them to release their code, and the same for all other presently proprietary programming code out there.

    I read it as the OP was asking why we reported on it/shared it all. If you have something doing better than anything else around and it is otherwise in line with what we do then it gets shared, discussed and otherwise spread. This also leaves aside the timings of it all (the various people doing the analysis on it were behind the announcements and initial release), something retroactive might have been possible but eh really.

    The interest of the public and public interest are different things in matters of law and journalism. Typically you will see it discussed for celebrity gossip rags and how it may play to the right to privacy but there are plenty of examples in computer code, hacking and the sorts of things we deal in around here as well. The interest of the public may include certain things but it is not of the public interest which may override that and thus can be shut down in some way. To that end distasteful it might be but it does things people should know about and thus I would argue it is in fact of great relevance to this discussion.

    DMCA wise for the most part people ignore it on sites like these (not to mention neither the server nor the owners are in the US). "Anything you do is all on you" then being how it plays out.
     
  18. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    We don't actually care if it does things better or not. It IS copyright violation.
    Ps.: they did almost nothing better excpet for one big feature that "the public" love that is xci backup loading

    Seeing your posts actually convinces me that gbatemp doesn't care about it.
     
  19. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip Reporter
    22
    Nov 21, 2005
    United Kingdom
    Is XCI format backup loading an undesirable feature then? Plenty of people seem to have a great time as a result of it.

    GBAtemp cares, however it appears to the response to such concerns is not that which you would want.
     
    Ryccardo likes this.
  20. mariogamer
    OP

    mariogamer GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    5
    Aug 12, 2015
    Canada
    In the current way it is applied, no.

    And if they care so much why won't they do anything against? Just because of those 1-2 new features.
    And I'll repeat it again and again. It is still a copyright voliation.
     
Loading...