Hacking Question Where is the Difference between ReiNX and Atmosphére?

[Mr. Wizard]

Making money off open source / free software is okay, it's completely legal, what is not legal is breaking the license you agreed to when using software, which aparently SXOS does.

Wow your facts are waaaaay off.

For example, GPL2

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

I suggest you do some research before making such blatantly ignorant and false statements.

 

[EIREXE]

Wow your facts are waaaaay off.

For example, GPL2

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

I suggest you do some research before making such blatantly ignorant and false statements.

From the GPLv2 prelude:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

From the GPLv2 prelude:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Yes you are correct, you are FREE to get the source and change it and distribute it. You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

But as section 2 subsection b states, you cannot sell it and you must provide the source.

I suggest you read more than just the prelude.

Now if it was under BSD licensing you could do whatever you want. Steal the code, make it proprietary and charge a fortune for it.

 

[EIREXE]

Yes you are correct, you are FREE to get the source and change it and distribute it. You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

But as section 2 subsection b states, you cannot sell it.

I suggest you read more than just the prelude.

Section 2 b does not state that selling the software is not allowed, it refers to the licensing itself, that you cannot charge to obtain the software under the gplv2 license, instead it must always be licensed under the gplv2 license.

This ensures that all derivatives are licensed under the same license.

Software that disallows selling is not open source / free software.

What the GPL disallows is from taking the code and making it proprietary.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

Section 2 b does not state that selling the software is not allowed, it refers to the licensing itself, that you cannot charge to obtain the software under the gplv2 license, instead it must always be licensed under the gplv2 license.

Software that disallows selling is not open source / free software.

Sure you could charge a fee for letting someone download it, but you have to give them the source and all rights to it. That is distribution.

For example, what TX is doing is "selling their closed source copy of open source software".
Technically, they could charge a fee for downloading it but, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

TX are in violation of any GPL2 code they have used.

They are "selling" it, not "distributing" it.

 

[xabier]

Some people don't seem to understand that you need only some good games to enjoy a console. Buy those and that's it?


First, payload booting/Linux booting is already implemented into Hekate internally.
Second: for me it's not so convenient (except for backups, but not everyone is interested in piracy). First they basically just packaged some open source gpl homebrew, and did nothing new except for sigpatches. Add on to the fact it is a closed source payload running on the highest privilege state on you're switch...

And last but not the least:LAYERED FS WAS NEVER DESIGNED AS A PIRACY TOOL! (people still don't get, sorry I get angry at that one)

Sx os implemented chainloading since day one. TBF I have sx pro because I can and I want an unlocked console. The games that I own are enough for me.

I don't mind running high privileged closed software on my switch. A console is a recreational device and it doesn't have sensitive information such a a phone or computer.

Regarding to license issues, I believe in GPL license. But some other people believe in copyright too and all cfw options allow you to circunvent it, even without sigpatches.

 

[EIREXE]

Sure you could charge a fee for letting someone download it, but you have to give them the source and all rights to it. That is distribution.

For example, what TX is doing is "selling their closed source copy of open source software".
Technically, they could charge a fee for downloading it but, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

TX are in violation of any GPL2 code they have used.

They are "selling" it, not "distributing" it.

Correct, selling involves distribution, TX is indeed in violation of the license they agreed (the GPLv2) so they could be sued, and hopefully they will, as a person who has contributed to many free software projects nothing makes more angry than people not respecting the license.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Regarding to license issues, I believe in GPL license. But some other people believe in copyright too and all cfw options allow you to circunvent it, even without sigpatches.

Using a license such as the GPL does not release the product into the public domain, you still retain copyright over it, you just give your users certain rights, just like with any other software license.

What TX has done is a copyright violation by incorporating software licensed under the GPLv2 into a proprietary program and then distributing it to users.

 

[Jayro]

WTF are kips?

What do you pay attention to then? Don't say emulation because that's illegal and stupid too

Emulation is not illegal. Unless you're using ROMs you don't own.

 

[M7L7NK7]

WTF are kips?

Emulation is not illegal. Unless you're using ROMs you don't own.

(yes, if you read my posts I was mocking them for saying that the Switch scene is stupid and illegal)

 

[Clapmaster]

I mean I could understand the hate if TX was asking $80-$100 but $40 for the whole shebang in a neatly wrapped tight little package. I wipe my ass on $40 every other day. Go mow a lawn or 2 and you got a SX Pro.

 

[M7L7NK7]

It's cool to hate

 

[Mr. Wizard]

I mean I could understand the hate if TX was asking $80-$100 but $40 for the whole shebang in a neatly wrapped tight little package. I wipe my ass on $40 every other day. Go mow a lawn or 2 and you got a SX Pro.

I just used the change scrounged up from under my car seats...

It's cool to hate

It's also easier to hate and be ignorant when you don't fully understand something.
Plus the stupid mob mentality.

 

[Bullsquid]

I use Atmosphere for now, because in the current state is has more features implemented that I'm interested in.

• LayeredFS
• Signature patches
• Homebrew launcher
• Modular boot config with hekate
• Doesn't crash and is pretty stable.

I wanted to use ReiNX at first, but LayeredFS isn't working there yet, and then sigpatches came to Atmosphere, to which I already got used to.

SX OS cost money, and the only feature it currently has that no other CFW has is XCI loader. However I prefer to install my backups to the console, so I don't care about this feature.

 

[xabier]

WTF are kips?

Emulation is not illegal. Unless you're using ROMs you don't own.

I m not sure about that, it depends on your local regulations. Where I live its allowed to have your own private copy, but it s not the case everywhere.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

(yes, if you read my posts I was mocking them for saying that the Switch scene is stupid and illegal)

Emulation is not illegal, using copyrighted ROMs is. And Nintendo is prosecuting websites that distribute their old roms right now.

It would be cool to know how many users from here are able to dump their nes, SNES, n64, GC ... Roms and play them on other devices. It seems quite limited and what most people are apparently doing is pirating old systems. It s not bad if it s abandonware because no one will claim anything.

 

[EIREXE]

I mean I could understand the hate if TX was asking $80-$100 but $40 for the whole shebang in a neatly wrapped tight little package. I wipe my ass on $40 every other day. Go mow a lawn or 2 and you got a SX Pro.

There's nothing wrong with charging for the thing, the problem is using other people's work while (aparently) violating their license.

 

[Jayro]

There's nothing wrong with charging for the thing, the problem is using other people's work while (aparently) violating their license.

If you don't want your code stolen, keep it closed-source. Simple as that. Y'all acting like Gateway didn't pull the same bullshit.

 

[EIREXE]

If you don't want your code stolen, keep it closed-source. Simple as that. Y'all acting like Gateway didn't pull the same bullshit.

No, the correct would be, if you don't want to have legal trouble, don't break someone else's license when you use their code.

I don't know what gateway did, I wasn't around, but if they did the same then it's as bad.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

If you don't want your code stolen, keep it closed-source. Simple as that. Y'all acting like Gateway didn't pull the same bullshit.

It can still be decompiled and disassembled or even reverse engineered. I'd say your best bet is to keep it to yourself, offline, on an old floppy, in your closet.

 

[Jayro]

No, the correct would be, if you don't want to have legal trouble, don't break someone else's license when you use their code.

I don't know what gateway did, I wasn't around, but if they did the same then it's as bad.

Gateway stole, packaged, and re-released A9LH as their own thing in a free update.

 

[EIREXE]

Gateway stole, packaged, and re-released A9LH as their own thing in a free update.

Did they provide the source code to anyone that asked? If they didn't they are in violation of the A9LH license, which is also the gplv2.

 

[Mr. Wizard]

free update

So what's the problem if it was a free update?