Retron 4 (console for snes\nes\genny etc)

[Gregory DG]

http://www.libretro.com/index.php/retroarch-license-violations/

 

I hope they get the legal counsel they need.

 

The first post on that page is brilliant:

 

 

Jesse James

 

More than Hyperkin not giving a fuck to open-source software licenses (which was expectable honestly), I'm quite shocked by the amount of people trying to found them excuses or saying they don't care because emulator authors are thief that got what they deserve.

 

Not only this is being totally ignorant about what writing an emulator means and that emulators by themselves generally do not break any copyright law, this also shows how much selfish and hypocrites a lot of retrogaming fans and collectors are. The same "purists" who used to say they can not play on emulators because they want authenticity are now defending and praising a box with stolen emulators just because it let them play with their precious cartridges, and are pissing on emulator developers when those just want to defend their own work.

 

Lastly, from the "moral" point of view, I find unbelievable that those people are more inclined to defend a company with such shady business practices, whose only goal is obviously to make the most money out of the "retrogaming" and "collecting" community, instead of supporting amateur developers, who literally spent years working on an emulator and contributing to the whole community by sharing their code, without EVER asking for anything in return.

 

Those people need to wake up, Hyperkin is a shady company and is only seeing us as fools with money:

 

1) they lied on purpose by saying initially this was not using emulation, although it was quickly proven they were actually dumping the cartridge and using the dumped ROM with emulators

2) they delivered an half-finished product and relied on firmware updates to rush their already delayed release date

3) they admitted using emulators but said they were all written by them, and that open-source emulators were just used as a "source of informations".

4) it is now confirmed they have voluntarily and drastically reduced their development cost by using existing open-source or non-commercial emulators without respecting their license, yet increasing the retail price of their product from $99 to $149, when the cheap cardridge dumper and GUI interfacing with emulators (coded freely by others) maybe represents only 10% of the software being sold here.

 

I do not have much hope honestly but I wish these companies would be taught a lesson some day, that the "community" will not been a fool foronce and that Hyperkin case could serve as an example. Tommo did the same thing with their portable "Neo Geo" which used an illegal copy of Final Burn Alpha and people reacted the same (both sides) but nothing happened to the company, let's hope history does not repeat itself again.

[Phredreeke]

Anyone with a Retron 5 would be wise to ensure their firmware is up to date. If they end up replacing SNES9X with ZSNES, the quality of SNES emulation will decrease substantially. I'm not sure what option they have available for the Sega emulation.

They can't. ZSNES is written in x86 assembly, while Retron 5 has an ARM CPU.

[goldenegg]

They can't. ZSNES is written in x86 assembly, while Retron 5 has an ARM CPU.

 

Oh ya, that's right. Completely forgot about that. I haven't touched ZSNES in ages.

 

So there doesn't appear to be a decent replacement for them to use.

[Austin]

 

 

The GPL version 3 was specifically made because GPL version 2 did not provide enough safeguards against abuse like in the case of the TIVo digital video recorders. They would take from open source, not credit anybody and not give anything back either – and even create a closed platform around it where they would set themselves up as owners of the software (and in effect the hardware).

GPLv3 forbids you from building a gated community around open-source software like this and giving nothing back in return. The fact that they have used RetroArch’s GPL version 3-licensed audio resampler code in a product that is running a locked-down, encryption-crippled version of Android is already bad enough. That they don’t even provide to users the ability to run content on this device without any restrictions is another serious concern.

Anyway, as it stands right now in its current state the product is using parts of our software illegally. There were also some other things found that were legally questionable like a Microsoft-licensed Verdana font which is covered by a End-User License Agreement, so there are multiple license violations here at play.

[dashv]

I've been a software engineer for over 20 years and I sympathize with the rage of having their stuff stolen. But I lost a lot of repect for them when I saw how they were treating people that were not involved in the infringement. The authors have been very abusive towards the community since this whole fiasco started.

 

Some of them outright demanded that customers start ripping their Retrons apart and send them binaries because they wanted to have more proof but they didn't want it bad enough to buy one themselves and do the discovery using fully legal means.

 

They should have thanked the guy that raised the concern. Bought a Retron 5 immediately (to get it before the firmware could be changed). Kept it in a box. Contacted a lawyer. Then consulted with the lawyer about the appropriate and legally defendable ways to do further discovery. But no. They demanded that everyone else do the dirty work for them because they shouldn't have to spend $150 to defend their stuff and they didn't want to get a lawyer until they knew for sure.

 

If they had done what I said above then posted an article on slashdot, reddit, ars, etc. They would have had an entire undivided community providing moral (and possibly financial) support. A kickstarter for legal funds would raise a ton I'm sure.

 

Instead they divided the community themselves by being very mean and condescending to people that wanted to help and provide moral support but wanted to stay out of the legally sticky stuff.

 

If you think I'm making any of this up read the forum thread that started this whole thing and make your own assessment.

 

http://www.assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?52092-looking-for-Retron-5-hack-to-play-Roms

 

If they issued an apology for their initial treatment of the community I would even throw money into the kickstarter.

Edited October 3, 2014 by dashv

[Satoshi Matrix]

It's funny. If you read the Retron5 thread and the previous one on digitalpress, I have both been accused of being a Retron5 hater and a defender. All this drama with hyperkin using open source emulation code is something I want no part of. I'm not a partner of Hyperkin nor have any insight into what they're thinking when they do various things. My job is simply to review the Retron5 in its current state, which I will continue to do.

 

My personal opinion is that Hyperkin should have directly credited the authors of the open source emulators they used in about "about" page on the firmware, but it is my opinion that despite the emu cores being preinstalled and closed off, they are not sold, don't contribute to the cost, and Hyperkin hasn't done anything legally wrong. But before I get attacked, this is simply my personal opinion. Hyperkin has yet to make a statement regarding this, there is no sign of even preliminary legal action whatsoever, and based on emails sent to distributors, Hyperkin is in fact increasing production of more units in time for the Holiday season.

 

Until something more concrete happens, the most anyone has are personal opinions about this. Probably what will happen is they'll release firmware updates that switches the cores to use their own code rather than any fight any legal action. I'm almost certain of it.

 

So for now, it would be a good idea for any Retron5 owners to download and archive the firmware update files for existing cores in case the ones that Hyperkin comes up with themselves aren't nearly as good.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Satoshi Matrix

[goldenegg]

Until something more concrete happens, the most anyone has are personal opinions about this. Probably what will happen is they'll release firmware updates that switches the cores to use their own code rather than any fight any legal action. I'm almost certain of it.

 

 

You're giving Hyperkin too much credit. They simply do not have the expertise to code their own emulators from scratch. Also, doing so still doesn't remove their guilt for systems sold to date. If I rob a store, sell their items as my own and then start selling legal obtain items, I'm still accountable for the initial stolen items.

 

 

 

 

My personal opinion is that Hyperkin should have directly credited the authors of the open source emulators they used in about "about" page on the firmware, but it is my opinion that despite the emu cores being preinstalled and closed off, they are not sold, don't contribute to the cost, and Hyperkin hasn't done anything legally wrong. But before I get attacked, this is simply my personal opinion.

 

Your personal opinion can still be wrong. It's just like people who sell CD\DVDs of ROMs, saying that you're only paying for the media and not the content. That's not a legitimate defense.

[dashv]

It's funny. If you read the Retron5 thread and the previous one on digitalpress, I have both been accused of being a Retron5 hater and a defender. All this drama with hyperkin using open source emulation code is something I want no part of. I'm not a partner of Hyperkin nor have any insight into what they're thinking when they do various things. My job is simply to review the Retron5 in its current state, which I will continue to do.

 

Until something more concrete happens, the most anyone has are personal opinions about this. Probably what will happen is they'll release firmware updates that switches the cores to use their own code rather than any fight any legal action. I'm almost certain of it.

 

So for now, it would be a good idea for any Retron5 owners to download and archive the firmware update files for existing cores in case the ones that Hyperkin comes up with themselves aren't nearly as good.

Sound advice.

 

Snes9x and the Genesis core did not magically achieve the compatibility they currently have. They are the result of well over a decade of coding, research, trial and error, etc. by the respective authors. I am very doubtful Hyperkin themselves could produce equivalent cores anytime in the near future. Any attempts to swap in other cores will certainly be a painful transition.

 

Hyperkin should respect what they have and try to reach some kind of compensation arrangement with the authors.

 

It should have been done before the first prototype was built. But for whatever reason that obviously didn't happen.

 

Their only choices are:

 

1) make it right

2) shut it down

3) Attempt to prove they don't have to make it right (in court)

4) Ignore the issue and hope it goes away

 

Morally I think 1 and 2 are the high ground. 3 and 4 they may be able to get away with legally but I think it'd be a pretty crappy play.

 

Lastly, I'm glad you are going to finish your video series. It's very thorough and a good watch. Especially for folks that don't have one. I am still reading new "reviews" and complaints from folks that clearly never updated their firmware from what came out of box.

Edited October 3, 2014 by dashv

[Andromeda Stardust]

They should have thanked the guy that raised the concern. Bought a Retron 5 immediately (to get it before the firmware could be changed). Kept it in a box. Contacted a lawyer. Then consulted with the lawyer about the appropriate and legally defendable ways to do further discovery. But no. They demanded that everyone else do the dirty work for them because they shouldn't have to spend $150 to defend their stuff and they didn't want to get a lawyer until they knew for sure.

Another legal facet of this case is obtaining legal proof that Hyperkin violated the terms & conditions of the said licenses. The terms are set in stone but the proof isn't. Code screenshots uses as proof on the website could just as easly be ruled out as hearsay if it can't be prooven the code pasted in the screenshots came from a Retron5. assuming Hyperkin does not just bend by giving away the source to the courts, it may be difficult to subpena the evidence.

 

Also performing a "clean room" hacking of the device and documenting it's contents may in and of itself not be legal, as it may be a violation of DCMA to break the protection measures within the device to gain access to the firmware or code. If hacking/tampering with the device software in order to extract necessary code for use as evidence itself requires violating laws in order to obtain it, then the defendant Hyperkin could counter-sue or use said violations to flip the case in their favor or at least have the said evidence dismissed.

 

If they had done what I said above then posted an article on slashdot, reddit, ars, etc. They would have had an entire undivided community providing moral (and possibly financial) support. A kickstarter for legal funds would raise a ton I'm sure.

I would gladly donate $25 to a kickstarter fund to sue Hyperkin, however legal expenses tend to balloon out of control in high profile cases. If the kickstarter reaches it's goal but does not exceed it by a large margin, there is the possibility that litigation could fail without sustained contributions.

 

Possibly best that the kickstarter be used more as a publicity or public awareness tool, then after the campaign is over, still allow people to add additional contributions privately through a separate website if needed.

 

Also what do the backers get out of it if they contribute to the cause? Many kickstarter projects require compensation or rewards for contributions. The terms would have to be worded carefully. There's also the possibility that after all legal fees are spent, the case is still lost somehow.

 

[godslabrat]

Satoshi Matrix, you are a valuable member of this forum and I have a lot of respect for the reviews and articles you provide. Your insights into both hardware and software have been of tremendous help to me in the last few years. But, on this matter; you are wrong.

 

Hyperkin took emulators that were not licensed for commercial use and used them for commercial purposes. They are, by the facts of the matter alone, in violation of the distribution agreement. Merely crediting the authors of the emulators would not absolve them of this. As was stated, commercial use of the software needs to be authorized from the authors directly. The tragedy is, it's very likely all of the authors would have signed off on the project for a pittance, some token dollar amount or a few free R5s. The fact that Hyperkin never even made the effort to contact these authors, when that was the only thing they really needed to do, is a pretty clear indication that they just wanted to slap something together and get it out the door-- laws and ethics be damned.

 

Again, I remind you, Hyperkin spoke at end during the pre-release hype-building stage about how their lawyers were guiding the "no roms" policy, trying to keep them out of court. Are we then to believe these same lawyers said nothing about the emulators themselves? If so, that would suggest their lawyers were completely incompetent. Or, the other option, and the one most likely based on the events up till now... Hyperkin listened to their legal council, and decided that they could either keep the source code obfuscated enough to never be noticed, and if it was noticed, simply rely on the authors never having the funds to defend themselves.

 

None of this takes away from what the R5 is capable of, or your ability to enjoy the end product. It does mean, however, that it was produced by a shady company. It doesn't have to affect your reviews, you have the right to not care about the company's practices. Just please don't bend over backwards to defend them with what are, I'm sorry, really bad arguments.

[dashv]

Another legal facet of this case is obtaining legal proof that Hyperkin violated the terms & conditions of the said licenses. The terms are set in stone but the proof isn't. Code screenshots uses as proof on the website could just as easly be ruled out as hearsay if it can't be prooven the code pasted in the screenshots came from a Retron5. assuming Hyperkin does not just bend by giving away the source to the courts, it may be difficult to subpena the evidence.

 

Also performing a "clean room" hacking of the device and documenting it's contents may in and of itself not be legal, as it may be a violation of DCMA to break the protection measures within the device to gain access to the firmware or code. If hacking/tampering with the device software in order to extract necessary code for use as evidence itself requires violating laws in order to obtain it, then the defendant Hyperkin could counter-sue or use said violations to flip the case in their favor or at least have the said evidence dismissed.

 

This is my point exactly. That's why I suggested that they should have consulted a lawyer before breaking open anything for evidence.

 

Instead they called the guy that was tinkering with his Retron 5 for his own bemusement a chicken shit and accused him of having no spine because he wouldn't send them binaries ripped from his system. It's all there in the link I provided.

 

Really classy.

 

I would gladly donate $25 to a kickstarter fund to sue Hyperkin, however legal expenses tend to balloon out of control in high profile cases. If the kickstarter reaches it's goal but does not exceed it by a large margin, there is the possibility that litigation could fail without sustained contributions.

 

Possibly best that the kickstarter be used more as a publicity or public awareness tool, then after the campaign is over, still allow people to add additional contributions privately through a separate website if needed.

 

Also what do the backers get out of it if they contribute to the cause? Many kickstarter projects require compensation or rewards for contributions. The terms would have to be worded carefully. There's also the possibility that after all legal fees are spent, the case is still lost somehow.

 

The rewards don't have to be physical. It could things like thank you emails, a promise to add some new features to the cores, or porting the core to new architectures. The rewards especially do not need to be physical if folks are genuine in contributing purely because they think its "the right thing to do" and they feel "compelled to help out."

 

I would contribute and opt out of any reward. But these guys should publicly apologize to the guys they treated like shit that had nothing to do with the infringement.

 

You are right that whether they do a kick starter or not they would be wise to have a prominent "paypal" or equivalent donate option throughout the whole ordeal as you are absolutely right the costs could balloon.

Edited October 3, 2014 by dashv

[Rex Dart]

I have a feeling neither side wants legal costs & that it will ultimately be settled by simply crediting the actual authors & license terms in some Credits area of the device's UI.

 

But it's sure fun to guess.

[Satoshi Matrix]

like I said before guys, I want no part of this Hyperkin vs libretro stuff. That's for them to sort out. I'm not choosing sides.

 

My opinions about what Hyperkin should do are nothing but my opinions, even they are "wrong". I've written in the past about the Retron5 stands in this unique position strangling hardware and software, ROMs and carts, and how they're going to have a messy time of it. All of this is just further proof of that.

 

Hyperkin's problems are not my concern and I am neither defending them or critical of them. That to me is something they need to sort out with libretro in private.

[dashv]

Are we then to believe these same lawyers said nothing about the emulators themselves? If so, that would suggest their lawyers were completely incompetent. Or, the other option, and the one most likely based on the events up till now... Hyperkin listened to their legal council, and decided that they could either keep the source code obfuscated enough to never be noticed, and if it was noticed, simply rely on the authors never having the funds to defend themselves.

All of this is complete speculation.

 

All of the Retron 5 software development is done is China. I don't know if it's a 1st party Hyperkin code shop or if it's outsourced. Either way it's entirely possible that Hyperkin's lawyers here in the states had no details whatsoever about the emulation software being used or the licensing covering it.

 

What know know as a fact:

 

Hyperkin's Retron 5 requires emulation cores that have non-commercial licenses in order to provide their advertised functions.

 

Now, what is complete speculation:

 

Folks saying Hyperkin knew and fully understood the licenses up front then chose to deliberately violated them hoping to not get caught.

 

From a legal standpoint this matters a lot and should be part of discovery because it can significantly change the severity of the punishments if Hyperkin is found guilty.

 

In order to prove intent they will need more than source code. They'll need emails, meeting minutes, and all sorts of stuff.

 

Now from a should we all hate the company and never trust them again standpoint it also matters a lot.

 

Fact:

 

Whether or not Hyperkin is marketing a respectable product has been the crux of my last 3 reviews of their system. Over those reviews I've covered the launch being a mess. Quality Assurance being a mess and the Software being a mess.

 

Fact:

That was 4 months ago. Now they are ramping up production to meet demand. QA has been tightened significantly. The software now delivers MORE features than what was originally advertised and a better over all experience than any competing product.

 

Fact:

Chris Gallizzi has spoken in several interviews on behalf of the company saying they realize hacking is going to happen and they don't plan to support it but also don't plan to interfere.

 

My Speculation:

He knew it was only a matter of time before their system was going to be busted wide open.

 

Fact:

On his facebook page Chris Gallizzi openly stated "I'm actually kinda surprised it took this long."

 

My speculation:

These do not seem to me like the actions or behavior of a company that is out to screw people. It seems to me like the predictable trajectory of a small company that suddenly released a hit product and is trying to grow rapidly to support it. Making rookie mistakes along the way.

 

From where I'm standing it does not currently look like Hyperkins violation was deliberate. It looks to me like their devs (or the outsourced shop) didn't read the licenses carefully. Maybe they didn't read them at all.

 

Chances are they looked at the libretro license and thought they weren't under the GPL3 tivo clause because they built their own UI. Libretro loads the cores so they probably figured any licensing below that wasn't their concern.

 

Now it will have to be sorted out by Hyperkin the Authors and probably armies of lawyers.

 

Extra Credit:

 

For folks that think this stuff is easy to sort out here's some food for thought.

 

How many of you developed commercial java code that ran on JBoss? Did those apps support the use of MySQL as a database back end??

 

Here's a puzzler for you. Assuming your code never imports a single mysql library. And assuming you are using an LGPL application server and using vanilla JDBC interfaces. And assuming your end users can download and install the GPL MySql JDBC driver and get it running... You don't require them too (you provide instructions for Oracle, and Postgres, but not MySql). They just can because that's how properly written JDBC code targeting generic J2EE datasources works.

 

Who (you, your users, or JBoss) are subject to the dynamic linking clause of the GPL license the MySql drivers fall under?

 

I've lived this exact scenario before. Interacted with all three parties mentioned (and their lawyers) and know the answer already (hint there are actually multiple "correct answers"). In the end we handled it in a way that we all agreed was in compliance with the licenses.

 

What solution would you propose?

Edited October 3, 2014 by dashv

[Phredreeke]

My personal opinion is that Hyperkin should have directly credited the authors of the open source emulators they used in about "about" page on the firmware, but it is my opinion that despite the emu cores being preinstalled and closed off, they are not sold, don't contribute to the cost, and Hyperkin hasn't done anything legally wrong.

Just because you're not charging for the emulators does not mean it is not considered commercial use.

 

Here's a puzzler for you. Assuming your code never imports a single mysql library. And assuming you are using an LGPL application server and using vanilla JDBC interfaces. And assuming your end users can download and install the GPL MySql JDBC driver and get it running... You don't require them too (you provide instructions for Oracle, and Postgres, but not MySql). They just can because that's how properly written JDBC code targeting generic J2EE datasources works.

 

Who (you, your users, or JBoss) are subject to the dynamic linking clause of the GPL license the MySql drivers fall under?

 

I've lived this exact scenario before. Interacted with all three parties mentioned (and their lawyers) and know the answer already (hint there are actually multiple "correct answers"). In the end we handled it in a way that we all agreed was in compliance with the licenses.

 

What solution would you propose?

The GPL only applies when distributing software, so unless your users are also distributors they are off the hook.

[goldenegg]

Hyperkin's problems are not my concern and I am neither defending them or critical of them. That to me is something they need to sort out with libretro in private.

 

If you care at all about the emulation community, it should concern you. What Hyperkin has done has potentially toxic repercussions on the community. I definitely will no longer support Hyperkin until they make this right.

[dashv]

Just because you're not charging for the emulators does not mean it is not considered commercial use.The GPL only applies when distributing software, so unless your users are also distributors they are off the hook.

and what of the other two parties?

 

On or off the hook?

 

Remember neither party distributed any GPL binaries.

[Satoshi Matrix]

I definitely will no longer support Hyperkin until they make this right.

 

The question then is: just what in your view would "make it right"? Hyperkin to give x amount of settlement money to the authors of the open source code they used?

[goldenegg]

 

The question then is: just what in your view would "make it right"? Hyperkin to give x amount of settlement money to the authors of the open source code they used?

 

It has nothing to do with money.

 

They either have to remove the offending software or come to an agreement with the developers.

[Satoshi Matrix]

It was my understanding they already are doing that though.

 

Hence why I suggested owners of the thing archive existing firmware in case a new firmware update that possibly changes cores and is inferior, users can then simply go back to the current cores.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Satoshi Matrix

[goldenegg]

No, they're not making any changes. They've put up a half-assed statement, putting it on the developers to come to a resolution. It has to be the other way around. It's up to Hyperkin to directly reach out and make changes.

 

Regardless, the devs have already called out what needs to happen, which includes:

 

- Release full source code (they still haven't released the front end code)

- Open the system to modification

- Remove the SNES9X, Genesis Plus GX (There is no compromise to be had here)

 

10 days after the devs made these asks, Hyperkin continued releasing software updates with the offending software. Nothing will change until legal action is taken. There is an effort going on between a group of people to get the required funds together, so hopefully that will come together.

Edited October 4, 2014 by goldenegg

[Satoshi Matrix]

Part 6 - On the Sega Genesis, MegaDrive and also Master System if you use an adapter.

 

[dashv]

Part 6 - On the Sega Genesis, MegaDrive and also Master System if you use an adapter.

 

 

Nice touch with Zero Wing.

 

Sonic and Knuckles +Sonic 2 should be working again with the official 2.0 firmware. Somehow a regression snuck into the betas. I can't confirm right now because I don't have access to my Retron 5 until Sunday.

Edited October 4, 2014 by dashv

[Satoshi Matrix]

I assumed it would be fixed eventually. I recorded all of these videos about a week ago and that's why I'm constantly mentioning these are filmed with 2.0 beta 6 for future viewers who might watch this a year from now.

[dashv]

I assumed it would be fixed eventually. I recorded all of these videos about a week ago and that's why I'm constantly mentioning these are filmed with 2.0 beta 6 for future viewers who might watch this a year from now.

Yeah. It didn't work at launch. They got it working around v1.4 - v1.6. Then they broke it somehow in the 2.0 betas. It was reported and I think they said they fixed it again in the 2.0 final. But I'll have to confirm on Sunday.