Dr Manhattan Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I hate to say this but no Harmony cart = no sale. I have a massive library of original carts and hardware, but it's the convenience of the Harmony cart that makes its exclusion a deal breaker for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHairy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Feel free to start a GoFundMe page to raise funding to sue Hyperkin if you feel your rights have been violated. A win in court would do lots of good for future open source projects. Are you seriously suggesting Stephen, me or anybody else should waste our lifetime just to go through all the pain and personal risk of going through a legal battle to uphold the GPL? Just to get this straight from my side: I don't give a fuck about how many consoles Hyperkin sells, but I am seriously pissed with people that recognize a potential GPL violation and invent arguments why it is OK to buy the console anyway. My goal is not to prevent Hyperkin from selling their stuff, but I at lest would like to hear a clear statement from people who 1. profit from our code and work and 2. are fully aware that using Stella 5 without honoring the GPL would amount to stealing it. How hard is it to realize that the people that develop Stella invest a good deal of their spare time into a product that they offer the community for free, with the only restriction that it may not be modified and redistributed without releasing the changes under the same license? Nodding off a possible blatant violation of those terms is like a punch in the face. I have family, friends and a life, and if there was a consequence, it surely won't be investing even more of my time into this rabbit hole Edited May 7, 2018 by DirtyHairy 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHairy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm still confused, if Stella is open source, what licensing are you talking about Open source != free to take. Please reread this thread carefully. If anybody modifies Stella without releasing the modifications under the same license (the GPLv2), they are violating the license that we, the developers, deliberately chose for our code. This is stealing. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) .../signed Why would I invest my spare time into providing a tool to a community who acts plain selfish? Edited May 7, 2018 by Thomas Jentzsch 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm still confused, if Stella is open source, what licensing are you talking about? https://stella-emu.github.io/index.html Stella is a multi-platform Atari 2600 VCS emulator released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You'll want to at least read this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atariboy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) You guys sharpen your pitchforks too much. Let's instead wait and see if there's any reason to do so. Hopefully they'll release something decent while respecting Stella's licensing terms. Edited May 7, 2018 by Atariboy 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Open source != free to take. Please reread this thread carefully. If anybody modifies Stella without releasing the modifications under the same license (the GPLv2), they are violating the license that we, the developers, deliberately chose for our code. This is stealing. Okay, prove it. Further, who owns the copyright? Also, to play Devil's Advocate, if the code is unmodified from what you did, does that mean they didn't violate the license? Edited May 7, 2018 by up2knowgood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Prove what? The Retron77 product isn't out yet, but Stella's license is posted and easy to read. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Prove what? The Retron77 product isn't out yet, but Stella's license is posted and easy to read. What I am talking about, until released this is all Academic, and once released how do you intend to prove theft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 What I am talking about, until released this is all Academic, and once released how do you intend to prove theft? E.g. like this. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I agree that waiting is sensible. This company has violated GPL before, though. Generally someone has to extract the code and compare it against their own. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 E.g. like this. I agree that waiting is sensible. This company has violated GPL before, though. Generally someone has to extract the code and compare it against their own. True, and thank you. By itself, GPL is super weak, but combined with a Copyright, it gains some strength and teeth. I think you have a pretty good case once its released. (Provided it is Stella upon release, which everyone thinks it will be.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHairy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Your tone suggests that you are trying to provoke, but I'll take your response at face value and reply sensibly. Okay, prove it. As already suggested, one way is analyzing the firmware. Apart from that, the emulation itself may provide clues. No emulator is perfect, and there are many edge cases that can be compared to establish a possible (if any) relationship between the current Stella core and the Retron77. Further, who owns the copyright? There is no difference regarding copyright between open and closed source projects. Unless transferred, copyright rests with the original creator of the code. Transfer is possible in some countries (e.g. in the US, but in Germany), but does not usually happen in open source projects, so you have to examine each piece of code individually to identify the copyright holders. This is the reason why license changes in open source projects are so difficult: the copyright situation is usually a patchwork, and you have to obtain every copyright holder's written consent (or remove and replace their code). Also, to play Devil's Advocate, if the code is unmodified from what you did, does that mean they didn't violate the license? The license is clear enough: if you distribute GPLed stuff as part of your product, you have to disclose all GPLed works you are distributing, including a means to obtain the source without charge (a link is sufficient). Edited May 7, 2018 by DirtyHairy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr SQL Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Why cry so much when the idea was to share the code? Complaints always seem to come from the programmers who didn't write the code and copied it from other programmers who also didn't write the code, and not having written the code sure makes it tough to understand and fix Eckhard's bugs. Seems to me code that's not your code is a lot llike cheese that's not your cheese - Nacho cheese Suggest writing something original and then sharing it without GPL strings attached 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Why cry so much when the idea was to share the code? Complaints always seem to come from the programmers who didn't write the code and copied it from other programmers who also didn't write the code, and not having written the code sure makes it tough to understand and fix Eckhard's bugs. Seems to me code that's not your code is a lot llike cheese that's not your cheese - Nacho cheese Suggest writing something original and then sharing it without GPL strings attached Kind of my thinking too, but no one else seems to see it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 ...but no one else seems to see it that way. Maybe that should make you wonder. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Your tone suggests that you are trying to provoke, but I'll take your response at face value and reply sensibly. As already suggested, one way is analyzing the firmware. Apart from that, the emulation itself may provide clues. No emulator is perfect, and there are many edge cases that can be compared to establish a possible (if any) relationship between the current Stella core and the Retron77. There is no difference regarding copyright between open and closed source projects. Unless transferred, copyright rests with the original creator of the code. Transfer is possible in some countries (e.g. in the US, but in Germany), but does not usually happen in open source projects, so you have to examine each piece of code individually to identify the copyright holders. This is the reason why license changes in open source projects are so difficult: the copyright situation is usually a patchwork, and you have to obtain every copyright holder's written consent (or remove and replace their code). The license is clear enough: if you distribute GPLed stuff as part of your product, you have to disclose all GPLed works you are distributing, including a means to obtain the source without charge (a link is sufficient). Wait. You aren't telling me you worked on this project for 17 whole years and never filed for a Copyright are you? I am trying to understand here, not having ever used Stella, I might be coming at this from a different perspective, I am not here to start trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Karl G Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I'm still confused, if Stella is open source, what licensing are you talking about? Software being open source does not mean that it does not have a software license. In this case, if they modify the code for Stella, then they are obligated to share the changes they made when they distribute their product. Earlier in this topic, someone from the company did say that they would follow the license if they did decide to go that route. We will just have to wait and see how they implemented the emulation when the product is generally available. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flojomojo Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The idea is to share the code, but not to make money from it. GPL implies a copyright. The Foundations of the GPLNobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have: the freedom to use the software for any purpose, the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and the freedom to share the changes you make. When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free software. Developers who write software can release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. When they do, it will be free software and stay free software, no matter who changes or distributes the program. We call this copyleft: the software is copyrighted, but instead of using those rights to restrict users like proprietary software does, we use them to ensure that every user has freedom. We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by legal or technological developments. The most recent version protects users from three recent threats: Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a device can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization. It's not too late for Retron77 to do the right thing, but has been previously posted, people have doubts. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Maybe that should make you wonder. It does. It makes me think you didn't do near enough work to protect yourselves, and now complaining when someone uses your work in a way you don't approve of. Am I wrong? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_79 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Wait. You aren't telling me you worked on this project for 17 whole years and never filed for a Copyright are you? I am trying to understand here, not having ever used Stella, I might be coming at this from a different perspective, I am not here to start trouble. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. Edited May 7, 2018 by alex_79 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nathan Strum Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) All I know is, if Hyperkin doesn't properly adhere to the Stella license according to the wishes of the programmers who have actually put all of the hard work into making it, then I want no part of their product whatsoever. It's not that big of a deal for Hyperkin to play ball. If they're using the current version of Stella, all they have to do is release whatever code they've modified. Period. Won't cost them a dime. If they're using the old Stella (from 18+ years ago) as has been previously stated, then it won't support everything, unless they've magically updated it to do so. Their pre-order-pre-announcement page says it "plays your favorite Atari 2600 cartridges". That's incredibly vague. I'm concerned because they haven't been transparent with what's really under the hood, and what the system will actually support, and how. And they have been here, and posted in this thread, too. But not in almost a year. Edited May 7, 2018 by Nathan Strum 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2knowgood Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register You may not HAVE to, but trust me, it's a big help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHairy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 It does. It makes me think you didn't do near enough work to protect yourselves, and now complaining when someone uses your work in a way you don't approve of. Am I wrong? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+stephena Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 It does. It makes me think you didn't do near enough work to protect yourselves, and now complaining when someone uses your work in a way you don't approve of. Am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong, and also ignorant of the specifics of the situation and of how copyright works. Stella was released under the GPLv2 in 2001. At that point, it was copyrighted to the 'Stella Team', which consists of a few members, but most prominently me for the past 10 years or so. I follow due diligence whenever a new Stella port pops up, making sure that it obeys the GPLv2. Most (all?) such people I interact with follow the licensing, and no problems come from it. Your entire argument and stance in this thread reeks of entitlement (and there are a few others like you in every project I've ever been involved with). This project is one of the longest-running emulation projects in existence. And to certain others, I can assure you that the code I wrote (not borrowed) numbers in the tens of thousands of lines, as does the number of hours I've spent on it. We've followed all the rules for a GPL-derived work, and consistently released what I feel is a good product for the better part of two decades. Look, I don't know if Hyperkin will follow the rules. Hopefully they will, and all of this is just a waste of discussion. But I repeat what I said many times; what we ask for is very simple and easy to achieve: Simply follow the rules of the licensing (GPLv2), and release whatever code that you've modified. If you don't want to do that, then don't borrow from Stella at all. I can't think of a more reasonable license and situation than what we have here. We simply ask for you to pass on changes, so that end-users can benefit just like you did. It's not that I'm complaining about the code being used for profit, but that it's potentially going to be used in a way not compatible with the licensing. Don't like the licensing, don't use the product. Simple as that. Anyone that wants to bypass this simple requirement is IMO a leech, and not a useful part of this community. I'm hoping that Hyperkin won't be such an end-user, but I see that there are at least some users here that are. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.