Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#2Tragic. Nice to see some accountability on fail0verflow's part, though.
devkitpro needs to be shamed for knowingly shipping stolen code!
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#3Sad news, though always good to see someone calling out problems.
Are there any Wii homebrew loaders that aren't based on libogc?
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#4How much "reverse engineering" these days really is clean room and how much of it is just ripping off proprietary software?
One can easily find a bazillion of "github repos" that distribute what is evidently directly decompiled game code with minimal cleanup. Bonus points if they also claim it is OK as long as the game art is not distributed, which in addition to being wrong is disrespectful to developers as a whole.
But when the Nintendo copyright czar wakes up, they're the bad guys...
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#5How much "reverse engineering" these days really is clean room and how much of it is just ripping off proprietary software? One can easily find a bazillion of "github repos" that distribute what is evidently directly decompiled game code with minimal cleanup. Bonus points if they also claim it is OK as long as the game art is not distributed, which in addition to being wrong is disrespectful to developers as a whole.…
Just because some people steal software doesn't mean that Nintedo's behaviour isn't also bad. It's not an either-or situation.
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#6This RTEMS?
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#7Is RTEMS an active project? They should file a copyright complaint and have the libogc repo taken down if this is true. If it were me, I'd lawyer up and throw the book at them.
LibOGC accepts donations via Patreon, which means -- if the allegations are true -- they're profiting off stolen code. RTEMS could and should sue for damages.
This isn't the first time I've seen an open source project stolen by someone trying to pass it off as their own work while accepting Patreon donations. I'd like to see some justice every now and then...
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#8[deleted]
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#9Is RTEMS an active project? They should file a copyright complaint and have the libogc repo taken down if this is true. If it were me, I'd lawyer up and throw the book at them. LibOGC accepts donations via Patreon, which means -- if the allegations are true -- they're profiting off stolen code. RTEMS could and should sue for damages. This isn't the first time I've seen an open source project stolen by someone trying…
Being active doesn't matter, the copyright holders still hold the copyright.
How much they profit off the stolen portion is also questionable, and open source licenses weren't meant to extort money but to grant us rights to the code. What they should do is add attributions and fix their licensing (libogc needs to be GPLv2), or remove the code. Willingly, yesterday.
Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS
#10Is RTEMS an active project? They should file a copyright complaint and have the libogc repo taken down if this is true. If it were me, I'd lawyer up and throw the book at them. LibOGC accepts donations via Patreon, which means -- if the allegations are true -- they're profiting off stolen code. RTEMS could and should sue for damages. This isn't the first time I've seen an open source project stolen by someone trying…
Being active doesn't matter, the copyright holders still hold the copyright. How much they profit off the stolen portion is also questionable, and open source licenses weren't meant to extort money but to grant us rights to the code. What they should do is add attributions and fix their licensing (libogc needs to be GPLv2), or remove the code. Willingly, yesterday.
The copyright holders might have allowed this use, or at least declined to pursue any enforcement.