Live data from Hacker News

Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

github.com

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#101
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homebrew scenes seem like a candidate for doing things "the right way", but culturally they're a lot closer to piracy scenes than anyone wants to admit, at least in front of a court. I realize the homebrew scene doesn't view themselves this way, but I pretty much view them as part of the piracy scene even when they are antagonistic towards those who pirate games. The main difference is that they are "pirating" hard…

> it creates a huge disincentive to those who want to create open platforms since it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get any traction when they are up against jailbroken devices from huge multinational corporations. I'm not so sure about that. More specifically, I wonder if there are more or fewer Steam Decks in the wild than jailbroken Nintendo Switch units.

When I was writing that, I was thinking of other platforms. For example: I had a GP2X at one point, which was a handheld console that ran Linux. It clearly wasn't a mass-market device, but it was an open platform with plenty of development tools. It should have been the sort of thing that appealed to homebrew developers. It was appealing for some, but it was up against the Nintendo DS with flash cartridges. There were almost certainly more flash cartridges than GP2X's in the world, even though they were a grey market item (at best). They didn't have a chance, and I think they only managed to produce one successor before going out of business. (Of course, there were other factors. This was right around the time of smartphones becoming popular. Smartphones may have crumby controls for gaming, but at least anyone could develop software for Android and the barrier to entry was relatively low for iOS.)

The Steam Deck, well, that has other things going for it. Yes, it is an open platform. Yet it, along with similar devices, are also PC compatible. That makes it appealing to developers, may they be developing games for Linux or Windows. Perhaps the biggest thing going for it is being backed by Valve, which is large enough to coexist with Nintendo and is unusual for a larger company in that they value an open ecosystem. To understand how unusual that is for a large player entering the market, just look at the original Xbox.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#102
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright laws (in sane countries) have (varying amounts of) exceptions for reverse engineering pieces that are required for compatibility/interoperability. Whether this applies to the Nintendo SDK… no clue, ask your lawyer ;). (i.e.: was there an alternative option to using RE'd pieces of the Nintendo SDK?) It makes sense from a perspective/perception of: with the Nintendo SDK, [if] there wasn't really a choice or a…

Of course there was. You can clean-room reverse-engineer the hardware. This is what is done daily by Libdragon maintainers for supplying an open source SDK for Nintendo 64 with zero proprietary code in it.

way back in the before times... Open Source projects went to great lengths to make sure they didn't use anything that could 'taint' the code (eg Samba )

I think the DeCSS stuff wasn't used till it had been publicly leaked and was considered 'common knowlege' or some such to prevent lawsuits

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't cover mainstream distribution. Fair use is only "intermediate copying" for translation. That doesn't mean copyright doesn't apply. Even the part you quoted still refers to it as "copyrighted material" and "copyrighted BIOS".

It absolutely covers the distribution of your implementation of the unprotected ideas and elements.

Which is not the same thing as decompiled code, because that's their implementation.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, sure. But the question is what harm is being done. Am I understanding you correctly that your answer is that there is none?

Would you accept any definition of harm short of money being lost or someone beating you with a club?

So far I'm just waiting for any definition.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#106
Isn't this like almost 20 years of history down the drain, including the project that gave marcan notability? Quite an event to transpire. It's crazy that millions of us looked at projects like THC as being acts of brilliance, not merely theft. There cleary were brilliant people involved in the project (segher who helped reverse engineer the NES/SNES/N64 CIC for example) so I don't doubt they're not capable.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#107
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, sure. But the question is what harm is being done. Am I understanding you correctly that your answer is that there is none?

Your code is my code actually. I wrote all of it. Where's the harm?

have fun

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#108
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright laws (in sane countries) have (varying amounts of) exceptions for reverse engineering pieces that are required for compatibility/interoperability. Whether this applies to the Nintendo SDK… no clue, ask your lawyer ;). (i.e.: was there an alternative option to using RE'd pieces of the Nintendo SDK?) It makes sense from a perspective/perception of: with the Nintendo SDK, [if] there wasn't really a choice or a…

Of course there was. You can clean-room reverse-engineer the hardware. This is what is done daily by Libdragon maintainers for supplying an open source SDK for Nintendo 64 with zero proprietary code in it.

How could one ever prove that a solution was clean-room? For example I would consider the oman leak to taint all development of N64 in existence. Even if someone didn't personally look at it, they most certainly got information from someone else that did.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#109
> The Wii homebrew community was all built on top of a pile of lies and copyright infringement

I think you can find evidence that basically all emulation since at least the N64 has been based on stolen SDKs and massive amounts of drama and infighting between overly-passionate groups of people.

Not to mention almost every single emulator developer pirates massive amounts of ROMs in order to test and debug games with their code. Many of them also have troves of proprietary SDKs as well.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#110
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more "is it possible to contact them." When I googled RTEMS I found that it's originally an OS for missile systems from 1993 O_o But I disagree. It's not extorting money to sue someone who stole your code and deliberately removed your copyright notices. The open source license only gives you the right to use the work for commercial purposes AS LONG AS you comply with the terms of the license. If you do…

The opinion that parent was expressing is much the same as the motivation behind the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement[1], which are endorsed by all the GPL enforcement initiatives. The principles acknowledge that copyright allows GPL violators to be sued for financial damages, as you point out in your post. However, they also take into account that lawsuits don't necessarily further the goals of softw…

> excessive litigation could disincentivize people from using free software

> argues that the GPL should never be litigated

If you search around though you will find many posts on lawyers' websites and other places that argue it is possible to actually lose your own copyright/trademark/IP protections by failing to enforce/litigate them.

What good is a license that will not be enforced? It's more of a suggestion at that point because people will inherently take advantage of you otherwise, it is a fundamental part of capitalism, which, FOSS zealots often seem to be strongly against capitalism themselves in general, but that's of course not how the world works today.

Post reply on HN