Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

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

#121

Post by userbinator »

userbinator wrote: post #47
TuxSH wrote: post #15

To me this looks like a bad attempt at exposing dirty laundry in bad faith, which is not too surprising coming from him. 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since 2. "The authors of libogc didn't just steal proprietary Nintendo code (...) ignorance about the copyright i…

which Marcan is complaining about "That prick again?" Not surprised at all. He's been trying to stir shit up for a long time, and best ignored as a troll.

Yes, for those who don't know, this prick has even tried to take on Linus, with the expected result: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978765

(Read the dead comments there - very enlightening.)

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

#122

Post by armada651 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #88
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #4

How 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.…

> How much "reverse engineering" these days really is clean room and how much of it is just ripping off proprietary software? I did mine clean room. When I reverse engineered my laptop's features, I intercepted the proprietary software's communications with the hardware, compiled my findings into a whole bunch of notes and then wrote my own free software to do the same thing based on those notes. > But when the Ninte…

> Copyright as a whole should be abolished.

Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws? There are multi-billion dollar companies who would love to see copyright abolished, especially right now so that they can profit from artists with reckless abandon without giving them so much as a penny.

Copyright provides an incentive for artists to dedicate their life to their creative endeavors by providing a means to make a living off their art and I would like that to continue to be the case. It needs to be reformed, not abolished.

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

#123

Post by indrora »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #83

sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but i have absolutely zero problems with them reverse-engineering nintendo code, nor do i really care that much about GPL violations against a project called "Real-Time Executive for Missile Systems"

RTEMS isn't for the kind of missile you're thinking.

The kind of missile RTEMS was built for carries not bombs but science. The kind that put men on moons and get them back again.

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

#124

Post by ykonstant »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #83

sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but i have absolutely zero problems with them reverse-engineering nintendo code, nor do i really care that much about GPL violations against a project called "Real-Time Executive for Missile Systems"

The power of a legal obligation like the GPL lies in its ability to bind equally people you like and people you don't; and in contrast to popular belief, social attitudes (like yours) do influence the courtrooms' disposition towards such laws—they certainly influence the lawmakers passing amendments and clarifications.

If we, the relevant community, do not think much of GPL violations when they hurt people we dislike, the social foundation that gives power to the law goes away.

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

#125

Post by saagarjha »

jillyboel wrote: post #105
saagarjha wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You got examples and didn't like them. That's fine, that just means people won't indulge you anymore.

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

#126

Post by arghwhat »

amiga386 wrote: post #84
arghwhat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that reverse engineering does not have to be clean room, poking at hardware without ever seeing any software. In many places, poking at the proprietary software, decompiling it, tracing it, and so forth is fine despite what unenforcable EULA's might suggest. What is not okay is taking the binaries or decompiled source verbatim and re-distributing it. Note that e.g. copyright does not apply to decompiled source c…

Copyright does apply to decompiled source code (it's a derivative work of the binary). However, reverse engineering is allowed explicitly (...in several countries, ask a local lawyer!) for the purpose of interoperability, and sometimes for certain kinds of research. In those cases, what would otherwise be cooyright infringement is permitted. If you're not doing it for those reasons (e.g. to attain exacting bug-for-bu…

To be clear, a derivative work is copyright of the one creating the derivative, not the original author.

The question is whether creating the derivative work of that specific transformative nature is allowed. Unlike assets taken verbatim, this requires evaluating the exact instance. A binary decompilation is importantly not a simple translation, as that would be entirely unusable - rather, it is like creating blueprints for a finished building.

This is in part why licenses aim to manage and in part restrict you through a contract with the author, using a formally granted usage right to the entity as leverage for complying with a bunch of conditions, orthogonal to the copyright.

Your point stands though, my statement was not as accurate as it could have been.

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

#128

Post by amszmidt »

TuxSH wrote: post #15

To me this looks like a bad attempt at exposing dirty laundry in bad faith, which is not too surprising coming from him. 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since 2. "The authors of libogc didn't just steal proprietary Nintendo code (...) ignorance about the copyright i…

> 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since

FWIW -- I think this is the commit being talked about: https://github.com/m87h/libogc/commit/3ba50ecd4134ef37a0f18f...

Looks honestly totally innocent ...

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

#129

Post by scripturial »

amszmidt wrote: post #128
TuxSH wrote: post #15

To me this looks like a bad attempt at exposing dirty laundry in bad faith, which is not too surprising coming from him. 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since 2. "The authors of libogc didn't just steal proprietary Nintendo code (...) ignorance about the copyright i…

> 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since FWIW -- I think this is the commit being talked about: https://github.com/m87h/libogc/commit/3ba50ecd4134ef37a0f18f... Looks honestly totally innocent ...

This by itself just looks to me like someone getting rid of the old CVS comments that are messing up the headers. Maybe the problem is that younger people don’t recognize what a cvs header is?

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

#130

Post by amszmidt »

scripturial wrote: post #129
amszmidt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Commit 3ba50ec which Marcan is complaining about was pushed in 2008 and didn't just delete attrib specifically, but all (?) VCS comments indiscriminately. The file was barely touched since FWIW -- I think this is the commit being talked about: https://github.com/m87h/libogc/commit/3ba50ecd4134ef37a0f18f... Looks honestly totally innocent ...

This by itself just looks to me like someone getting rid of the old CVS comments that are messing up the headers. Maybe the problem is that younger people don’t recognize what a cvs header is?

Yeah entirely possible.

The threading code does seem to be "similar" enough to warrant some investigation, but from the looks no license notice was "removed". Even the threading code in question has never had one, from the initial import from CVS/Subversion.

Making a mountain out of a molehill .... before the molehill is even there?

Post reply on HN