ZodTTD, The Android emulator dev, responds to Google taking down his apps.

> I think he misunderstands the importance of putting out the source code for his emulators right away

The GPL does not require this.

The GPLv2 says this:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

(choice c is only available for non-commercial releases).

Note (b): you do not have to provide the source code on a public server, nor do you have to do so immediately. The requirements are:

1. A notice that source code is available for three years upon request

2. That requests for source code be honored at cost

If nobody ever requests your source, you're still compliant with the GPLv2 if you never release it.

edit: and note that, for a commercial product, you only have to honor customer requests.

> Go ahead and continue the negative talk about me in regards to licensing violation claims if you must.

If you want to gain credibility on this, I suggest you to do an extensive research from your past work, see what open source code you used, and explain for each case, with more or less verifiable material, what actions, mandatory or courteous, you have taken in order to respect software license and their author (code publication, credits, and so on).

Thanks...

This all comes down to freshening up my GitHub and removing a Cydia Store product. This will be done but I let this mob mentality continue for too long.

I spread myself pretty thin. I can count 20+ projects depending how far into the couple years I go. I have well over 4GB of development files with the majority being source trees.

Some of these will be fairly straight forward and not require much action at all. As Xuzz notes here, I have my projects source up on my GitHub, sometimes it just needs to be updated. Also sometimes it is updated, but just lands up needing some organizing to realize it (version number mismatches in code or instance).

Most however will be difficult when it comes to who to credit. I found out this is taken close to the heart over the years. I upset someone I respect very much, Notaz, at one point for not giving credit where credit was due. I rectified this with psx4droid v3 which I used his source, maintained a COPYING and README, credited, and kept the source up to date on GitHub. The issue is many emulators have been rehashed and ported so many times. For instance psx4droid v3 is based on Notaz PCSX-ReARMed which is a port of PCSX-Reloaded which is based on PCSX at some point. Along the way it used a MAME author's source file for handling the GTE. The MAME author contacted me for credit on the next revision which has not happened yet, and we discussed the issue at hand was it being passed down so much. So sometimes the credit list is huge and mostly unknown, and sometimes licenses mismatch if you really look at the sources.

A good example is SNES which has been rehashed and ported to death from snes9x (and as Xuzz pointed out, will fix) almost exclusively. The code usually becomes a huge mix in the end to the point it's a good luck situation to unravel it.

So doing this is not impossible, I will have to find some balance to please as many as possible without going insane trying to figure the sort out. Most being freshening the source at GitHub and checking compliance there. In the end there will be those who will complain and smear regardless. For those in this mob, they would never be fans and/or customers in the first place, but they do affect the overall feel of a company. And that's what concerns me moving forward...

I appreciate you being calm and courteous with your constructive criticism.

Cute. But in reality they could tell me what I violated in their terms, and take down those specific application(s). Then if there was a trend, they could terminate the account as they normally do. That's the trend. They broke this trend with me by not only removing the apps but following up with no interaction on my part by suspending my Google Checkout (!) and Android Market account for my company and I for life.

Not much of a habit, I had a couple products on there. Only major thing up there was psx4droid. The rest were lil things I did to learn some techniques within psx4droid.

The driving motivation to come to Android was a petition of a few thousand signers asking me to produce exactly what I did.

Also remember Google did not pull my account for the reason of open source software licensing violations. I received a takedown notice from a game company. As did Yong.

So your statements and questions are irrelevant but must be responded to now quite often as it has become accepted among the community.

In short: My product was removed from a takedown from a game company & Google Android partner. My only issue was Google terminating my Google Checkout and Android Market accounts instead of just suspending the individual app(s) like they normally do. This is against Google's traditional ways of doing things on Market.

I'm confused as to who is giving who grounds by your comment here.