31–40 of 104 posts
A 5 year old isn’t going to be using IRC after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious what makes you say it'd be less legally dubious than an emulator? To me, it seems this would be at the same legality as the NES emulator because you're basically 'emulating' the environment Roblox game code runs in. To be fair if that intuition's correct it'd still be legal like emulators are if they're careful. (also not a lawyer)
So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Emulators often require handling copyrighted materials like games or firmware, whereas APIs are not copyrightab…
The Roblox debacle really reminds me of the 90’s where almost every arrested child predator was using AOL, but the news media would use the word “online service” or some really generic term as AOL spent so much money on advertising. A 5 year old isn’t going to be using IRC after all.
Best wishes, this is really neat. I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. A potential use-case might be to create a Linux-native client. The one used by most right now (Sober) is proprietary, after the previous (Vinegar) got shut down because of Linux haxxors.
> I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. I'm not saying Roblox won't try, but this project strikes me as very obviously legal. If legality was a spectrum, I'd rank this higher than VLC Media Player (patents) and way above an NES emulator. I suppose it'd be below Android, and Oracle did sue over Android. (Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.)
Best wishes, this is really neat. I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. A potential use-case might be to create a Linux-native client. The one used by most right now (Sober) is proprietary, after the previous (Vinegar) got shut down because of Linux haxxors.
> I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. I'm not saying Roblox won't try, but this project strikes me as very obviously legal. If legality was a spectrum, I'd rank this higher than VLC Media Player (patents) and way above an NES emulator. I suppose it'd be below Android, and Oracle did sue over Android. (Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. I'm not saying Roblox won't try, but this project strikes me as very obviously legal. If legality was a spectrum, I'd rank this higher than VLC Media Player (patents) and way above an NES emulator. I suppose it'd be below Android, and Oracle did sue over Android. (Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.)
Emulators are unambiguously legal as long as the emulator author doesn't distribute copyrighted software without permission, and as long as no encryption is involved (recent action by Nintendo have made that bit a little unclear).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Emulators often require handling copyrighted materials like games or firmware, whereas APIs are not copyrightab…
The NES itself contains no code. Any NES emulator that ships with no software, or software under proper license (such as homebrew) is unambiguously legal. Does your PC, and the OS that drives it, suddenly become inherently illegal if you, as a user, installed pirated software? No, of course not.
(Genuine question, I've no idea what chips it uses or anything - was never rich enough to have a game console until I started work myself.)
You should rename the project to OpenBox if you are not using a copyleft license. It is not libre.
Libre means free. MIT gives more freedom than copyleft.
LibreOffice, for example, is Mozilla Public Licensed, which is a weak copyleft, like LGPL (I think).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libre means free. MIT gives more freedom than copyleft.
I think they're saying that "Libre" typically implies Copyleft, with a GPL or AGPL or MPL License. Something that (in some cases) forces you to make your changes available. LibreOffice, for example, is Mozilla Public Licensed, which is a weak copyleft, like LGPL (I think).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're saying that "Libre" typically implies Copyleft, with a GPL or AGPL or MPL License. Something that (in some cases) forces you to make your changes available. LibreOffice, for example, is Mozilla Public Licensed, which is a weak copyleft, like LGPL (I think).
It's just silly gatekeeping. E.g. LibreSSL is permissively-licensed and is from 2014.