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

61–70 of 169 posts

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

#61

Post by bogwog »

jillyboel wrote: post #27

Since y'all decided to flag my other comment I'll rephrase: Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how? Let's ignore for the moment nothing was actually stolen since the original authors still have their copies.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but people still say it is in casual conversation. Either way, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

> Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how?

It's an accusation of plagiarism. Do you not understand why plagiarism causes harm?

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

#62

Post by sunaookami »

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…

>I don't know much about the Wii scene

It shows. It's an open secret to everyone in the Wii scene that libogc is based on proprietary Nintendo code.

>but what I do know is that libctru (3ds)/libnx (Switch) don't have that drama nor made the mistakes made in libogc

Because WinterMute is not behind them.

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

#63

Post by eqvinox »

ndiddy wrote: post #60

I'm not a lawyer, but publicly announcing that you found out that you were using a library largely consisting of decompiled Nintendo SDK code, then continued to use it and distribute binaries with the library compiled into them seems inadvisable to me. On the other hand, the Wii's no longer commercially relevant so I doubt Nintendo will do anything about it either to him or to the DevKitPro project. Maybe that's why…

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 an alternative. With the RTEMS code there was.

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

#64

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

arghwhat wrote: post #14
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.…

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…

> Note that e.g. copyright does not apply to decompiled source code

This is absolutely not true. I've been seeing this claim for years, and it's complete nonsense. Otherwise I'd be able to decompile the entirety of Microsoft Windows and then just redistribute it as my own source code.

> the original authors did not write the decompiled source

The original authors also did not write the compiled binary. The copyright still applies to it.

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

#65

Post by athrowaway3z »

bogwog wrote: post #58

This is a strange accusation. The repo linked as proof ( https://github.com/derek57/libogc ) consists of over 100 commits meticulously converting the libogc codebase to look more like the RTEMS codebase, and claiming that's enough proof that it's the same codebase. I wonder if it'd even build, or if those changes didn't break anything? Regardless of whether there's any truth to this anonymous accusation, this doesn't…

For completeness sake; another possibility is that both took from the same source.

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

#66

Post by seabass-labrax »

mubou wrote: post #13
arghwhat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 software freedom, because excessive litigation could disincentivize people from using free software out of fear of mistakenly falling into non-compliance. As a result, it's better for free software to give violators many chances to comply and to provide guidance towards this where possible, and also seek injunctions rather than financial remedies if the court with jurisdiction allows it.

The principles are well worth a read; they explain a lot about how organizations such as the Software Freedom Conservancy operate, and why the few lawsuits which they do bring are so weird.

It's also worth noting that these principles are sometimes considered extreme within the free software community from the other side, which argues that the GPL should never be litigated!

[1]: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles

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

#67

Post by 1970-01-01 »

jchw wrote: post #59
1970-01-01 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These points don't seem to be an argument that harm has occurred.

What is harm? Does infringing someone's copyrights not count?

No, it sometimes does not. The crux is that this is a somewhat novel GPL violation, and their knee-jerk reaction to freeze development is extreme. It's a weird story.

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

#68

Post by jchw »

bogwog wrote: post #58

This is a strange accusation. The repo linked as proof ( https://github.com/derek57/libogc ) consists of over 100 commits meticulously converting the libogc codebase to look more like the RTEMS codebase, and claiming that's enough proof that it's the same codebase. I wonder if it'd even build, or if those changes didn't break anything? Regardless of whether there's any truth to this anonymous accusation, this doesn't…

FWIW, whether you agree with the accusation or not, it isn't anonymous. The commit history makes it obvious that it's marcan (Hector Martin) making the accusations.

Whether it's really worth all of the hooplah or not is going to be up to taste. I think it's pointless to just not explicitly credit RTEMS personally, but I suspect the real point of doing this is probably in large parts just to distance themselves from the reverse engineered libogc code.

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

#69

Post by jchw »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #67
jchw wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is harm? Does infringing someone's copyrights not count?

No, it sometimes does not. The crux is that this is a somewhat novel GPL violation, and their knee-jerk reaction to freeze development is extreme. It's a weird story.

They just "froze" upstream development, but it was purely performative; there isn't actually active upstream development.

If you wanted to fork it and continue development you certainly could.

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

#70

Post by jillyboel »

bogwog wrote: post #61
jillyboel wrote: post #27

Since y'all decided to flag my other comment I'll rephrase: Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how? Let's ignore for the moment nothing was actually stolen since the original authors still have their copies.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing, but people still say it is in casual conversation. Either way, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal. > Can someone explain what harm is being done by an open source non-commercial project "stealing" code? Who is actually hurt by this, and how? It's an accusation of plagiarism. Do you not understand why plagiarism causes harm?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN