Hacking Discussion Team Xecuter Attempted to Bribe RetroNX Developers

[andyhappypants]

m4xw and libretros twitter state this.

I think it was mentioned waaaaay back in this shitstorm of a thread that it was more timed exclusive, and not 100% SXOS exclusive

 

[The Catboy]

Legal? Lets ask Nintendo about what they think of CFW and Emulators running on their console shall we? Many of us don't care for licenses.

Expect neither of these actually violate the law, they only violate Nintendo's TOS. Regardless Nintendo's thoughts on this matter do not matter as it doesn't actually directly involve them. As well other's not caring about the licenses don't make they are involve, your personal feelings on this matter don't matter.

It seems like more of a cash incentive than a bribe

You can attempt to pretend this was something different, but they were bribing him. It's been stated multiple times how this was a bribe through out this thread.
I would like to hear how paying him to do something illegal that would have given the SX team an unfair advantage isn't a bribe.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Kids these days. Go stuff your dumb name calling bickering where the sun don't shine, you whippersnappers!

 

[Ev1l0rd]

I think it was mentioned waaaaay back in this shitstorm of a thread that it was more timed exclusive, and not 100% SXOS exclusive

I've seen nobody claim it was a "timed exclusive" aside from a shill, which wouldn't matter anyway. It'd still be a fucking bribe.

 

[WiikeyHacker]

I still think modding the switch is silly Just wait until the console is dead then do it if you're so adamant on doing stuff like that

 

[kevin corms]

Bribe, since they're asking the developer to break the law.

Whats against the law here? I know the law varies by country, but in most countries making an emulator isn't illegal.

 

[kumikochan]

Whats against the law here? I know the law varies by country, but in most countries making an emulator isn't illegal.

They're not. Developing homebrew isn't illegal. Making homebrew that undermines security and let users undermine security is. But most homebrew doesn't do that as doesn't Retroarch

 

[kevin corms]

since copyright laws and patent laws are still the same they can perfectly do that. And they will win as seen with many companies also losing from Nintendo in court since the law is in their favour. Sueing a company or an organisation is free to do by anyone and the goverment of China doesn't need to be involved for that. I don't get why you're acting like the Chinese goverment has anything to do with that. When it comes to basically sueing a company it's between those 2 and the laws that apply. A goverment itself has nothing to do with it. What has the goverment of China to do with a case in court between 2 companies fighting over a patent ?

They wont win in china, every country has different laws and the chinese dont have much for copyright law.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They're not. Developing homebrew isn't illegal. Making homebrew that undermines security and let users undermine security is. But most homebrew doesn't do that as doesn't Retroarch

Even breaking security isnt against the law in much of the world as long as you arent hacking into someone elses device. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/

 

[kumikochan]

They wont win in china, every country has different laws and the chinese dont have much for copyright law.

I already pointed out that China signed the same copyright laws multiple times as the rest of the world and the same patent laws and copyright laws do apply. The goverment has NOTHING to do with 2 companies starting a case against each other.
Here it is again
''Patent law in modern mainland China began with the promulgation of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, in 1984. In 1985, China acceded to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, followed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 1994.[1] When China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, it became a member of the TRIPS agreement.''

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Whats against the law here? I know the law varies by country, but in most countries making an emulator isn't illegal.

The GPLv3, which is what libretro is licensed under forbids it from being used in closed source/non-GPL projects. That and emulators like snes9x are under non-commercial licenses.

 

[kevin corms]

I already pointed out that China signed the same copyright laws multiple times as the rest of the world and the same patent laws and copyright laws do apply. The goverment has NOTHING to do with 2 companies starting a case against each other.
Here it is again
''Patent law in modern mainland China began with the promulgation of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, in 1984. In 1985, China acceded to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, followed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 1994.[1] When China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, it became a member of the TRIPS agreement.''

Oh yes it does, which court do you think they will have to fight them in?

 

[kumikochan]

Oh yes it does, which court do you think they will have to fight them in?

The law applies in court and seeing the same laws are in China as in the West regarding patent and copyright laws who do you think would win when starting a case ? The law is not the goverment itself, big difference !

 

[ghjfdtg]

@kevin corms
The GPLv3 license forces you to provide the source code. TX obviously doesn't care just like with Atmosphere.

 

[kevin corms]

The GPLv3, which is what libretro is licensed under forbids it from being used in closed source/non-GPL projects. That and emulators like snes9x are under non-commercial licenses.

Are you sure about that? Im quickly looking over that license and dont see anything about that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The law applies in court and seeing the same laws are in China as in the West regarding patent and copyright laws who do you think would win when starting a case ? The law is not the goverment itself, big difference !

The government controls the court, its not some world wide third party. Their judges can interpret the laws however they want.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@kevin corms
The GPLv3 license forces you to provide the source code. TX obviously doesn't care just like with Atmosphere.

That part is true, but it seems like people get away with that all the time.

 

[kumikochan]

Are you sure about that? Im quickly looking over that license and dont see anything about that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


The government controls the court, its not some world wide third party.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


That part is true, but it seems like people get away with that all the time.

Oh really, i've seen goverments getting sued in their own countries countless of times so how does that work then ? The law is not the goverment itself, it doesn't work that way. I have even sued the goverment a couple of times if i was in my right and won. So in your theory i would have lost since the goverment and law are the same ? How many times i have seen the goverment lose against migrants when making a case in court. Guess the goverment lost on purpose then since in your words they own the court.

 

[kevin corms]

Oh really, i've seen goverments getting sued in their own countries countless of times so how does that work then ? The law is not the goverment itself, it doesn't work that way. I have even sued the goverment a couple of times if i was in my right and won. So in your theory i would have lost since the goverment and law are the same ?

Depends where you live, in China the government has more control than most of the world. In the united states they have separation of power and checks and balances all around, in China the government can do almost whatever they want.

 

[kumikochan]

Depends where you live, in China the government has more control than most of the world.

The law still applies and is the same as in the west when it comes to patent and copyright law. If the goverment was above the law in China then Nintendo would have lost a ton of cases they made against Chinese based companies wich they all won by the way. The goverment itself closes an eye to do something against it themselves but when a company starts a case then they have to respond regarding the law wich they do

 

[kevin corms]

The law still applies and is the same as in the west when it comes to patent and copyright law. If the goverment was above the law in China then Nintendo would have lost a ton of cases they made against Chinese based companies wich they all won by the way. The goverment itself closes an eye to do something against it themselves but when a company starts a case then they have to respond regarding the law wich they do

Its possible they can take them to court outside china depending on the situation, but I havent heard of nintendo winning cases in Chinese court against Chinese companies. Many chinese companies operate outside of china as well as in china, but team executor seems to be quite cautious.

 

[kumikochan]

Its possible they can take them to court outside china depending on the situation, but I havent heard of nintendo winning cases in Chinese court against Chinese companies.

Here's already 1 case won in china just by googling a second. Not by Nintendo but i can find a ton by big Western companies sueing companies in China itself
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...st-copyright-court-case-in-china-against-bela

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Are you sure about that? Im quickly looking over that license and dont see anything about that

Paragraph 5.c

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

• c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.