Wood Firmwares v1.29
- Thread starter Another World
- Start date
- Views 22,472
- Replies 128
That's because you don't understand what's going on, I edited my previous post to state that.z.g said:
So then.. Why don't we talk about somthing else. Like... Candy. Anyone tried the Sour Patch Easter Eggs? Yummeh.
We arent talking about wood derivatives. >->z.g said:
I'm not exactly understanding Rydians Point, but i know he's not talking about what people do with it, he's talking about the legality of it.
Wait, so you're saying this is a personal attack because other things have been violations without being touched? If you believe there's other violations happening on the site, contact a staff member with proof like you posted and ask for it to be removed. Nothing else came of your post so I assumed somebody else was handing it, and then forgot because frankly I didn't pay any attention to that cart.z.g said:
As it is the staff doesn't seem to want to remove violations like this, and that's the reason this stuff is still here, and that's what I'm arguing against.
This should be a SIMPLE ISSUE because GPL binaries are being distributed without the source, but everybody's trying to deflect as much shit as they can so Wood can stay.
As things stand now (Wood appears to be still under the GPL), if the sources are available, Wood can stay. If they are not it should be removed.
And yes, this goes for ports of it as well.
That was not a personal attack.z.g said:
If someone made an actual personal attack against you, based on how big of a deal you're making over what Rydian said, you'd be in the corner crying your little eyes out.
in case then somebody get wood souces and compile it and share at filetrip there is gpl violation. if this was true you was a right. but in our case there is only one person — ywg. to violate gpl we need at least two persons. but ywg only one. this is main thing that you can't (or dont want) understand. any license regulate things between two sides. but we have only one side. so no place for gpl in this situation.Rydian said:
I'm done saying the same shit 80 times, I'm just going to drop it until the staff comes to a decision.
Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.Snailface said:The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Rydian said:
Sigh.Rydian said:Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.Snailface said:The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Rydian said:
I'm getting pretty tired of it myself.
I would want to tell him off for saying that though.
For everybody who wants to keep arguing this back and forth, you need to understand the entire chain of licenses involved, from the very beginning, in order to understand how this whole thing works.
First of all, the ORIGINAL DEVELOPER of a particular software is not bound by the license which they place on their own software. However, in order to understand who that is in a particular instance you have to know what that software may have derived from previously.
First of all, you have the Acekard RPG source. This was used as the base code source for many firmwares, both open and closed. The MIT license under which they were released allows any other person to modify, redistribute, and even relicense derivative works as long as they include a copy of the MIT license. Technically, any flash cart firmware based on the RPG source which doesn't include a copy of that license is violating it, but that's beside the point.
At this point, you have derivative firmwares which use the RPG source. The authors of these firmwares are required to submit to the MIT license, but are then allowed to modify the RPG source and relicense the derivative work in any way they like, including closed-source, commercial applications. In the case of WoodR4, YWG decided to license it under the GPL, requiring any derivatives created by ANY OTHER AUTHOR to conform to the GPL. If you want to use the original MIT license then you can still derive from the original RPG source, but cannot use any components from Wood unless you conform to the GPL.
YWG, as the author of Wood, has the option of relicensing his own software at any time. He cannot relicense the older versions which have already been released under the GPL, but he can change the license for any new versions, because he is the copyright owner. By removing sources to the versions prior to relicensing, YWG violates the GPL, but that is also beside the point.
Now what is currently unclear is whether YWG has actually relicensed Wood as closed-source or whether he is simply ignoring his own license. He is well within his rights to do either, but if the latter is the case, then that is a rather hypocritical move considering that license violations were his primary reason for removing the source in the first place. It is this final question which Rydian is concerned with. If Wood has been relicensed as closed-source, then there is no issue for GBATemp. If, however, Wood is still licensed as GPL and YWG is simply releasing it in violation of his own license, then although YWG can do whatever he wants, GBATemp cannot host the binary releases without also hosting the source, even if it is impossible to obtain those sources. This catch-22 situation is the reason Rydian is trying to determine if Wood has in-fact been relicensed.
The fact is, YWG can do whatever he wants (although he should be including the MIT license with his Wood releases), but GBATemp cannot. Whine all you want, that won't get you the source. I too am disappointed at this move, since it means I can't continue my EZFlash 3in1 v2/v3 patch, but it's out of my hands, and it's out of yours too. Rydian, I hope you get an answer soon
First of all, the ORIGINAL DEVELOPER of a particular software is not bound by the license which they place on their own software. However, in order to understand who that is in a particular instance you have to know what that software may have derived from previously.
First of all, you have the Acekard RPG source. This was used as the base code source for many firmwares, both open and closed. The MIT license under which they were released allows any other person to modify, redistribute, and even relicense derivative works as long as they include a copy of the MIT license. Technically, any flash cart firmware based on the RPG source which doesn't include a copy of that license is violating it, but that's beside the point.
At this point, you have derivative firmwares which use the RPG source. The authors of these firmwares are required to submit to the MIT license, but are then allowed to modify the RPG source and relicense the derivative work in any way they like, including closed-source, commercial applications. In the case of WoodR4, YWG decided to license it under the GPL, requiring any derivatives created by ANY OTHER AUTHOR to conform to the GPL. If you want to use the original MIT license then you can still derive from the original RPG source, but cannot use any components from Wood unless you conform to the GPL.
YWG, as the author of Wood, has the option of relicensing his own software at any time. He cannot relicense the older versions which have already been released under the GPL, but he can change the license for any new versions, because he is the copyright owner. By removing sources to the versions prior to relicensing, YWG violates the GPL, but that is also beside the point.
Now what is currently unclear is whether YWG has actually relicensed Wood as closed-source or whether he is simply ignoring his own license. He is well within his rights to do either, but if the latter is the case, then that is a rather hypocritical move considering that license violations were his primary reason for removing the source in the first place. It is this final question which Rydian is concerned with. If Wood has been relicensed as closed-source, then there is no issue for GBATemp. If, however, Wood is still licensed as GPL and YWG is simply releasing it in violation of his own license, then although YWG can do whatever he wants, GBATemp cannot host the binary releases without also hosting the source, even if it is impossible to obtain those sources. This catch-22 situation is the reason Rydian is trying to determine if Wood has in-fact been relicensed.
The fact is, YWG can do whatever he wants (although he should be including the MIT license with his Wood releases), but GBATemp cannot. Whine all you want, that won't get you the source. I too am disappointed at this move, since it means I can't continue my EZFlash 3in1 v2/v3 patch, but it's out of my hands, and it's out of yours too. Rydian, I hope you get an answer soon
Sublicense means to continue the grant of a license. For example:Duskye said:Copyright ©Rydian said:Uh... no?Snailface said:For everybody who wants to keep arguing this back and forth, you need to understand the entire chain of licenses involved, from the very beginning, in order to understand how this whole thing works.Rydian said:I'm done saying the same shit 80 times, I'm just going to drop it until the staff comes to a decision.The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.
Sigh.
I'm getting pretty tired of it myself.
I would want to tell him off for saying that though.
Yep... There went ALL respect for YWG I had.
QUOTE(qwertymodo @ Apr 30 2011, 06:56 PM)
First of all, the ORIGINAL DEVELOPER of a particular software is not bound by the license which they place on their own software. However, in order to understand who that is in a particular instance you have to know what that software may have derived from previously.
First of all, you have the Acekard RPG source. This was used as the base code source for many firmwares, both open and closed. The MIT license under which they were released allows any other person to modify, redistribute, and even relicense derivative works as long as they include a copy of the MIT license. Technically, any flash cart firmware based on the RPG source which doesn't include a copy of that license is violating it, but that's beside the point.
You cannot relicense any works since that would defeat the purpose of the license they were released under because you could then "relicense" it as whatever you want, including a closed source license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.phpQUOTE
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
Tom Smith writes an application and releases it under the MIT license listed above.
John Doe takes that code and modifies, updates and improves it. The MIT license grants him license to do so.
Jim Shorts can now take John Does code and modify it since he is sublicensed to do so (John Doe being the Licensee, Jim Shorts being the Sublicensee).
And I believe that this would continue for as many hands as it passed through so long as it follows the conditions of the MIT license.
Ditto.twiztidsinz said:Sublicense means to continue the grant of a license. For example:Duskye said:Copyright ©Rydian said:Uh... no?Snailface said:For everybody who wants to keep arguing this back and forth, you need to understand the entire chain of licenses involved, from the very beginning, in order to understand how this whole thing works.Rydian said:I'm done saying the same shit 80 times, I'm just going to drop it until the staff comes to a decision.The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.
Sigh.
I'm getting pretty tired of it myself.
I would want to tell him off for saying that though.
Yep... There went ALL respect for YWG I had.
QUOTE(qwertymodo @ Apr 30 2011, 06:56 PM)
First of all, the ORIGINAL DEVELOPER of a particular software is not bound by the license which they place on their own software. However, in order to understand who that is in a particular instance you have to know what that software may have derived from previously.
First of all, you have the Acekard RPG source. This was used as the base code source for many firmwares, both open and closed. The MIT license under which they were released allows any other person to modify, redistribute, and even relicense derivative works as long as they include a copy of the MIT license. Technically, any flash cart firmware based on the RPG source which doesn't include a copy of that license is violating it, but that's beside the point.
You cannot relicense any works since that would defeat the purpose of the license they were released under because you could then "relicense" it as whatever you want, including a closed source license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.phpQUOTE
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
Tom Smith writes an application and releases it under the MIT license listed above.
John Doe takes that code and modifies, updates and improves it. The MIT license grants him license to do so.
Jim Shorts can now take John Does code and modify it since he is sublicensed to do so (John Doe being the Licensee, Jim Shorts being the Sublicensee).
And I believe that this would continue for as many hands as it passed through so long as it follows the conditions of the MIT license.
How can we cooperate? I want to help but I don't see how much use I could be in this whole matter.Rydian said:Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.Snailface said:The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Rydian said:
Just try and be diplomatic about this.gamefan5 said:How can we cooperate? I want to help but I don't see how much use I could be in this whole matter.Rydian said:Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.Snailface said:The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Rydian said:
Will try.Duskye said:Just try and be diplomatic about this.gamefan5 said:How can we cooperate? I want to help but I don't see how much use I could be in this whole matter.Rydian said:Considering I've got YWG via e-mail asking me who's paying me to do this it's obvious that people don't want to be diplomatic about this, so I'm just going to discuss with staff what to do since nobody else wants to cooperate.Snailface said:The best post of this entire thread. I am relieved.Rydian said:
I didn't mean people like you who aren't involved in the matter, and I'm sorry for making such a big mess about it publicly, but sometimes shit just doesn't get done until you make a scene, 'ya know?twiztidsinz said:
Could this be what has to be done to make Wood releases legit on this site again? (if they weren't legit in the first place)
It's funny to think about, but could it work?
I think it'd be hypocritical to say otherwise because we handle other CR'ed code that way.
It's funny to think about, but could it work?
I think it'd be hypocritical to say otherwise because we handle other CR'ed code that way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
You ask your questions there, create a new thread if its not already answered, then eventually a 3ds genius will respond. -
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
@K3Nv2 I got some cheapies at wallys, that are pretty good, already have lost a few expensive ones (one falls out and gone, can't find) while cutting grass so bought some cheap ones, and of course never lose these cheap ones. (Cheap meaning only $35, compared to air buds which I only have 1 of 2 now)
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
You would think, esp using bluetooth, not GPS, like a "your getting hot-er" meter on your phone.
-
@
BigOnYa:
I think they should tie up diddy, and let all the victims come and abuse him, we'll make a holiday of it every year. (jk, maybe)
-
-
-
-
-
-
