Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NES (Games) Classic Games (Games) Portables (Games) Entertainment Games

Jaleco Borrows PocketNES Emulator Source Code 102

Posted by simoniker from the all's-fair-in-thing-and-thing dept.
Thanks to Waxy.org for its story discussing Jaleco's apparently legitimate use of the public domain PocketNES emulator in a Game Boy Advance game without explicit permission, explaining: "While the emulation community was outraged, the emulator's programmer felt a bit differently." The article notes: "Like the recent Classic NES Series, Jaleco Entertainment's Jajamaru Jr. for the Gameboy Advance is a nostalgic reissue for the Japanese market... [that] includes five different emulated classic NES/Famicom titles from Jaleco's library: Ninja Jajamaru, Jajamaru's Great Adventure, Exerion, City Connection, and Formation Z." Although "Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement", the emulator's author responded: "Yes, PocketNES is public domain... I wanted it to be public domain. This 'Jaleco incident', in fact, is the very reason I wanted to make it FREE (as in public domain) rather than 'GPL free' (strings attached). I'm not a fan of the GPL, I think it's selfish."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaleco Borrows PocketNES Emulator Source Code More

Jaleco Borrows PocketNES Emulator Source Code

Comments Filter:

  • So... what's the story? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @08:12PM (#9663518)
    Emulator author releases source to public domain. Company takes advantage of his generosity to use public domain source. Emulator author pleased that his source is being used. Everyone happy except fanboys who don't know what "public domain" means.

    Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?

    • Re:So... what's the story? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One thing. You're missing the irony of a piece of software written to pirate video games being pirated to play video games. (In the opinion of the fanboys - the author knew he didn't have a leg to stand on.)
    • Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?
      The story is supposed to be intended to say that the copying of code was legally permitted. However, the phrasing of Slashdot's title and leading statement seems to distort this to imply that it is code theft rather than something that's permitted. (The 'dept' thing doesn't count, since it is easily glanced over.)

      • the dept part ALWAYS counts. if the title is a joke, the dept is the punchline. check out the 'pixel blocks for fun, profit' story from the 'not so much with the profit' dept
    • "Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?"

      There's plenty of story here. It's the drama that's virtually non-existent. Here on Slashdot, I find that to be a relief.
    • The fans of the emulator, and the emulation scene, were upset because the work of this author was being used for evil commercial purposes by an evil company. If you haven't noticed, companies now play the role of the hated other. They routinely do terrible things that go unpunished (Shell murdering people in Nigeria, anyone?) and provide worse and worse products. For a company to take someone's work without payment and expoit it commercially is the highest evil imaginable.

      Ok, that's a little thick, but

    • Re:So... what's the story? (Score:5, Funny)

      by joshholm ( 63124 ) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @09:50PM (#9663818) Homepage
      "Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?"

      I think the real issue is the emulator author's blasphemy against the glorious GPL license. We, as honorable /. group-thinkers, must get out our torches and pitchforks and find this heathen. ;)

    • Re:So... what's the story? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by olimar ( 760654 ) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @10:28PM (#9663927)
      GPL + controversy = guaranteed Slashdot headline. Shocking!

      Personally, I'm a bit suprised Nintendo doesn't license out their emulator (used in the "Classic NES Series") to other companies. Nin's own emulator is in many ways superior to PocketNES (this is loopy from the article, btw, so I'm allowed to bag on my own software :)
      • You're the famous loopy? Wow. I just got a flash cart a few days ago and I love PocketNes. PocketSnes is extremely impressive.
        I can only hope something I program on GBA is as well done and well used as PocketNes
    • There's the slightest bit of story in that the emulator uses a GPLed library to handle save states; the company showed some savviness regarding such matters by not including this in what they released. Of course, for their purposes, it wouldn't make sense for them to include save state features anyway...

      But, you are correct. There is no real story beyond the indignation expressed by uninvolved and irrelevant fanboys.
    • Am I missing something, or is there basically no story here?

      Nope, you're not missing anything. Maybe you're on the wrong site though. This is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters", and this story is a story interesting to nerds (software, source code, freedom), as for the "stuff that matters" part, it does matter to some (enough to be a story).

      This story is interesting specifically in the fact that sometimes a company can take source code and build a non-open product and not be evil by doing so. Yes, it h

  • Loopy's okay with it as article says (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 10, 2004 @08:13PM (#9663521)
    I know Loopy, and this is what he always intended. There is nothing wrong with the company doing this. I agree with Loopy that prohibiting commercial use is selfish a lot of the time, but I wouldn't say *always*.

    Melissa
    • The GPL doesn't prohibit commercial use at all.
    • I agree with Loopy that prohibiting commercial use is selfish a lot of the time, but I wouldn't say *always*.

      I think corporations are selfishly trying to make as much profit as possible for their top management and shareholders.

      But ah, maybe I was smoking crack when I was reading ,a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith'>Ad a m Smith.

      My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

      Yes, the
      • My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

        Would you really want to have to pay IBM whenever you make an open source program?

        Given that companies also use those profits to buy legislation like the INDUCE Act...

        Logical fallacy #1: overly broad assumption. You need to show that companies sponsoring INDUCE are using the GPL at all (or are using public domain software from piddly podunk programmers)

        • My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.

          Would you really want to have to pay IBM whenever you make an open source program?

          He says he considers it reasonable to give IBM part of the profit he makes (and only if he used IBM software for it), not to give them money for doing things that don't make him money. I don't agree with him, but your wording means something quite different.

          After the f

          • But if so many people consider copyright to be unimportant, then it might be a good idea to change the law. You live in a democracy after all, or don't you? Copyright and technology don't go together anymore. One of them has to go away. Which one would you choose?

            You're arguing a real, REAL false dicotomy. I'll give you two examples to think about.

            Example 1: Fifty years ago, most people considered racial equality (or the rights of a person accused of a crime) to be unimportant. Should we have stayed th

            • Example 1: Fifty years ago, most people considered racial equality (or the rights of a person accused of a crime) to be unimportant. Should we have stayed that way?

              We did stay that way. Only when people started to think of it as something important, it was changed. That's how things are. They don't always change fast enough to my taste, but things change because people want them to change. At the moment I have the feeling what people want counts much less than what makes the big companies money, and t

            • (not to mention that users of Bittorrent or anything else are essentially anonymous)
              This would be the BitTorrent that, as an integral part of the protocol, lists the IP numbers of all the seeds/peers taking part in a transfer?

      • Re:Loopy's okay with it as article says (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code."

        And it forces them to give the code back to you if they release it as well (well if you ask for it). Using it internally is a different matter.

        What the fuck is wrong with this? Why is it wrong for someone to make money off of something else? I know someone that gave away his comic collection after I suggested he eBay it, and the guy he gave it to sugges

        • I have commercial code that I release with no source. I have commercial code I release with source to most clients -- but the first is solely for stuff I don't feel like having others know how the mathmatics and statistics engine is working.

          I completely understand that this may be a clever thing to do in a capitalist economy as we live in. However, I'm sure you understand that in total, this approach leads to less innovation, and more problems (such as bugs in software because there are only few people w

  • Whats the problem then? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chrispyman ( 710460 ) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @08:33PM (#9663582)
    Since the program was released under a very liberal license, this is the kind of thing that can happen, but as long as thats ok with the developer(s), then its a non issue. It's almost the same as when Microsoft used the BSD networking stack in Windows, where again nobody really cared but I'm sure it mustave flattered the original developers.

  • As far as I've noticed, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kyz ( 225372 ) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @08:44PM (#9663617) Homepage
    Public Domain is where coders often put "abandonware" stuff they're not particularly interested or proud of, or they'd likely get into legal hot water for asserting their ownership. (Or, alternatively, they're US Government employees who were funded by the US taxpayers).

    I'm not saying they don't value their own software -- clearly they do, like any coder does -- but they don't care enough about it to ask people even to assert their authorship.

    Given those set of values, I can easily understand the coder here.

  • /. effect (Score:2, Funny)

    by sqrt(2) ( 786011 )
    Ha, their site must be hosted on a gameboy adv...what the...it's still up?

  • linked comments (Score:3, Insightful)

    by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Saturday July 10, 2004 @10:36PM (#9663961)
    From the linked article comments:
    I'm of two minds on this one. Open-source / public-domain or not, the code was still taken without consent: it was stolen. The fact it was then used to make money just worsens their situation. Jaleco did the wrong thing.
    The author of the software comes out and says "I put this in the PUBLIC DOMAIN so things like this WOULD HAPPEN." and some other dipshit thinks that using that code is stealing. FUCKING MORON! Learn what public domain means, dumbass. No consent is needed, because no ownership is claimed.
    • How can you put something in the public domain, and yet still not consent to others taking it??

      And how does them making money/not making money change the morality of thier actions?? What they did is either right or it's wrong.

  • Throw this guy your support! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vslashg ( 209560 ) * on Saturday July 10, 2004 @11:10PM (#9664162)
    I followed the link to the PocketNES site, and sent the author a small cash contribution, just because it's so refreshing to see somebody act and respond so magnanimously.

    Things here worked out brilliantly. The PocketNES folks put out a great piece of free software that many people enjoy, video game fans get to legally play some old classics, and Jaleco employees get some cash.

    Those people who champion the GPL because they believe proprietary software is inherently wrong, I have respect for. (Though the subset of those champions who make their living writing proprietary software, well...) Stallman's plan certainly worked; look at all the excellent GPL-licensed software out there. It's a huge codebase that will never make its way into closed-source software -- mission accomplished. And it certainly was a clever plot to use copyright to keep software open.

    But I'm not so politically motivated. Public-domain-style licenses are just fine for most open-source purposes. This situation was a perfect example why. Nobody gets hurt! Like I said above, things here worked out great for Jaleco, for PocketNES (which certainly gets more respect and attention for this), and for the Japanese video-game-playing public in general.

    The only "injuries" are that Jaleco is selling more closed-source software, and that the PocketNES author doesn't get a cut. But the author knew full well this could happen, and he didn't care, because it didn't hurt him! He wasn't motivated by greed.

    So the only remaining "injury" is that the body of closed-source software has once again grown. Again, for those of you who think this is a Bad Thing, I respect you and your views. But I disagree, and I suspect many of you do, too. GPL is overkill, most of the time.
    • Jaleco is selling more closed-source software
      No, they are not. They are selling an emulator based on PUBLIC DOMAIN code. This is no more closed source than any GPL project.

      • They are selling an emulator based on PUBLIC DOMAIN code. This is no more closed source than any GPL project.

        The emulator is public domain, but the main thing they're selling is their collection of five closed-source games.

        Putting that aside, who knows what changes or improvements they may have made to PocketNES? Perhaps they didn't make any, but if they did, they never have to share the source with anybody. As you might gather from my grandparent post, I don't think this is a problem. But it's certainl

        • The emulator is public domain, but the main thing they're selling is their collection of five closed-source games.

          That have been in circulation for how long now? 15-20 years? Sorry, this just isn't an open/closed thing.

          Putting that aside, who knows what changes or improvements they may have made to PocketNES? Perhaps they didn't make any, but if they did, they never have to share the source with anybody.

          No, they don't and the author of the software doesn't care. You know what else? This is exactly ho

          • [Source code] doesn't get much more available than being in the public domain.

            Of course not. But public domain is not viral. People can and do make closed-source apps based on public-domain code. The fact that the PocketNES is open-source doesn't magically make Jaleco's cart based on it open-source.

            I know this is how the BSD license works. That, the MIT license, and true public domain were what I was thinking of when I wrote "public-domain-style licenses" in my original post. This is my favorite style

          • That have been in circulation for how long now? 15-20 years?

            The legal standard is not 15. Not 21. It's ninety-five.

    • Those people who champion the GPL because they believe proprietary software is inherently wrong, I have respect for. (Though the subset of those champions who make their living writing proprietary software, well...)

      Those who really believe in Free Software, but still write non-Free Software, must have a reason for it. They are probably not happy with their job. I know that in the Netherlands you are pretty much forced to take any job (including jobs you morally oppose) if you are unemployed, otherwise

    • I think why many people like the gpl in this situation is that if a company wants to sell a product based upon the GPL code, then the GPL project gets back any improvements that are made, and the company still makes money. In this (pd) case, emulator doesn't receive any impovements that jaleco make. It isn't always blind anti-closed source people, some just like to give their software away and receive improvements if others modify it, and they couldn't care less what others do with thier own code.
  • Why not release the code under the BSD license? That way the code would still be available to anybody that wants to use it, and you would receive credit for your work as well.

    • Re:BSD License? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by black mariah ( 654971 )
      Maybe the author just doesn't care about credit, has no interest in playing bullshit software politic games, and just wants to have fun writing some software. You ever think that not everyone sees software as a religion?

  • Nintendo and Jaleco (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HimajinX ( 660666 ) on Sunday July 11, 2004 @12:48AM (#9664588)
    Nintendo will no doubt be thrilled to learn that they have now licenced a game that contains code from an "unofficial" emulator.

    Considering how the want to prohibit even legal hardware emulation of their systems (unless they have control over it), I think Jaleco might be in a tiny bit of hot water...
  • A person copied a system without renumeration to its creators, creating a system to play copies of other people's software without renumeration to the software's creators... OK, that's good and proper, right?

    One of the creators of the software that was being copied without renumeration copied that person's software, without renumeration... And that's bad?

    I must be getting middle aged. This stuff's just starting to sound like people getting outraged for the self-importance of getting outraged.
  • IMO, GPL is important because it protects code from companies such as Microsoft who would use it in their own product and make lots of money. That being said, if you don't MIND that kind of use for your code, then there is no problem with releasing your code in the public domain. If you want the glory of being incorporated in such a project, or you just want to help others out without bothering with their end intentions, then public domain is the way to go. That being said, I wouldn't put my code under a

  • GPL and Freedom (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dismentor ( 592590 )

    It goes something like this: The USA, UK, European Countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and so on, are all free countries, right? But you can't go out and kill someone...in fact there are huge bodies of law restricting people's actions; but they're still free countries...

    This is what the GPL is about; it's about preserving everybody's freedoms by placing some restrictions on the use of the code.

    • Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gasaraki ( 262206 )
      Because using public domain code in a commercial product is analogous to murder... Right...?
      • Well, as far as the analogy goes, yes...if the source code and modifications get lost, then that restricts everyone else's ability to use them. I was using the analogy of freedom in software as freedom of people, and the analogy of murder as the removal of those freedoms. Of course, What I am not condemning is anyone for their choice of license, or anyone for respecting that license, just pointing out what the GPL and simliar licenses were about.

  • Dual-terms licenses are always a possibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wayne606 ( 211893 ) on Sunday July 11, 2004 @11:02AM (#9666287)
    Sure, anybody can release their code under any terms they like. The point of the story, I think, is that if you release something public domain or using BSD-like terms, somebody may well take your code and make money from it.

    Maybe you expect that and are fine with it, and have as a goal the encouragement of better software (say, going back 15 years, if you release a toolkit like Tcl/Tk because you want to provide an alternative to C/Motif), or just recognition and acclaim based on wide usage.

    But this seems somehow wrong when the product being released and charged for is a small increment on top of the original PD stuff. This could happen if the code is a full application rather than components or framework.

    If I release a program in the latter category I would consider a license that says "free to non-profits, but pay me if it's a commercial product". This probably has a name in the OSS license taxonomy but I don't know what it is. It seems fairest because the author would always get a share of the profits (whether they are zero or not). I think universities tend to give approval to research projects releasing their code under this kind of license more easily than the GPL - these days technology licensing is no small matter for schools.

    If the author of the PocketNES code thought about this and figured PD was what he wanted, great. But the next person might be in for a surprise if they don't think the issues through...

  • PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dwedit ( 232252 ) on Sunday July 11, 2004 @02:30PM (#9667715) Homepage
    PocketNES contains GPLed code by the way, it uses the MiniLZO Library. Jaleco is not using that component.

    • Overlooked infringement may undo this story. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Sunday July 11, 2004 @04:13PM (#9668509) Homepage

      The author of PocketNES appears to be aware of some GPL infringement (perhaps infringement of MiniLZO), but it casts an entirely different light on the story (and thus makes so much of this Slashdot story obsolete). The author writes:

      Yes, PocketNES is public domain (at least, that was my intent. Kuwanger has brought it to my attention that I may be in violation of the GPL, but let's not worry about that for now).

      As you can see, the author dismisses this far too quickly; this infringement may change the entire means by which PocketNES is licensed. But this whole story shows the underlying reality of copyright law: licenses are only as strong as the copyright holder. If the copyright holder(s) to MiniLZO do not defend their copyright, their work can and will be included in non-GPL derivatives.

      Take another look at this quote from the PocketNES author:

      I wanted it to be public domain. This "Jaleco incident", in fact, is the very reason I wanted to make it FREE (as in public domain) rather than "GPL free" (strings attached). I'm not a fan of the GPL, I think it's selfish. Let someone take an idea, do something cool with it, and not have to hesitate because of legal nitpickings. If a company can take something that I made, and turn it into a product that other people enjoy, I'm all the happier for it. Why should I care if someone else profits off of something I made? It's already free. Demanding that someone pay homage to my work is just ego-stroking, and I'm not into that. Sure, as a courtesy it would have been nice for Jaleco to tell me "hey, thanks for the source", and they didn't, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it, because I didn't write PocketNES so people would pat me on the back. I wrote it so people could have fun playing old games. And that's exactly what's happening here. Mission accomplished.

      There are profound misunderstandings here, but I think I can distill the major points of rebuttal to two objections:

      • If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.
      • The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will become clear to anyone who has released their program under a non-copyleft free software license or in the PD and then watched as they had to compete against a derivative of their own program. This is not a pleasant experience and yet by the time it happens, one has already chosen to forgo all copyright power to stop it from occurring. This is why everyone "should [...] care if someone else profits off of something" they hold the copyright to.

      I have no problem with someone choosing to place their work into the PD or license their work under a generous non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license or the MIT X11 license). I use those works, I build upon those works, I distribute those works, and I thank them for their effort. I also have no problem with works regularly entering the PD by expiring copyright in a timely manner (far shorter than the current term of copyright). But that's not what appears to be going on here; neither of these sentiments are being made real here. This author's words appear to be an attempt at a gift of code with a colossal misunderstanding of why the GPL exists and what it attempts to do.

      I usually find that people who don't mind treating businesses like charities are naive and have little real-world experience with businesses. They are rudely awakened to the reality that one's misunderstanding of how copyright law works will not absolve them of copyright responsibilities.

      • If this was supposed to be in the PD, the author should have written all the code for the program or based the work on other PD programs. The author should not have based the program on something else they didn't hold the copyright to under a license which doesn't allow PD derivatives.

        An unfortunate mistake I've admitted to. I may have done things differently if I was aware of this at the time I released the source. This doesn't change my stance though.

        The so-called "selfish[ness]" of the GNU GPL will b

        • It's selfish in that you're still trying to maintain control over something that you've deigned as free. If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.

          That assumes competition is always healthy. It is not, especially for small software projects. Split user bases drastically reduce the momentum behind projects and the amount of feedback, support and patches you get. Splitting a small project can actually leave you with two dead projects in a
          • Your point is well spoken; I may have been rash calling the GPL selfish. I see how the GPL helps an author by discouraging the actions you've illustrated. Unfortunately, although he only intends to protect his work from being exploited, using the GPL also discourages everyone ELSE interested in his work from benefitting from it, if they aren't interested in the GPL.

            For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own
            • For example - Joe Shmo wants to use a slick piece of code that you've GPL'd. For whatever reason, he can't, or doesn't want to GPL his own code. Even if he isn't in competition with your own project and means no ill will, he has no choice but to pass up whatever he could have gained from your offering. Net loss to everyone.

              At this point, Joe asks the owner of said code if he can get a license to use the code outside of a GPL license, and talks go from there.

        • First, thanks for responding. There was one part I take issue with:

          If you're worried about competition, like you say, then you're a dingbat for making it free in the first place.

          Whether we are talking free as in software freedom or free as in price I don't think competition is (and should be) unavoidable. Only software patents (patents on algorithms used to make computer software) which are enforced against everyone will come close to preventing competition (and this doesn't even work against the

      • AFAIK the Jaleco version does not include the GPLd MiniLZO parts. Also since the PD "license" contains no restrictions, it is GPL compatible.

        So the author is probably ok as long as he has the MiniLZO portion of the code available in source form. Probably no infringement here. Unless you want to argue that the GPL is in fact viral and therefore the whole package is now GPL weather the author likes it or not.

        Also he seems to understand the spirit of the GPL well if enough, if not the letter. It is a form of

  • Oh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GaimeGuy ( 679917 ) on Sunday July 11, 2004 @02:39PM (#9667782) Journal
    the emulation community was upset about copyright infringement of an emulator's source code. Someone tell them they're infringing on copyrights by downloading ROMs for free. hypocrites. -_-

  • Some jokes ... (Score:2, Funny)

    by evslin ( 612024 )
    ... deliver their own punch lines.

    Emulation fans were upset, with cries of copyright infringement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close