"Let's make GD ROM emulation happen" Facebook group.

I believe cybdyn is referring to the inactivity involving work on a gdemu.

 

no, someone always stick me about "legit" things (not about LeGit guy here) , so i see tons of non legit stuffs here - like modchips, soft/hw hacking. so i dont get why he dont solve such questuion there (he is Twimfy)

about gdemu, i try gather info about SPI, but for start work on gdemu seriously i need solve couple question w/ psio.

also, i'm wondering is OzOnE still here, i think i got couple questons to him?

 

Stealing someones source code that they said you could use under the GPL is not the same as a modchip or soft/hw hacking.

Which is what you were accused of. When people say legit, its both this and/or questioning if the device exists, isnt just to rip off "donators" etc.

I think its a language issue you are not correctly understanding.

 

Creating HW isn't illegal if the HW makes is illegal things this is problem but if one thing is legal ex. if i own the gd roms and play the games as backups it isn't illegal.

Conclusion it is not illegal and none of the sega going to bother you because they not anymore producing any other consoles so i dont see any problem.

 

it.s not the same, but i dont see big difference between - using/stealing code, trading mod chips, hacking consoles, copy games and load it from hdd/backups.. etc.

 

It doesnt really matter if you see the difference or not, its a case of law - not your opinion.

 

I've never understood all this GPL this, GPL that. Licenses here, there everywhere. It should be either free or not free.
Why does everything have to be so complicated. Remove the grey area then everything is black and white. Clear and simple.
(That said, I haven't read much of this thread in a while so who knows what flame war I'm getting involved in!)

Also I look forward to the this project with great hope also!

 

i mean same thing - it's all unlegal. but i dont see unlegal-figther Twinfy on the other threads.... why?

 

There is a license for that too, its called BSD.

Anyone who writes something and shares it can put what ever terms they like on it. Its like asking someone to come and cut your garden, but in return you will paint their walls - thats how the GPL works. You get the code, but if you change it you give those back too.

In the garden example above, if you werent painting the walls in exchange, you would have to pay him. This is no different.

BSD in real world example - charity work.
GPL = favours for favours
Commercial/closed source = paying

 

Personally, I think it's a pity that the GPL has become as popular as it has - in the post, the most common licenses for source available software which could be freely distributed were the MIT and BSD licenses (and often public domain releases for small stuff) - these are all highly permissive licenses that allow you to use the code and release or not release your modified source as you see fit.

The GPL is another matter - firstly, it compels you to release the source if you release the binary and secondly it contains a requirement that the entire program be distributed under the same terms. This has a number of negative side effects - one of the major ones being that if I have a system for which the programming information is only available under NDA then it's basically impossible to build anything on it with GPL code and distribute it (although in-house use is OK). Since I work mostly on embedded systems, I run into this situation a lot - I'm not trying to say it's impossible to use GPL code in embedded systems, but it requires a lot more work to keep track of the legal implications.

Some people (like my current employer) have decided to avoid this risk by completely prohibiting the use of GPL code - which leads to a lot of wheel reinventing, but seems to allow the legal people to sleep better at night. The ironic thing is that we do use quite a bit of code based on the BSD and MIT licenses - and we have a policy of contributing them to the upstream, but we end up doing nothing at all with GPL code because we simply don't use it.

 

I see the point for NDA stuff, but a point of GPL is to stop people from making a profit from free code they haven't made themselves. If everything was released under WTF public license (look it up), I could get the bender sources, change the name to '**SuPeR FamilyGUy 3D**', compile them and sell it in stores for 100$!

As for cybdyn, circumventing a copy-protection is seen as fair practice in most legislations if you own the console/games that you do it for. While re-using code without abiding to its license is simply theft of intellectual property. Nothing stops you from coding your own alternative though.

 

There is nothing in the GPL that stops you (or anyone else) from doing that, though - all the GPL requires is that you supply to source code to anyone you supplied the binary to. It doesn't say anything at all about not selling it.

I think the GPL works pretty well for applications - but it causes lots of practical problems in the embedded environment because it has requirements that are fundamentally incompatible with the basis that a lot of the technical data is supplied under. That's why everything I've ever released has been either new BSD or public domain - it maximizes the number of people that can use it.

 

Because a lot of people claimed you were using their code/official SDK material and then you talk of selling it on for profit when in some circumstances you can't do that.

Yet every time someone questions you on it you say you don't understand or change the subject a little.

My problem is there is no community spirit at all in what you're doing with PSIO.

Maybe it's the language barrier or the fact that Haunted tainted the topic from day one and I apologise if I've gotten it wrong but I just don't like the way in which it is being carried out.

Asking for people's money for test devices is fine if you need the money for parts but the fact that there is still no definitive proof that the thing works just makes me very suspicious. If you really believe in GPL etc you'd send your code...for free...to someone on here with a high reputation and good feedback (there are many) who can have a look through it and say...yeah that would work. Trust goes both ways.

It's so so simple to gain people's trust and yet you have made no steps to do so at all and you are quick to act like a child when people turn down your offers.

Krizz did well here because he established a relationship with people. So far you have offered someone a device, they've gotten nervous because it's required a payment and you've pretty much said "fuck them, tough luck for them, they're not getting one...who's next?"

I only respond to what I see and hear.

It also doesn't help that whenever someone who knows you or the project comes from another board to defend you, they're childish and have a poor attitude. I have been on this forum for 7 years and seen a lot of shit go down. No I'm not a moderator and I have no authority but I give a shit when it comes to people's money.

I'm not against you at all in this as it's an amazing idea and something I would use myself but I still don't feel confident about it...sorry. The videos you have shown are impressive but to be totally honest, I could set up something similar and pretend I had done the same thing.

I dunno, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but everyone is circle jerking over PSIO and throwing money at the screen and it's making me really nervous.

If you absolutely 100% want to convince people. Send one out FOR FREE to someone credible who can do a review. Yes it's going to cost you but you have to spend money to make money.

 

I agree with you word for word (except the 7 years part). So its not just you.

 

I agree with you word for word (including the 7 years part). So its not just two.

I'm glad I am not the only one offended at his blatant dodging of license requirements.

 

than more words - it's less sense. back to gdemu...

 

Let's just wait and see if this works before talking about coding licenses people. If it works then figure out the coding issue. If it doesn't then there is no point in worrying since it won't be sold.

 

No what you really mean is more truth more questions to ignore.

 

Still fighting about whether to use a Sony dev kit gui from 20 years ago? Nobody cares.

 

OzOne, if you are having trouble getting it to boot fully, take a look a mamedev's recent work http://mamedev.emulab.it/kale/?p=1951
Kale had the same problem as you albeit in software.
"As usual with Sega, status flags are pretty picky on BIOS program"