Retron 5 source code discussion

Yes serious. If you want to seriously document the violation then it makes sense to have the infringing product on hand to make an thorough list of violations to go in your C & D. Of course like others have said the first step to seriously doing this is to contact a lawyer. There may be lots of organizations that would be willing to defend this for free especially if it comes down to maintaining the GPL.

 

I've spent considerable time talking this over with staff, working out what would be the best course of action so as not to impact on your legal case (if you choose to pursue that) and making new threads for each element of the off-topicness that happened in the original thread.

You've been told that you are welcome to discuss the code and such here, so long as we don't see any badmouthing users FROM EITHER SIDE. Is that not fair treatment?

I've now spent even more time going through this thread, to be fair to you all, to see if anyone said anything unfair. Basically - I don't think they did - particularly before your comment. Mudlord basically demanded that someone "hands over" the files and you kinda insulted the users of this forum, calling them end users incapable of analyzing the source code themselves. You also said that "any monkey" can run code through a hex editor but that hasn't been done, another rather snide remark at the abilities of people on this forum.

ASSEMbler was primarily started as a place for people who collect and use development hardware. Whilst is has evolved into a place where collectors and casual gamers are welcome, there are still those of us who are programmers. Still, you have to bear in mind that those who own this device may not have the knowledge to extract the files you require. Perhaps saying, "if anyone has a Retron 5 and would help us, please PM one of us. We'd be happy to walk you through what you need to do" would have got you better results than "Right, first of all I want someone with some backbone to hand over the relevant files" followed the same day by "I fail to see though why people with access to Retron5 files aren't willing to help those without." I appreciate that it's probably frustrating to see people who have the devices but won't help, but don't expect people to be willing to help just because they DO own one.

As per ASSEMbler's clear instructions for the continuation of this thread, anyone being non-constructive will have their comments removed. We do sympathize with you - as fellow programmers, we wouldn't like our code stolen. However, can I please ask you to at least speak to the users with respect? If they aren't as knowledgeable as you, don't ridicule them - offer them help.

Don't forget that you're technically asking someone to do something that could be construed as illegal. And you're asking them to do it for free. I appreciate that you don't want to purchase a device (although I am sure the likes of Nintendo did exactly that when it came to clones, copies etc.), but if you're asking the members of the community to help you, it would be lovely (but by no means compulsory) if you could contribute something back to the forum. Help someone out in the programming section, perhaps?

Anyway, I will reiterate that you REALLY need to speak to a lawyer if you want to pursue this matter legally. I would strongly suggest that you do so BEFORE obtaining Retron 5 code, as there are correct procedures. Here's a useful piece from an embedded systems consultant:

http://embeddedgurus.com/stack-overflow/2012/02/why-you-really-shouldnt-steal-source-code/

So a lawsuit will require them to hand over source code, but it will be to a third party that you will probably have to employ. How you're supposed to get sufficient evidence in the first place, I'm not sure! Perhaps purchasing a Retron 5 would be the appropriate step in this instance? I'm sure a lawyer or consultant would be able to advise on this matter - perhaps contact a consultant and ask what the next step would be, before taking legal matters? They might offer you this advice for free, if they believe you will take on their services.

I wish you luck with your case! Keep us updated.

 

Thanks for the well thought out post retro. I have been trying to convey the same thing but have unfortunately failed to relay what you did so well.

Also love the link. I have actually spent a lot of time researching different open source licenses, and it is amazing how easy it can be to violate one of those license or even just combine them in a way not allowed.

 

To be fair, a lot of people don't think nowadays when it comes to a lot of things that require copyright. Oh, I need a photo of such-and-such for my poster - I'll just grab one online, nobody will mind. That's a cool font - I'll use it on my poster without checking the usage restrictions. My posters advertise my Mario T-shirts - nobody's going to mind me drawing Mario on a T-shirt and selling it!

Yup, you need to read the T&C carefully - especially on open source code. Likewise, people sometimes use open source code non-commercially, but don't release THEIR code.

 

"Intellectual Property" can be a mine field. Trademarks, Patents, and Copyright and all of them are a little different. It also can greatly depend on how use them. I still get them confused especially since things can overlap.

Red Hat Linux is a good example. Red Hat linux is GPL software. So you can modify/sell/redistribute to your liking as long as you obey the terms of the GPL, but wait Red Hat is a trademark of Red Hat so you couldn't compile it or redistribute those portions or you will violate the trademark.

The funny thing for Hyperkin is they could have incorporated a lot of GPL code without issues. and basically but something in the manual with a link to the license and how to request the source code and probably been in compliance. This of course would not have worked for portions that exclude non-commercial use. I actually wonder if they still receive bug fixes/contributions since I know many developers shy away from anything that isn't GPL.

 

The fact that the console was Android based (Bad idea), it obviously points to the only reason it being so was out of convenience of software(Emulators) already existing. All they had to do was try to obfuscate the code, make their own additions (like the retarded cartridge hashing),etc.

I doubt this was intended as some backhanded insult. Just that it would be easy to tell, but people who aren't programmers or know what to look for would have a clue. As with many great subjects.


They are obviously upset, and I don't really see any badmouthing other than generally being upset at the situation. That literally NO ONE with a Retron 5 is willing to help them out. With the token response being "buy one yourself." With it being obvious, why would you give money to a company whom stole from you and further their profit? Even if for research.

What Hyperkin has done/is doing isn't? Technically it's not free. That person already paid their price of admission.

There's lots of stuff on this forum over the years which could be considered technically illegal even if only slid by because said things are older.


And again, why suggest buying a Retron 5? Why would he do that? if someone gives him the files anonymously with a secure link (IE: Mega.co.nz which links can be sent with or without the encryption key ), there shouldn't be a problem. Why does it matter to them where the person would've gotten the source code? It wouldn't matter if it was taken from a console he purchased or someone else did.


It's not about the hardware. It's just the software concerned here.


One suggestion though that is great is

 

To be fair, I don't see ANY badmouthing from either side.... but perhaps a few snide remarks. I can see why the coders are annoyed that people suggest they might have to purchase a device. Whether or not it's the right move - well, they should seek legal advice on that. I appreciate that they are keen to compare code, but again, it might not be the right move. They might have to get a third party to do so. Likewise, I can appreciate why others were somewhat annoyed when some of the coders were somewhat blunt and unfriendly when people didn't hand over code from the device.

Just because someone MIGHT have taken code they shouldn't have (and I agree, it seems extremely likely), doesn't give you a right to reverse engineer their device (the software is now part of an embedded system). What people are trying to tell them is that they really need to seek proper advice, because anything they do could be used against them in court if they're not careful. It's friendly advice to see them have the best shot at winning that they can, because people who stoop to stealing code aren't going to just put their hands up in court... they'll do whatever they can to make you look bad.

Here's a bit more from the website of the company that chap who wrote the article runs:

 

Look up the doctrine of "unclean hands".

 

Would that also apply if said people don't want to sue but find out for the sake of closure?

 

Of course - they could still take action against those reverse engineering their devices. If they took you to court rather than the other way round, "we were just looking to see if they used our code" probably wouldn't be a great defence. And it could be that one person doesn't want to sue, but another does (e.g. the writer of the Mega Drive emulator doesn't but the writer of the SNES one does). I'd be pretty pissed off if I wanted to sue as the author of program A, but they turned around in court and said, "the author of program B, who isn't taking action, illegally hacked our device" and it went against me!

There is a right way of doing things in a legal sense - even if you have the means to do it yourself. I think they have updates downloadable on their website, so you could probably obtain the code - that doesn't mean you have a right to disassemble it, though.

 

Can't. Updates are AES encrypted.

 

But they had the right to steal and sell something illegally?

I mean.. this is a veritable legal minefield (Not to mention the fact that the system dumps the rom from the cart you insert to begin with in order to even play.), like they assume because they are some corporation they can get away with it.

What other reason would they have chosen android of all things to make such a device? Issues with android for gaming are well known.

And the Retron5 has been tested to have significant input latency for example http://retrorgb.com/retron5review.html

Why else would they encrypt their Android powered software? Why else would they want to have some asinine update system?

 

Not at all, but two wrongs don't make a right. If someone has wronged you legally, make sure you don't give them anything that could get them off the hook.

 

They probably encrypted it because the various "anti circumvention" legislation has been written so broadly that you can claim that pretty much anything that uses encryption is covered by it. The thing is that it not in general illegal to reverse engineer things (this is why companies put terms in their license agreements prohibiting it), but in the US and most of Europe it IS illegal to reverse engineer "technological protection measures".

Sure, there is a specific exemption for reverse engineering carried out for the purposes of detecting and identifying IP violations, but that's one of those things that falls into the category of an affirmative defense, and that won't stop them from taking you to court. You might be able to get a summary dismissal, but that's far from certain.

Incidentally, the idea of making you run the software to get the code to download the updates likely has an ulterior motive, too - as I mentioned earlier, the license agreement normally prohibits reverse engineering - so the standard practice is that the people who are doing that job will never actually use the product, and if it's necessary to run it in order to get information that would be done by someone else that wasn't involved in the reverse engineering effort.

So you you make the software the only place to get the download code - and also include one of those standard terms about "only for use on your own device, and will not be redistributed" then you can put people into the position where they have to either break the license agreement or the terms associated with the update download.

Of course, this doesn't stop someone that's never used the product from removing the ROM and dumping that, but it does make analysis harder.

<std disclaimer>
IANAL - but I have a lot of experience with reverse engineering and have talked to quite a few lawyers about it.

 

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...es_on_the_rights_of_multiple_emulator_authors

http://imgur.com/a/T6W4e

 

Big goddamn surprise. Now let us see if they discontinue the product.

 

sure hope whoever posted those shots has a valid licence for IDA PRO ARM($$$) otherwise the irony in this thread will be at an all-time-high

... wait, so now libretro is claiming credit for my work identifying the emulators? mind blown.

Edit: so lets assume they did violate the licences, how could they come into line with them?

Heres my idea: make the r 5 home app free and open under applicable licenses

Deliver home with only gpl and add the ability to side load additional emulators as the user chooses

 

Irrelevant.

 

You identified some small characteristics that identified enough things to give them the motivation to verify 100% that they were indeed what you and they suspected they were.. Which they did. It hardly classifies as them taking credit for your work when you refused to help them dig this deep in the first place. You specifically also stated that you wanted nothing to do with anything of this sort and didn't want to invite legal trouble. Not giving you credit for your part of the work, should be pleasing to you. Not displeasing.

No offense intended!

Without you, it definitely would not have been possible. Just trying to clarify.

 

Really I don't think it is possible to bring it into compliance. (at least the portions distributed). Your idea to have the program retrieve it at the request of the user is good though.

"We didn't receive any patches either by these Hyperkin guys which is a base requirement of GPL code - that code of derivative works get shared back."

^^^ The author really REALLY needs to look more into the GPL. He seems to have all sort of wrong ideas of what the GPL does. Unless it has changed in the GPL3 you are required to submit patches. This is more a part of good behavior in the open source community. You are only required to make the code available when you distribute the code. (So when a device is sold) and you only have to make the code available to those you distribute the binary to. (or someone that bought the device).

To be fair typically the way things get done in the open source community is to 'shame' the offending party until they comply. This has been done on several occassions with varying levels of success.