Bubsy using SNES9x illegally
- Home
- Board: /v/ - Video Games
- Reading: Bubsy using SNES9x illegally
>>320748587
Turd Encounter of the Hurl Kind
>>320748587
>Apparently
>actually
>actually
I hate these faggots.
>>320748587
So, they're selling an emulated game?
Thats fucking hilarious
It's got that nice Valve seal of approval on it. there's a reason they take 30% of each purchase, that classic Quality Assurance
nice twitter post millenial
Who even released it?
The perfect example how copyleft bullshit damages honest business. Thank you rms.
>paying for your emulators
Never heard of this "Bubsy" game, looks like a shitty cereal mascot.
>>320748751
'Apparently' usage there was fine.
Cool.
And?
>>320748587
the fuck is SNES9x
How is that illegal?
>>320748770
Emulation isn't the problem, making money off someone else's emulator without permission is.
On that note, how do we know they didn't get permission from the developers of SNES9x?
Uh no, emulators themselves are not illegal. That guy is "actually" super retarded. Try playing the original X-COM on Steam, it uses DOSbox.
>>320748998
How old are you? Not implying you're underage or anything.
>>320748934
It's not GPL and it's not copyleft. It's not even free as in freedom, just prohibiting commercial use.
Dosbox is GPL and distributed on Steam.
>>320749153
it's a fedora?
>>320749098
Well that emulator was also using a non-commercial lisence in the first place
>>320748587
>super illegal
what type of retard talks like that?
>>320749024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2uyDqbA-Q
>>320748751
>Getting mad at everyday words
How do you function?
>>320748587
>that avatar
Is that GPM's twitter?
How the fuck does that little kid know anything about computers when all he does is play shitty wii-u games
>>320748587
>Using an emulator licensed under MIT non-commercial.
>Not just using ZNES which is licensed under GNU GPL.
>>320749084
The emulator is licensed for noncommercial use only
>>320749098
They asked the first two developers, but no one else who had contributed was asked. Those contributors hold copyright over the parts they did
>>320749124
Emulators aren't illegal, but selling an open source emulator licensed for noncommercial use is
>>320749336
People who have to condense language because of twitter's character limit do. The intent was probably "illegal in more ways than one."
>>320749124
not siting where the code comes from and not crediting the developer of the emulator IS illegal, plus there is no indication of it using said firmware, it is being sold as a standalone with new code.
>>320748770
LOL
>removed from the Steam store already
>>320749098
On a similar note, why is it our duty to even care? Let the people who actually own the shit work it out.
Not like this is stopping anybody from illegally downloading a Bubsy rom and playing it on any free emulator anyways.
>>320748587
People who bought bubsy deserve to be ripped off.
Its not that it uses an emulator, its that they bought a shit game that people have been saying was shit for over a decade and could have easily emulated it for free.
>>320749207
>not knowing the difference between a fedora and a trilby
>>320749457
>it's illegal
That's all you need to say.
They had permission from the Snes9x devs dumbfucks. Says it right on the steam page and they've reiterated on the forums and on their twitter.
Let this serve as a good ad for everyone to download Bubsy, a true classic.
>>320749457
Japanese Twitter is so much better. The character limit is basically meaningless when you have around 2-4 times the space.
>>320748587
And what if they've got permission to use the emulator?
>>320749563
From two of the developers*
The project has more than those developers and they all own the copyright over their contributions
>>320748587
>idapro
>they didnt pay for it
yeah call some fake ass devs out when you yourself cant even pay for a ducking debugger.
top notch m8
at that, who the fuck cares anymore?
now back onto the real point
>"devs" dont port anymore
>would break the game
>use open source emulator
>implement it to work on a single rom
>people pay for rom
>company that made the game originally - if still alive - gets money from this
>easiest way to recoup money lost due to piracy
>"hurr it uses an emulator its illegal"
>its illegal to not cite your sources and not give credit to the original emulator devs
>everything else is perfectly fine
>they probably informed the snes9x devs anyway
>everything is probably fine as it is
i want to punch this fucking faggot in the face for jumping to conclusions
>>320749391
apparently im not normal and i auctally get mad easily and its actually not very common to apparently get actually mad at like words.
>>320748587
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2uyDqbA-Q
>>320749508
No it's still there.
>>320749542
that's not similar at all, that is in fact the opposite of what the other poster was questioning.
>super-illegal
>>320749803
i see your point, but as you may expect, i genuinely cant be assed enough to argue back.
Whether it's GPL or not, at the end of the day I't being used to resell an old game. The likelyhood of this being used in consoles and not just steam is still very much the case.
I be you that you can look through e-shop shit on the wiiu and find the same goddamn content we do here. Same goes for Xbone. Sony seems to have their shit handled for some reason but I expect them to eventually do the same as well.
>Bubsy Two-Fur runs on a basic version of SNES9X that our developer Piko Interactive used under direct license from the emulator's developers. It's just as legal as the other games Piko has released on Steam :)
It really depends on what "basic version" means. If they gutted a lot of code contributed by other people besides the original few, then it's possible they actually got permission. If they are doing this legally and weren't extremely vague about it, then it would save a lot of PR headaches.
>>320750248
my points exactly
you can always make agreements with others to make use of non-commercial software being used commercially.
its common shit
>>320750248
>If they gutted a lot of code
That's exactly what they claim, though it seems they missed a few things:
https://pikointeractive.com/blog/emulator-issue-update-1-0/
>>320748862
Go back to your basement grandpa, the relevant generation is discussing things.
>when GOG does it, it's okay!
>using emulatoes for profit in streams
ha-ha time for jail
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
>>320750532
shut the fuck up nigga nobody even likes gog besdies a handfull of europoors who bought withcer on it.
>>320749718
>a ducking debugger
Need to sort out that autocorrect on your iphone m8
>>320750885
this is the second time ive fucked up and typed a D over an F
gonna go kill myself and be back in a few minutesmy phone would correct the mistake to fucking, but when i type angrily i make mass amounts of errors.
forgive me senpai
>>320749694
You only need permission from the parts you use. Nobody cares about the GUI dev
OH MY GOD this guy when he lands off a fucking flight like a gryphon he yells "Hello everyone, I am here"
>>320749450
I'm not sure how specific the license is, couldn't they just say that the user is paying for the ROM and the emulator is packaged for free?
>>320750468
>the relevant generation
More like the useless generation
WHAT COULD PAWSSIBLY GO WRONG?
>super illegal
Woah boy, we've got a real happening here. This isn't just a regular schlummy situation, this is actually apparently a SUPER ILLEGAL shindig.
>>320751020
Apparently the build they're claiming to use actually doesn't have sound, which actually means they are using at least the sound developer's work
>>320751129
Fem-bubs a best
>super-illegal
>>320751093
They could not. The license grants them the right to make copies of the program, so long as they are not used for commercial uses. Bundling with a sold thing counts as commercial use
>>320750697PAWSSIBLY
you fucking imbecile
>>320751093
No that is still illegal, unless they have explicit permission from the copyright hold they can't include it in any way.
The only method to get around that would be to tell the buy to go download it themselves.
>>320749098
They only got permission from the 2 original devs - who haven't worked on it since 2002 - they still need permission from the other 50+ contributors.
>>320751454
>>320751129
WHAT IS THE SOURCE
Is Busby the new Bad Rats?
Why would you buy Bubsy in the first place?
how much work would it have been to port the whole game to windows?
It's not illegal.
>>320751985
There already is a port of the game.
>>320748587
Unless that guy is actually one of the members of the development team of snes9x, he's making the assumption the publisher of the Steam version of Bubsy don't have a license.
There's nothing stopping the team from non-publically issuing a separate commercial license for use by that publisher for that game.
My guess is there's nothing to see here.
>>320751841
Just look for Bubsy
There's not that much porn
>Super-illegal
what a gay
Should I buy this before it gets taken of the steam store?
Bought 20 copies.
>>320752568
Why would you?
I wish they would add achievements to the steam version, I'd even be willing to pay double the price.
>>320752641
Just in case the cards might be worth more than 3 dollars?
>>320749374
The fuck how have you not heard of Bubsy? I'm 26 and I know full well about that shitty game
>>320752735
Why would the cards be worth anything?
>>320752134
they only asked two devs. they would have to remove the code from the rest of the devs to be allowed to sell this
>>320749425
>ZNES
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
LOOK AT HIM
LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH
>>320752951
lol no they wouldn't
they only need the lead devs permission
Super ill eagle?
I hope that poor eagle recovers
>>320753001
That would only apply if the open source contributors gave up their copyright to the lead devs
They did not
>>320749024
It's ZSNES but for peasants
>People this butthurt over selling a emulator and rom
But the Megaman Collection is the exception, right? Because Megaman is actually a good series so no problem buying the ROMs? Hypocrites.
>>320753125
they gave it up when they agreed there were lead devs
whoever published it under the open license has the ability to do this
>>320752989
literally nothing wrong with it.
>>320748587
Its not, already got discussed, just one of the developers got ignored by other developers.
What the hell is Busby and why haven't I heard of it until now? I had all kinds of shovelwhere for SNES as a child. Is it some kind of bugs bunny ripoff?
>>320749727
Yeah you actually are pretty autistic, bro.
super illegal
>>320753342
No they hadn't
They write their contributions and license them to the lead developers under the noncommercial license. No copyright assignment happened.
>>320753449
does it have aids
>>320753517
but after the program had been compiled it comes under a new license
it's perfectly legal mate, sorry
>>320753449
Ilegal 64.
>>320748587
Emulators aren't illegal, though.
So is the entire virtual console super illegal also? Because it's ok when Nintendo does it.
>>320753664
You don't actually understand how copyright works, sorry
>>320753719
But they are sssuper illegal~ ;3
>>320753664
That doesn't even make sense.
>>320753791
no, you don't
the person that makes the bricks doesn't own the house
no laws have been broken, you're just super butthurt over nothing
>>320748862
we're all millennials here.
>>320753929
this gave me goosebumps on my face, jesus
>>320753926
>the person that makes the bricks doesn't own the house
Take a copy of Windows, .rar it together with something else, then bam, perfectly legal to make copies and sell
Software are not houses
>>320753929
Woah what's going on here?
GPM SUKS PENIS AND IS GAY
>>320753776
>nintendo developed their own emulator
>bubsy on steam just uses one already made (which was noncommercial) and sells it for a profit
you're retarded
>>320751337
Worst K-on
>>320753664
Why are you making things up?
>>320754354
It's shedding
>>320754403
>It's okay when Nintendo does it
>>320753776
It's illegal because it violates Snex9x liscence you fuckwit.
>>320753929
Imagine having to do this whenever you had a growth spurt growing up. Imagine how good it would feel. Fortunately we just have an innumerable amount of tiny scales that flake off constantly. Unfortunately, that's why we have dust fucking everywhere.
>>320754354
It's just a spider molting. Similar to a snake shedding skin. Lots of arachnids and insects do it.
ulillillia on suicide watch
Well, did SNES9x makers ask Nintendo if they can make the emulator? If not, they can super shut the fuck up.
>>320753235
anon I don't think you understand
the problem here is a legal one not an ethical one. It's not that they're using an emulator it's that they didn't get the permission from the right people.
I think. I really don't care enough to dig deeper into this than this thread.
>>320748751
>>320749019
"Apperently"
>>320749718
>SNES Piracy
Fucking really?
>>320749024
really?
>>320751129
>not Pawsibly
confirmed fake
Hopefully Valve gets sued to obilvion and back so we can enjoy PC games without fucking retarded online only DRM
>>320754403
>Nintendo needs special emulators for 20 year old roms and they charge $9.99.
Same fucking thing. Go suck Reggie's cock.
>>320754892
That's not going to happen.
>h-hey stop using my device to break the law
Are they for real?
>>320748587
>super illegal
And does this "Alex" have the funds to take them to court over it? Does anyone that actually gives a shit?
>>320754771
They didn't need to ask for permission. The architecture of the SNES is not copyrightable
>>320748772
He'd make a good trap
>>320755081
>The architecture of the SNES is not copyrightable
Then is not the emulator. Simple.
>>320749718
Snes9x has a MIT non commercial liscence. Meaning you can't fucking sell it. Even if they were using a version with out the non-commercial clause it would require they publish source with any changes they made.
>>320755073
Apparently he's quite rich, and his dad is actually a lawyer.
>>320755073
>rob someone of every penny
>no more funds to sue you for robbing them blind
The perfect crime
>>320755205
They're not selling it.
I already looked into this. It's kosher with the SNES9x people, unfortunately.
>>320755271
it's included in the executable that is used on steam.
It is part of the product being sold. It is being sold.
Why are people defending these guys? This isn't some kind of "well I don't think that [x] is bad" thing. This is a black and white legal matter and it's extremely clear who is in the right on this issue.
>>320755198
The emulator is a software implementation of the technical specs of the SNES. It is copyrightable.
>>320755271
Yes they are. They packaged a binary of the emulator with their ROM and are selling it on steam. It's fucking illegal.
>>320755463
>>320755479
The snes9x part of the program is free. What you're paying for is everything else.
So it's perfectly fine, sorry guys but you got up in arms over nothing.
>>320755205
>publish source
You're thinking of the GPL
>>320755205
You can't sell the source code. But those open licenses often don't apply to anything made using the content they cover.
Like with GPL licensed software, you can use it in commercial software. But if you include it in the package given out, you need to include the license that covers that part of the code. You must also provide the source code for what was originally covered by the GPL on request.
Inventors can patent new cars, even though they didn't invent the wheel.
>>320755464
It is not why do you think we've yet to see a single emulator get shut down retard?
>>320753929
that went well.
My spider always derps out midway and I have to help him with his legs.
>>320755684
AND WITH A PRE ORDER BONUS OF DRM FREE HL2!
>>320755684
Your analogy would be correct if it were a copy of GNU, which you can get for free anyway.
>>320753929
I dropped my phone out of impulse
Fuck you
>>320755403
Is that really true though?
One of the original two devs has been missing for years and I think not even the Snes9x people were able to contact him when they wanted to change the emulator's license.
>>320748587
>bought bubsy on steam
Fucking why?
>>320748935
Oh god what's next, paying for mods?!
>>320755653
The emulator developers own the copyright to the emulators they create. Whatever machine their emulating has no copyright claim over the emulator.
>>320755205
>>320755205
Like putting some "licence" only would give him every right for commercial use. And they can sell the game and give the emulator for free.
>>320755816
dumb phoneposter
>>320755898
Valve tried that. community raged for a week.if this is a joke then im so sorry for it flying over my head
>>320755809
You cannot make a copy of Windows to give away with something sold
You cannot make a copy of SNES9x unless you agree to the noncommercial license, which means no bundling
You can't even publish it on a website with ads (though you can link to the original developer's site on a website with ads)
>>320755574
MIT has it too. MIT is GPL compatible.
>>320755634
Except they do cover selling binaries. It uses the MIT with a non-commercial clause so it cannot be used.
What's up with this retarded thread that keep appearing? There are shit worse than this appearing on Steam and nobody make thread about those scam games.
>>320755913
>>320755569
You're dumb.
The license doesn't only says you can't sell the emulator, it also says it can't be redistributed/packed along paid software.
I love how everyone in this thread is speaking with authority as if they were physically there when the deal happen
>>320756134
Windows is sold commercially.
SNES9x is freely available.
You can include SNES9x free with the game you are selling, as you are not charging for SNES9x.
>>320755821
Oh, wait, hold on.
https://twitter.com/Lord_Nightmare/status/677603476625584128
Yeah nevermind they might be in some shit
>>320755913
"Commercial use" is not exclusive to "selling", see >>320756134
buying busby should beUltraIlegal
>>320756041
[Spoiler]Dumb shitposter ;~; [/spoiler]
>>320756217
>becouse the license says so
Okay, I will write in a paper: I own everything. Now I own everything, nice.
>>320748587
and who is him?
is someone who should I care for?
>>320756286
You can't bundle something licensed for noncommercial use with something sold
You cannot use something licensed for noncommercial use for commercial use
This includes but is not limited to
>selling the program directly
>bundling the program with something that is sold
>hosting the package on your website and surrounding the download link with ads
>having a kickstarter and giving copies of the program away for certain reward tiers
>>320756658
You're not paying for SNES9x, you're getting it for free just as you can if you download it from the site.
There really is no problem here.
>>320755205
>MIT license
>requiring publishing changes to source
lol
neither the expat license nor the snex9x modified expat license requires disclosure of changes to the source, it's a non-copyleft lax permissive license
it's also like four sentences long, you should really just read it before saying things that are blatantly false
>>320756159
The MIT license that is GPL-compatible is not the non-commercial version we're talking about here.
But it doesn't matter anyways, because if I'm not mistaken, "GPL compatible" only means you can take MIT-licensed stuff and make it GPL, but it doesn't work the other way around.
>>320753354
Except for the awful sound emulation and multiple games that don't work properly or at all.
>>320755653
What?
You cannot copyright the the SNES architecture.
However, you CAN copyright software that emulates it.
How is that hard to understand?
>>320756217
This, family.
>>320756450
By default you can't make copies or incorporate a copyrighted thing into your own things
The license gives you permission to make copies and incorporate it into your things, provided you follow the license
If you want to ignore the license that's fine, it then falls under normal copyright as above
The contributors to SNES9x are fine with it.
The only people that care are Stallman drones.
>>320749718
>they didnt pay for it
IDA 5.0 is freeware
>>320756769
Doesn't matter. That's what the license says, so whoever didn't read the fine print when they only contacted the first two devs fucked the pooch.
>ITT
>piratefags BLOWN THE MOTHERFUCK OUT
>>320756952
>The contributors to SNES9x are fine with it.
But that's wrong.
TWO of the contributors are.
>>320756159
>MIT has it too
except it doesn't, seriously, just read the license, it takes like two seconds http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
gpl compatible does not mean what you think it means, it means you can create a project that uses both gpl-licensed modules and expat-licensed modules without producing irreconcilable licensing conflicts (e.g., one license requires you to do something that would be impossible without breaking the terms of the other license)
>>320756769
You're not replying to the points
The license is "noncommercial," not "no selling"
>>320756993
Incorrect, please read twitter.
>>320749362
I came here to post this
>>320756975
>Doesn't matter
It does. Because the license only says you can't make a profit from it which they are not doing, you are free to use it any way you wish.
>>320756286
No you can't, the license says so, and the license is a valid legal document.
>>320749362
lel
>>320757187
Maybe you should read that license again, and know of the understanding that contributors sign away any ownership of their contribution once it is made.
>>320757164
It literally says you can't bundle it with something paid for.
Even if you're only paying for the ROM, you're still violating the license.
Fuck off.
>>320757294
It says you can't charge for it - they're not.
All you're paying for is the ROM which is NOT a violation of the license.
It's clear you don't know what the license actually says.
>>320748587
>illegally
the license has no weight. They never defended it, they lost
>nuh uh I'm right
>>320757396
Are you retarded?
The license it's using clearly states you CANNOT PACKAGE IT WITH PAID SOFTWARE
Stop being a fucking retard and READ, you mong.
>>320757521
They do. The project leads hold all the intellectual rights to contributions to the project.
>>320757073
>durr you're wrong, it says so somewhere on twitter
Pics or it didn't happen.
>>320756286
that's not how software licensing works
the terms of the license state
>Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes, but is not limited to, charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x, including Snes9x or derivatives in commercial game bundles, and/or using Snes9x as a promotion for your commercial product.
the important line is
>Commercial use includes, but is not limited to, charging money for [...] software derived from Snex9x, including Snes9x or derivatives in commercial game bundles
the license explicitly forbids this usage (it's not even an implied usage, it says right there that this specific use case is not permitted), meaning that unless they have received permission from every single person who has contributed code to the project, they can't legally use the software like this. the only defense they have is to claim the license is invalid somehow, which it's not. if any one of the developers who worked on snes9x who wasn't contacted wanted to press charges, they would have standing to sue and would probably win (or more likely, they'd just settle for a quick bit of cash).
>>320757570
That's not what the license says, sorry but you've been barking up the wrong tree this whole time.
>>320757679
not even an implicitly forbidden use, rather
>can't bundle emulator with rom because that's illegal (but people will do this anyways)
>can't get free roms to use with emulator because that's illegal (but people will do this anyways)
So legally speaking emulators have no use at all?
>>320757737
>Commercial use includes, but is not limited to, charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x, including Snes9x or derivatives in commercial game bundles, and/or using Snes9x as a promotion for your commercial product.
https://github.com/snes9xgit/snes9x/blob/master/docs/snes9x-license.txt
>>320757679
>seek permission of the copyright holders first
But this happened. They even got permission even though it isn't required.
The license only requires permission to be sought, not actually gained. Bubsy guys went above and beyond by having the lead devs consenting to its use.
>>320757615
Point to the agreement in the project that says so. Not evey project has one.
What's the difference between illegal and super-illegal?
>>320757834
The most recent copyright on there is 2011, so it's 4 years out of date and is thus public domain.
kek not even the devs of snes9x know if this was ok or not, no one has a clue on how the copyright assignment was handled.
>>320757947
Copyright lasts much longer than 4 years
They had permission from Gary so it's literally a non-issue.
>>320757912
super-illegal crimes get you sent to super-jail.
>>320757912
Super illegal acts send you to Super jail.
>>320757857
They didn't get permission from all of the copyright holders
>>320757817
They are legally useful, but you either need to
-dump your own carts
-wait for the software to become public domain
>>320757857
The moment more people come in and contribute to a project, enough to be included as coders for it in the credits, it doesn't matter if the lead devs gave their consent, as the whole team holds the rights to the software, so all holders need to give consent for the consent to be considered valid.
>>320757912
Super-illegal can fly and shit
>>320758126
Not required.
>>320757817
the legal use case for emulators is dumping your own copies of games and playing them on devices you own, this is legal in united states copyright law
>>320757857
they have to get permission from every single person who contributed code to the project, as every contribution is licensed that way
this is a frequent issue in foss communities. i'm remembering an ancient project (can't remember which one) the fsf was trying to get the license changed on and there were upwards of 50 contributors to the project. they had to hunt down every single person who contributed before they could legally relicense the software.
>permission only has to be sought
lol, that would never hold up in court, while you *could* read the license that way if you took that part out of context, it's very clear what the intention of that clause is (see the sentence preceding, "Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only")
if you tried to use that as a defense in a court of law, the judge would laugh at you
>>320757857
>The license only requires permission to be sought, not actually gained. Bubsy guys went above and beyond by having the lead devs consenting to its use.
The Bubsy devs should use this as a defense. It would be fucking hilarious.
>>320758167
errr no you don't
>>320758298
the defense they used was "human error" and they have now updated to a version that only uses the snes9x code written by the two original devs they got the permission from, and not all the others.
>>320758298
They would win the case, the wording of the license is very sloppy and poorly thought out.
>>320758237
Yes, required. The license says "If you want commercial use, please seek permission." It doesn't say "If you seek permission, then you can use it for commercial use."
>>320758501
>Commercial users should seek permission first
Doesn't say whether the permission is required, just that is must be sought.
So yeah, SNES9x fucked up their license. Literally anyone can use it even if they say no to the permission.
>>320758453
>rewrite the code from the other contributors
>realise you don't even need to bother changing it because code itself can't be copyrighted
>>320758602
you can't just take parts of the license out of context, it's quite clear from the preceding statement what the intention of that is
that defense wouldn't hold up in court. you might have a case if the sentence that said "Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only" was not part of the license.
>>320758501
It doesn't say "get" permission, it says "seek" permission.
Wording is very important in legal documents, kid.
>>320758602
There is no way this can be interpreted that way, except by autists on /v/
>>320758780
>Z use only
>but if you want it for X do Y
>do Y
>can freely do X now
Regardless of the outcome of Y, as it is not specified in the license.
>b-but it's implied
So? Implications are literally irrelevant in law.
>>320758715
what if i want the goat, though
i'm pretty lonely
>>320758808
Point to the wording which states that you are able to use it for commercial use. The part you quoted does not give the permission
>>320748587
this was posted yesterday too and I still didn't care
>>320748751
>>Apparently
This finding was unexpected.
>>actually
And it's confirmed to be the case.
The words are used correctly. Get fucked.
>>320758978
>If you want to do X, do Y
>do Y
>that's nice, but we never said you'd have permission if you did Y
you faggots. they already use dosbox for all the older dos games.
your a bit fucking late to the fuckin game. your paying for the license to have the rom files. the emulator comes free, ya dolt.
>>320759042
"Commercial users should
seek permission of the copyright holders first"
Once that's done you can use it for commercial purposes.
>>320758978
contracts aren't looked at in a vacuum, judges will consider intent. it's pretty clear from the preceding statement what was intended. again, if that statement didn't exist, you'd have more of a chance.
you could get lucky and get a shithead judge, though. the world could also explode and render the contract invalid, lol.
>>320758978
its ALL ABOUT implications, baby. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDexcept theres an entire amendment system literally designed so that it can be, based on majority vote
>>320749124
>Uh no, emulators themselves are not illegal.
No one said they were.
>>320748587
>Bubsy Two-Fur runs on an emulator used by our developer Piko Interactive under direct license from the emulator's original developers. Yes, it's legal!
>Super illegal
Which is it? Is Bubsy gonna go to jail?
>>320758808
>Wording is very important in legal documents, kid.
By that same token, it doesn't specify anything about the legal outcome of seeking permission. You're just inferring it.
>>320759149
You paid for Dosbox as well. The GPL explicitly allows selling it, without needing permission first.
>>320759221
>Once that's done you can use it for commercial purposes.
Says who? The license didn't explicitly say you would then have permission, so you don't her permission from that
>>320759363
It just says if you're a commercial user all you need to do is seek permission.
It's written there black and white clear as crystal.
>>320757857
the point is that the lead devs do not own the entire copyright. they don't possess the legal right to give permission without the consent of the other owners (whom they apparently did not consult), so whether they gave it is irrelevant.
the bubsy publisher did not even meet the minimum standard required by contract law, and their legal team should have understood that. so one can only conclude that both parties (the publisher and lead devs) are complicit in defrauding the snes9x contributors, hoping that none of them would possess the resources to conduct litigation (which is most likely the case)
>>320759234
>>320758978
also >>320759138
if you REALLY tried to use that defense against competent counsel, they would play that exact card against you. judge would probably laugh since you were trying to get away on a technicality and you got fucked over by a technicality.
>>320759458
>all you need to do
Very different from
>please seek permission
>>320759549
>should
They seek permission they are able to use it. Whether they get permission is irrelevant as it's not explicitly mentioned in the license.
Been contributing to open-source projects for years, so let me summarize the situation for the guys who can't read licences.
The copyright was never transferred and is being held by all contributing developers, to distribute it for commercial purposes they would need permission from all of them.
They clearly didn't get that permission and are violating the licence, any of the contributors who haven't already provided permission can pursue them for copyright infringement.
>>320759458
>all you need to do is seek permission
Technically it only says it's the first thing they should do, not that it's the whole process.
>>320754438
What did you just say?
>>320759614
as has been pointed out, the license doesn't say seeking permission allows you to use it, it says if you want to use it, you must seek permission. those are two very different sentences.
>>320756975
Well then the licence shouldn't say that. There's no difference between this and selling the rom and asking users to download the emulator themselves, it just saves the users a step. This is just nitpicking and doesn't really reflect the spirit of the licence which is to stop people from trying to sell free emulators to ignorant retards. Probably too trivial for the law to even bother with.
>>320759614
>>320759527
Point to where it explicitly says "If you seek permission, you can use it for commercial use"
>>320759630
There was a verbal contract between contributors with the project lead that they were able to license it out on behalf of the others.
This has all been explained already.
>>320759670
MUGI LIKES NIGGER COCK
>>320759706
The license says if you're a commercial user - ie if you're using SNES9x for commercial purposes - then all you need to have done to be able to do this is seek permission.
>>320759734
there is because they are selling the emulator
>>320759783
Except there were other contributors code in there that wasn't supposed to be, and wasn't licensed out to them.
That's the whole super illegal thing.
>>320759783
There was no such verbal contract
The contributors licensed their contributions on their own to the project leaders
The project leader is bound by the same license as everyone else
>>320759743
>>320759527 is me
dunno if you're directing that at me, but i was saying the same thing you're saying, might have been confusing with how i linked it though
>>320759882
it doesn't say all you need to do is seek permission
it says
>Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first.
it does not say that seeking permission allows you to use the software for free, it just says that's something you need to do before you can use it
in other words, it's a necessary precondition but not necessarily a sufficient precondition to using the software commercially for free
>>320759783
If you're familiar with open source projects, you'd be fully aware that there's no way they contacted every contributor to form that verbal agreement. If it isn't in writing then there's going to be at least a few in there that never consented to any transfer of copyright.
>>320760115
>Commercial users
There, it says commercial users. That means you can use it for commercial purposes. It doesn't explicitly ban commercial use.
>>320759794
Le epic meme, fellow memester! ha ha Do you go have any more? ha ha Have you every been to reddit?
>>320760219
Imagine if your contribution to the project was deleting a bit of white space. It's enough to get your name on the license.
How do you enforce that? How do you prove they didn't undo your work and have somebody else delete it?
>>320760240
can't tell if you're being serious rn or just trolling, i suspect the latter but whatever
it explicitly forbids any use except personal with the first sentence.
>>320759670
>>320760264
Now I miss K-ON.
Why did you have to post a bunch Keions?
>>320749561
lol nerd
spitting is illegal
murder is super illegal
stop being autistic
>>320760362
If something isn't copyrightable, it's not copyrightable. Removing one whitespace is not copyrightable
>>320760362
Version control has a commit log, each line can be tracked to its original author if needed.
>>320760406
Wrong, it says it's (only freeware) for (personal use).
That means it isn't freeware for commercial use, but may be used commercially if permission has been sought.
>>320760534
Perfect code isn't copyrightable as it's indistinguishable.
>>320760560
>but may be used commercially if permission has been sought.
Where is that explicitly declared? Keep in mind "please seek permission" does not mean "all you need to do it seek permission"
>>320760264
>meme
http://exhentai.org/g/654130/b592555cf2/
CANON CANON
>>320760362
Do you even know how VCS works? Shit in git with blame you can track how much each individual person contributed and exactly what they deleted/inserted/moved in each commit. It's fucking easy as shit to gauge how much each person contributes.
>>320760885
Not to mention it's not impossible to remove previous commits in git for example, just not an ideal solution.
>>320760746
It says "should seek permission first". So you can be a commercial user if you have sought permission.
It doesn't explicitly say you need permission, it only explicitly says you need to have sought it.
>>320760406
Can you read? The licence says "freeware for personal use only". That doesn't mean that snes9x has to be freeware, it means that it can only be freeware when used personally. For instance, you could have it be paid software for commercial use, but you are banned from selling it commercially as freeware. You also must charge when using it in public demonstrations or similar displays.
>>320760885
What if two contributions are identical?
It seems like a very clumsy system.
>>320761190
It doesn't say that you will have permission if you seek it.
>>320761250
that's true, you can buy the software from the devs and use it in a way they agree to
you just have to get the permission of every single person who contributed code to the project in order to do so, or only use the parts that were developed by the people you came to an agreement with (and good luck with that).
>>320761352
It already admits use by referring to commercial users.
>>320761443
it never restricts selling it, at all. It just cannot be sold as freeware, which is impossible anyway.
>>320761443
>you have to get
No, you have to seek. That's all the license says.
What's the point of all these arguments?
Illegal or not, no one is going to stop the Bubsy guys from selling the games to retards.
>>320761461
Commercial users are bound by a separate agreement, since they aren't bound by this agreement.
>>320761792
A separate agreement that doesn't exist?
>>320761607
The license does not say what happens when you seek permission.
>>320761867
Exactly, so whether it's granted or not is irrelevant to whether you can use it.
>>320761845
Yes. Commercial users are not bound by this agreement, so they must be bound by another. If no other agreement exists, there are no commercial users.
>>320762005
They are referenced in the agreement.
>>320761607
the license doesn't touch on what the terms would be if you wanted to buy the software, it's outside of the scope of it and thus is something you would have to negotiate with them individually
>>320762059
They refer to all 0 of them in that case.
>>320748587
thank you based gaben
>>320761927
As far as this agreement goes, yes. You need a separate agreement, since this one does not give permission to use it commercially
>>320762115
This is what the publisher did, and the game is on steam.
>>320761607
if you wanted to use or redistribute the software under terms not permitted by the license, copyright law says you need the express permission of the copyright holder. the license doesn't say what you need to do to obtain such a proprietary license to use the software, but it does make a suggestion: start by contacting the rights owners. that's exactly what you would need to do under existing copyright law.
>>320762339
you would need permission from the rights holders. the whole problem is that there are more than two rights holders but only two were contacted.
>>320762339
They didn't contact all of the rightsholders.
>>320762413
>need permission of the copyright holders
they did
>>320748587
Well I have to give them credit where it's due.
They're not just breaking the law.
They're super breaking it.
>>320762448
but they didn't
they contacted two of the devs of snes9x but more people than that have contributed to the project
under existing us copyright law, unless the rights holders themselves have agreed otherwise, they need permission from all rights holders to do what they did
the alternative is to only use the parts of the program that those two devs made, and good luck doing that
>>320762583
There are only two rights holders in regard to commercial use.
>>320762627
Every developer of the program the use is relevant for relicensing their part of the program
>>320762627
that's not true
each developer that contributed to the project has ownership of the code they contributed. they agreed to license it under the same terms as the rest of the software when they contributed the code. if they hadn't agreed to do that, the code wouldn't have been accepted into the project. this is how most foss projects operate.
>>320763128
They don't, they allowed the project leads to make decisions pertaining to commercial use in their absence.
>>320763250
that would have to be explicitly agreed to, which i don't see
>>320763041
Only 2 have done this.
>>320763296
It was a verbal contract agreed by the contributors.
>>320763425
if that's really the case (which >>320760054 says is untrue), then yeah, the devs would only need to contact those two people
>>320763567
It is true, hence the game being sold.
>>320753929
I didn't know spiders shed
>>320763638
they could sell the game regardless
the only difference would be whether it's legal or not
and even if it's not legal, the only people who would have standing to sue in that case would be the devs who weren't contacted. if they didn't care, there would be no issue.
>>320763638
Do you have a source for this verbal contract? The game being sold is irrelevant, they could be doing so illegally.
>>320763874
its a verbal contract. hes implying that it was spoken, not recorded.
so the answer is, no. theres a reason they say verbal agreements are as worthless as the paper they are written on
>>320748587
fucking idiot
>>320763745
It's legal. There's really nothing to get worked up about.
The only people getting upset over this are the "free as in beer" retards that worship Stallman.
>>320748587
>GPM
>Gay Purple Man
http://pastebin.com/KsQUaSSt
>2010 era datsream will never return.
>>320764260
The license being argued over is not Stallman-approved
>>320764184
>pre-emulated
...so...what...it becomes illegal when you run it, ergo, post emulated, or...like, what does that even mean. is this like torrenting shit where torrenting and the software is legal but it only becomes illegal when you...actually combine that software with a magnet link to something illegal?
>>320759458
> doesn't know the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.
>>320764629
>can't read
>>320764184
Firstly, this is not how open source software works unless they're using a super old version.
The license snes9x is currently under entirely prohibits commercial sales, which means the original creators can NOT license it out for sale regardless.
>paying to play ROMs
Jesus people are dumb.
>>320748587
>selling a free emulator is illegal
No it isn't you fucking children.
>>320764260
There are over 50 contributors to this project. Do you really think the lead devs Skype called everyone up and said "hey gimme yo copyrights" and they all said "OK?" If they wanted to get assigned copyrights from contributors, why not make a written agreement in the repo saying that contributors agree to assign copyright to the project?
>>320764648
> Actually doesn't know the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition and remains willfully ignorant.
>>320764806
>the devs never spoke to the other contributers before this
Look at all of these children who think they know how copyright works.
It's either free or it isn't, period. The words "you agree to not sell" are about as legally binding as "you agree to not breathe".
>>320765090
>gets upset when called out and just repeats himself
>>320748587
Who the hell is paying money for a bubsy game?
>>320751129
STOP
>>320765279
I'm not going to keep arguing with you autist. Tell me when someone says "you must be 16 to get your license drivers license" Is all that is needed to get your license to show up and be 16?
>>320765801
The law isn't stated like that. Please read the thread before you continue.
>>320750198
that fucking webm jesus christ
>>320751129
I like bubsy. He had a hard life and everyone shits on him. He doesnt deserve this.
>>320765874
That text out of context doesn't give the entire view of what is sufficient to legally sell snes9x either dumbass.
>>320766174
Actually if you were able to read you'd see the license agreement says exactly that.
>>320757947
Copyright lasts 70 years after death of author, 120 years since creation, or 95 days after publication, whichever comes sooner.
So if you created something an died the next day, you have to wait 70 years before it becomes public domain.
>>320749024
>spot the consolefag.
here he is!
>>320766361
>whichever comes sooner
>years, years or 95 days
>>320766527
I meant years.
It also said published. If you created it then died, you'd still have to wait 70 years because it wasn't published.
>>320751704
>im an internet shitposter and therefore a master of trademark law
just shut the fuck up you ginormous faggot.
>>320766635
>gets btfo
>no response
Thanks.
>>320766683
>copyright
>same thing as trademarks
>>320766646
snes9x hasn't been copyrighted
>>320748587
>and thats actually super-illegal
I hate this wording. He words it in a way as if he expects us to all drop our jaws in shock and say "oh shit". Not that big of a deal or even noteworthy. More like a fun fact.
>Apparently
>actually
>actually
>super-
He's a faggot and after reading the thread it seems he's wrong. He should be hanged.
>>320760509
>spitting is illegal
>>320766893
click-b8 m8
>>320767028
Try reading the correct half this time
>>320767043
Section 14. Whoever expectorates or spits upon any public sidewalk, or upon any place used exclusively or principally by pedestrians, or, except in receptacles provided for the purpose, in or upon any part of any city or town hall, any court house or court room, any public library or museum, any church or theatre, any lecture or music hall, any mill or factory, any hall of any tenement building occupied by five or more families, any school building, any ferry boat or steamboat, any railroad car or elevated railroad car, except a smoking car, any street railway car, any railroad or railway station or waiting room, or on any track, platform or sidewalk connected therewith, and included within the limits thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars.
>20 dollarydoos
depends on the state, really. thats mas, if your wondering.
>>320765515
It's incredible what humanity will go through for some pocket change.
>>320767109
>muh gnu's not unix
>>320753929
This was repulsive not knowing what was happening. I wasn't sure if it was freaking the fuck out or if it was about to attack or what. But now watching it knowing its just shedding I feel better.
>>320755165
no he wouldn't he sounds like an obnoxious little shit.
>>320749153
I know you just saw the fedora meme on Reddit and really wanted to try it out, but you misused it here.
>>320755816
how do you see webms on your phone?
>>320768089
Not him but download VLC app, opening a webm in Safari will then give you the option to open the file in VLC. And there you can watch it.
>>320768089
i use the cover app, they play in it
>>320765989
when you put it like that, everyone here should be able to relate to Bubsy
This is illegal, you know
>>320768352
CLOVER app....sorry
>>320768396
No, it's SUPER illegal.
>>320768464
You didnt get the reference, did you?
Jesus, no wonder serious developers don't wants to deal with open-source stuff with their projects. What with all licensing issues like trying to get in contact with dead contributors or having to release your code in the name of >muh GPL along with other undesirables.
Closed-source FTW!
>>320768578
No I didn't the Super reference.
>>320768984
Its from a really bad game everyone knows about
>>320769051
>>320768578
>>320768396
>it's a meme, you dip
>>320769192
Tell me the origin, then
>>320753929
>spider molting
I need to see someone touch those leg holes.
>>320769330
the fucking shitty zelda cd-i games, memeboy
>>320748587
>breaking the law and risking lawsuits to sell fucking bubsy to a new generation
What could possibly go wrong!
>>320769520
You did it, i just thought i had to us it when i saw this thread about someone using some emulator port thingy illegaly
>>320754581
>>320754967
i sure hope this entire thread is nothing but bait
>>320749457
actually he apparently filled his tweet with random fluff which actually was not necessary to begin with which apparently "forced" him to use super illegal actually
??? He said she said they said.
Where are the citations?
>>320751337
S'up Mugi?
>>320770390
>p gud moral degradation doujin
>suddenly scat
>>320770185
It's literally hearsay.
>>320768625
MIT licenses without the noncommercial clause is a boon to closed source developers, since they won't have to lift a finger and get work for free
>>320770560
It was only the corner of a page.
actually this is a pretty good point but actually using the word "actually" when the sentence is actually just fine without it, is actually really annoying and actually makes you look like an actual asshole
>>320755725
Post pics of him.
>>320767686
>The unknown fears man
>>320749718
>devs dont port anymore
if you call this porting, literally nothing would be lost if devs stopped doing it
![kino_no_tabi_03[h264.vorbis][niizk].mkv_snapshot_05.57_[2015.01.18_16.45.34].png](https://i.imgur.com/qLiwq75.png "kino no tabi 03[h264.vorbis][niizk].mkv snapshot 05.57 [2015.01.18 16.45.34]")
>>320755208
>you'll never be a cute fuccboi with rich parents
>you'll never get that hormone treatment you so deserve
Why live
>>320764184
Snes9x has hundreds of contributors, to change the license to allow commercial use they'd need to hunt every single one of them down and ask for their permission to sell their code. If the contributor disagrees they'll then have fork the codebase and whiteroom rewrite his part.
>>320748772
>duckface
>this is what a console peasant looks like
>this thread
I'm glad I am not a lawyer.
>>320770185
The "main" dev in question was Lord Nightmare. The twitter thread talking about it is a mess like always, but one or two other relevant devs also mentioned not being talked to during it.
Shortly afterwards, Pico owned up and announced they were removing code they didn't have the right to use, changing their story to "human error"(the link to that part's a sticky on the game's steam forum right now.)
![maxpayne2-590x383[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZnRNOvd.jpg "maxpayne2-590x383[1]")
