6 ms·

Did this ever get resolved? It seems like the latest comment is from November of last year?

Shadonototra 5y ago
I doubt they care, they ship their installer with adware It's a nice software, but the people behind it are shady
traspler 5y ago
There is a longer/older issue with more recent comments here: https://github.com/cheat-engine/cheat-engine/issues/60 https://github.com/cheat-engine/cheat-engine/issues/60
cwkoss 5y ago
I wonder how it would play out legally for someone to fork and relicense the codebase as GPL. Could cheat engine successfully sue to take down the new repository?
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  Yes! See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084383
- bombcar 5y ago
  Yes, just because someone violates the GPL doesn't give you rights to their code; it's just that the easiest way to unviolate is to release everything as GPL.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisfinazzo 5y ago
    Although Stallman argues otherwise, the nature of the GPL is really incompatible with how business is done in the real world. If the GPL requires you to release source code, but the reason for your success is that you've found a clever way to do something that no one has thought of yet, doesn't that really put a damper on what people will try doing - because the invention is no longer yours and must be shared?
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      I'm confused by this comment: Although Stallman argues otherwise, the nature of the GPL is really incompatible with how business is done in the real world. Red Hat deals heavily in GPL'd code that it writes and maintains. It is a major contributor to many, many GPL'd open source projects. Even where it cannot get patches accepted upstream, they maintain many year, massive patch sets to satisfy needs of corporate clients. How do you explain their success? The same is true, to a lesser extent, for SuSE, which has a major economic footprint in corporate Germany (and Austria and Switzerland). And how about The Qt Company or MySQL / MariaDB?
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        > How do you explain their success? Red Hat is a rare outlier. The vast majority of business related software is not GPL, and cannot be.
        lostcolony 5y ago
        Certainly consumer oriented stuff. The thing notable about every company I've seen relying on GPL code is that what they sell are services/support. People pay Red Hat to be able to email someone when they have a problem. That's it. That's the business mode. Same with MariaDB (MySQL is a little unique in that it was purchased by Oracle, and I can't speak to Qt having no familiarity with it). That works for B2B positioning, since the cost of support staff scales well when each new customer is worth thousands of dollars in revenue...and doesn't work well for B2C where the cost of support staff won't scale well when each new customer is worth a few bucks.
      - chrisfinazzo 5y ago
        The distinction I would make is between companies who are in the business of developing software and people who use software to help them do a thing. Red Hat, Qt, and the rest give the core stuff they build away but make people pay for more complicated services and support. For them, that's reasonable and it works. Now, if you're Goldman Sachs and somebody gets a hold of the code that runs your trading platform (which surely includes some open-source components) and tries to use it as the basis of their work at another company, that's a problem. They're not in the business of selling software and paid people to develop something that supports the parts of the business that people can actually see. Allowing anyone to use that code simply based on policy gets problematic real fast.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov Just because some parts are open shouldn't mean everything must be and you can use it without repercussions. IANAL, but this is the basic reason why copyright exists, to make sure people can get paid for their work.
Rexxar 5y ago
There is nothing to resolve apparently. Someone claiming there is a license violation doesn't mean there is a license violation. Even if it's true, it just seems to be mislabelled headers and code in tcc and that have been cleaned up in next versions of tcc so just updating the dependency resolve the problem.
jjri 5y ago
Check now

I doubt they care, they ship their installer with adware It's a nice software, but the people behind it are shady

There is a longer/older issue with more recent comments here: https://github.com/cheat-engine/cheat-engine/issues/60 https://github.com/cheat-engine/cheat-engine/issues/60

cwkoss 5y ago

I wonder how it would play out legally for someone to fork and relicense the codebase as GPL. Could cheat engine successfully sue to take down the new repository?

legalcorrection 5y ago
Yes! See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084383
bombcar 5y ago
Yes, just because someone violates the GPL doesn't give you rights to their code; it's just that the easiest way to unviolate is to release everything as GPL.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisfinazzo 5y ago
  Although Stallman argues otherwise, the nature of the GPL is really incompatible with how business is done in the real world. If the GPL requires you to release source code, but the reason for your success is that you've found a clever way to do something that no one has thought of yet, doesn't that really put a damper on what people will try doing - because the invention is no longer yours and must be shared?
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    I'm confused by this comment: Although Stallman argues otherwise, the nature of the GPL is really incompatible with how business is done in the real world. Red Hat deals heavily in GPL'd code that it writes and maintains. It is a major contributor to many, many GPL'd open source projects. Even where it cannot get patches accepted upstream, they maintain many year, massive patch sets to satisfy needs of corporate clients. How do you explain their success? The same is true, to a lesser extent, for SuSE, which has a major economic footprint in corporate Germany (and Austria and Switzerland). And how about The Qt Company or MySQL / MariaDB?
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      > How do you explain their success? Red Hat is a rare outlier. The vast majority of business related software is not GPL, and cannot be.
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        Certainly consumer oriented stuff. The thing notable about every company I've seen relying on GPL code is that what they sell are services/support. People pay Red Hat to be able to email someone when they have a problem. That's it. That's the business mode. Same with MariaDB (MySQL is a little unique in that it was purchased by Oracle, and I can't speak to Qt having no familiarity with it). That works for B2B positioning, since the cost of support staff scales well when each new customer is worth thousands of dollars in revenue...and doesn't work well for B2C where the cost of support staff won't scale well when each new customer is worth a few bucks.
    - chrisfinazzo 5y ago
      The distinction I would make is between companies who are in the business of developing software and people who use software to help them do a thing. Red Hat, Qt, and the rest give the core stuff they build away but make people pay for more complicated services and support. For them, that's reasonable and it works. Now, if you're Goldman Sachs and somebody gets a hold of the code that runs your trading platform (which surely includes some open-source components) and tries to use it as the basis of their work at another company, that's a problem. They're not in the business of selling software and paid people to develop something that supports the parts of the business that people can actually see. Allowing anyone to use that code simply based on policy gets problematic real fast.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov Just because some parts are open shouldn't mean everything must be and you can use it without repercussions. IANAL, but this is the basic reason why copyright exists, to make sure people can get paid for their work.

Rexxar 5y ago

There is nothing to resolve apparently. Someone claiming there is a license violation doesn't mean there is a license violation. Even if it's true, it just seems to be mislabelled headers and code in tcc and that have been cleaned up in next versions of tcc so just updating the dependency resolve the problem.

jjri 5y ago

Check now