5 ms·

Sounds like a good settlement to me. I don't understand what else he wants.

by st3fan 17y ago

DannoHung 17y ago
Seems a little depressing that because of Nintendo's policy regarding open source software that kids won't get to play those Freddy the Fish and other games unless someone actually goes through the effort of re-porting the engine.
SwellJoe 17y ago
As DannoHung points out, this is a crappy outcome because it means that the software simply won't be used, rather than being used in a GPL-compliant fashion. Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. This could have been a great opportunity for a whole new batch of people to come in contact with a great example of the power of Open Source software. Instead, it turned into a failed product and a situation with no good outcome, because of the prohibition of Open Source in Nintendo games (I was unaware of this prohibition; it makes me like Nintendo a lot less). This is just a failed opportunity for all parties concerned, and that's sad. I completely understand where the author is coming from. "Winning" in this case is meaningless because the winnings are not what the developers actually wanted. It's like you went into a restaurant and ordered apple pie and they brought you liver, and by way of apology, they gave it to you for free. Sure, you got the liver for free, but it sure aint apple pie.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. That's true. But the use of GPL specifically shows that they also wanted something else: to limit the behavior of those using it. Thus, you can't put the blame squarely on Nintendo. They seem to have been forced to make the prohibition on open source because of the latter's licensing terms. The article mentions that the real problem was that Atari was stuck between GPL rules and Nintendo's agreements. So if the open source community was less militant about restricting how its product can be used, things like this would be less likely.
  - SwellJoe 17y ago
    I never said that was all that folks who write Open Source software want. I didn't really see any reason to argue BSD vs. GPL in this context, but if you really want to... When a developer chooses GPL, they have multiple motives. One of those motives is to insure that everybody that ever uses the software have access to the source. Another is that they want anyone that modifies and distributes the software to be obliged to give their changes back to the community. One can desire these two things, while still wanting people to use the software. As the creators of the software the developers have the right to want all of these things. They have the right to choose this license, just like you have the right to choose a more liberal license if you don't have the same desires for your software. We develop software under the BSD license, and it has millions of users worldwide, many of whom are commercial and don't contribute changes back and don't disclose the source to their users. We're fine with that. We also have software licensed under the GPL. We have different motivations for the BSD vs. GPL projects...we'd like one to be a platform, used by as many people as possible. We'd like the other to have some additional obligations for anyone that makes changes and distributes them, because we're building a business directly on that software. In the ScummVM case, the developers clearly feel like part of their mission in life is to bring Free Software to people that may not have been exposed to it. That's a worthy mission. So, merely having a lot of users would not satisfy the mission. The only positive outcome here would have been if the code continued to be used by all those new people, and in a GPL compliant fashion. If mere use would have satisfied them, they could have simply ignored the licensing issue.

Sounds like a good settlement to me. I don't understand what else he wants.

by st3fan 17y ago

Sounds like a good settlement to me. I don't understand what else he wants.

Seems a little depressing that because of Nintendo's policy regarding open source software that kids won't get to play those Freddy the Fish and other games unless someone actually goes through the effort of re-porting the engine.

SwellJoe 17y ago

As DannoHung points out, this is a crappy outcome because it means that the software simply won't be used, rather than being used in a GPL-compliant fashion. Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. This could have been a great opportunity for a whole new batch of people to come in contact with a great example of the power of Open Source software. Instead, it turned into a failed product and a situation with no good outcome, because of the prohibition of Open Source in Nintendo games (I was unaware of this prohibition; it makes me like Nintendo a lot less). This is just a failed opportunity for all parties concerned, and that's sad. I completely understand where the author is coming from. "Winning" in this case is meaningless because the winnings are not what the developers actually wanted. It's like you went into a restaurant and ordered apple pie and they brought you liver, and by way of apology, they gave it to you for free. Sure, you got the liver for free, but it sure aint apple pie.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be used. That's true. But the use of GPL specifically shows that they also wanted something else: to limit the behavior of those using it. Thus, you can't put the blame squarely on Nintendo. They seem to have been forced to make the prohibition on open source because of the latter's licensing terms. The article mentions that the real problem was that Atari was stuck between GPL rules and Nintendo's agreements. So if the open source community was less militant about restricting how its product can be used, things like this would be less likely.
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  I never said that was all that folks who write Open Source software want. I didn't really see any reason to argue BSD vs. GPL in this context, but if you really want to... When a developer chooses GPL, they have multiple motives. One of those motives is to insure that everybody that ever uses the software have access to the source. Another is that they want anyone that modifies and distributes the software to be obliged to give their changes back to the community. One can desire these two things, while still wanting people to use the software. As the creators of the software the developers have the right to want all of these things. They have the right to choose this license, just like you have the right to choose a more liberal license if you don't have the same desires for your software. We develop software under the BSD license, and it has millions of users worldwide, many of whom are commercial and don't contribute changes back and don't disclose the source to their users. We're fine with that. We also have software licensed under the GPL. We have different motivations for the BSD vs. GPL projects...we'd like one to be a platform, used by as many people as possible. We'd like the other to have some additional obligations for anyone that makes changes and distributes them, because we're building a business directly on that software. In the ScummVM case, the developers clearly feel like part of their mission in life is to bring Free Software to people that may not have been exposed to it. That's a worthy mission. So, merely having a lot of users would not satisfy the mission. The only positive outcome here would have been if the code continued to be used by all those new people, and in a GPL compliant fashion. If mere use would have satisfied them, they could have simply ignored the licensing issue.