×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Yanks Several Emulators From App Store

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the quietly-humming-the-dragnet-theme dept.

Android 190

PC Magazine reports that the "-oid" family of emulators from developer Yong Zhang (better known as yongzh) has been pulled from Google's Android Market. These include Nesoid, Snesoid, and Gameboid. From the article: "So what got Zhang the boot? Or, rather, who? Neither Zhang nor Google have commented on the primary source of the complaints against the developer's emulator apps. While most speculate that one of the Big Three are behind the purge–Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft–there's also speculation that Zhang allegedly violated the open source licenses for projects that parts of his programs were derived from." A piece at Android Police has further mention and some more background on the legal position of emulator software.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

190 comments

He violated the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282694)

That's what got him pulled.

Re:He violated the GPL (-1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282732)

I have a bridge in Florida to sell to anyone who believes that.

Re:He violated the GPL (5, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282838)

Snesoid at least was based on snes9x which strictly says you can't make money from it and he did. That's a clear violation which, if I were the author of Snes9x I'd be pissed.

Re:He violated the GPL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283002)

Please, tell me where in the GPL it says you can't make money from it.

Oh, wait... You can't, because it doesn't...

Re:He violated the GPL (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283064)

Snes9x is not GPL.

Re:He violated the GPL (3, Informative)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283402)

Maybe so, but it's not like "yongzh" distributed the source code of his emulators, which _is_ required by the work derived from GPL. That said, while SNES9X doesn't use GPL, it does forbid commercial use of its source code.

sleezeball (5, Informative)

deisama (1745478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282696)

I don't care what you're position is on emulators or Google. This guy tried to make money off of other people's work, his emulators were just based off of open source projects like snes9x. And he actually had the gall to try and play the sympathy card about how he's lost his primary source of income. You mean he might actually have to work, or come up with something original to earn money? How sad.

He deserved to get pulled.

Re:sleezeball (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282742)

Is there a reason why his actions were worse than say Red Hat? Did he not release chances to the code? Not give proper credit?

Re:sleezeball (5, Informative)

WarpedCore (1255156) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282762)

SNES9x is a non-commercial license. Even if he released the source, he can't sell it for money, like he's been doing.

Re:sleezeball (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283624)

He can sell his packaging and related services.

Re:sleezeball (5, Informative)

FrangoAssado (561740) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283840)

Not without explicit permission from the autors; Snes9x license explicitly forbids it:

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. [my emphasis]

Re:sleezeball (3)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283876)

True. Since we're just yelling out things he can do: he can also fork over his profits made from others work. His packaging and related services are not what are at fault. I've attached the license.txt here with emphasis added:

Snes9x homepage: http://www.snes9x.com/ [snes9x.com]

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event shall the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x.

The copyright holders request that bug fixes and improvements to the code should be forwarded to them so everyone can benefit from the modifications in future versions.

Super NES and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are trademarks of Nintendo Co., Limited and its subsidiary companies.

Re:sleezeball (3, Informative)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282978)

Redhat doesn't charge for the software. They charge for the services and hardware they provide surrounding the software.

Re:sleezeball (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283012)

RedHat has contributed so much critical code that it's not even remotely comparable.

On a side note, it's always amusing to see RedHat and Novell get shit on constantly on this site. They've contributed so much critical code that Linux would almost definitely be completely irrelevant if it weren't for them. Perennial Slashdot favorites Debian and Ubuntu don't contribute nearly as much, and in terms of contributions to core infrastructure projects (Linux kernel, Xorg, Alsa, Gnome, Firefox etc.) Debian and Ubuntu developers are barely even a blip on the radar.

Re:sleezeball (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283132)

After Unity, I think Ubuntu is no longer anyone's favorite.

Re:sleezeball (0, Flamebait)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282810)

The position is that 1.) emulators are LEGAL, and 2.) by definition they are based on someone else's work. His certainly aren't the first, and the won't be the last. You need to take a nice long shit to expel whatever climbed up your ass and died.

Now if there's a GPL licensing issue that's something of another story. But that has nothing to do with your retarded imbecilic tirade.

Re:sleezeball (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282910)

Except that this seems to be something akin to a GPL licensing issue. The emulator is, apparently, ripped of another emulator (that does provide source code; with a non-commerical reuse license.)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/hmwj7/android_markets_most_popular_emulators_disappear/

So, no, the software doesn't seem to be pulled because it was an emulator; but that it was a simple copyright violation in its own right. Not sure what the truth of the matter is; merely that there's good evidence it's not a simple 'DMCA takedown by $BIG_CORPORATION of all emulators'.

Re:sleezeball (4, Interesting)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282998)

Not to mention that I just checked, and the REAL SNES9x is still on the marketplace. This is clearly a license violation.

Re:sleezeball (1, Insightful)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282960)

2.) is the comment of an imbecile. An emulator is not based on an existing system. By definition they are a layer between one system and another. This is not even close to being "based" on someone else's work. The code he used came from open source projects that were licensed under the GPL and the op says this clearly enough. Using this code is using other people's work. This is the nature of open source of course and there is nothing wrong with using this code. The sleezy part of it all is trying to sell it.

Re:sleezeball (2)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283232)

The GPL says nothing about not being able to charge money to distribute GPL licensed software. The GPL actually specifically permits this. The problem is that the software in question is according to other posters, *not* GPL, but rather some other license that prohibits selling it.

Re:sleezeball (1)

whoop (194) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283364)

His emulators have been around for at least the 18 months I've had an Android device. So I'm sure he's content with what money he made in that time. Last time I looked, a few months back, he had sold a few thousand of the paid versions (ad free).

There are still a couple paid SNES emulators listed on the market. I'm sure if it were Nintendo, they'd kill all of those and the associated apps (ROM fetchers, soundboards, ringtones, etc).

Re:sleezeball (-1, Flamebait)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283650)

Hey wanker, this guy is right, it's totally to do with the GPL license, people have been complaining about this for a long time, so it looks like the only imbecile is you.

Re:sleezeball (0)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283694)

Reading comprehension fail. I already said if it's a GPL issue that's something different. The OP was ranting about he is using someone else's work in his emulator which I pointed out is both legal and the definition of an emulator.

Re:sleezeball (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282818)

So what you're saying is that OSS is a poisoned chalice that anyone who wants to make money or a career for themselves in software development shouldn't touch with a 12 foot barge pole?

No, I didn't think so.

You seem to think that commercial interest and OSS are exclusive to one another. Where do the major OSS licences forbid you making money?

In this case, if he was using code released specifically under a non-commercial licence then clearly it would explain why his software has been pulled, but your rant smacks of a much broader chip on your shoulder that you think it's immoral to sell OSS software for money, or otherwise generate income from OSS software.

Re:sleezeball (4, Insightful)

DMiax (915735) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282858)

reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.

Re:sleezeball (1)

Jahava (946858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282994)

reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.

Not to be pedantic, but it's still OSS (Open-source Software) ... just not FOSS (Free Open-source Software).

Re:sleezeball (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283102)

FOSS isn't "Free Open-source Software", it's "Free and Open-source Software" (as in, the Free Software as defined by the FSF plus the Open Source software as defined by the OSI).

And according to the Open Source Definition,

. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

So, no, it's not OSS.

Re:sleezeball (5, Insightful)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283128)

The licence of snes9x

Snes9x homepage: http://www.snes9x.com/ [snes9x.com]

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event shall the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only. Commercial users should seek permission of the copyright holders first. Commercial use includes charging money for Snes9x or software derived from Snes9x.

The copyright holders request that bug fixes and improvements to the code should be forwarded to them so everyone can benefit from the modifications in future versions.

Super NES and Super Nintendo Entertainment System are trademarks of Nintendo Co., Limited and its subsidiary companies.

Those two licences don't apply here.

Re:sleezeball (-1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283146)

What two licenses? "Free Software" and "Open Source" are not licenses, they're definition that might apply to licenses.

And what I'm saying is that the Snes9x license is neither Free Software nor Open Source (OSS).

Re:sleezeball (-1)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283156)

Those "definitions" of what OSS is then. They don't apply here at all. They're only those organizations ideal definitions of what OSS should be.

snes9x explicitly declares how the source they release can be used. The FSF has no jurisdiction on the matter

Re:sleezeball (-1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283198)

The accepted definition of Open Source is the one published by the OSI. Using any other is just trying to fool people.

Re:sleezeball (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283026)

I think the most immediate thing that goes through many, essentially non-programmers' minds is the idea that;

"If I release all of the source code to my application, what is to stop somebody else from forking my project, replacing any copyrighted assets with free ones, and distributing a compiled binary to consumers as a competing, free product?"

If someone could concisely explain why this fear is unfounded in a few sentences, this could become something that people quote to back up FOSS in arguments such as these. Anyone?

Re:sleezeball (0)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283046)

From the licence file of snes9x.

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work.

Why are you being modded insightful? This is clearly a non-commercial licence issue and he never said anything about OSS being a "poisoned chalice". Nobody ever said anything close to "it's immoral to make money off OSS software" and I suspect nobody will since its a position that can quickly be eroded. Since we're talking about it though, taking clearly licensed for non commercial use code and selling it directly in a market without any kind of consideration to the licence, is very immoral. There is absolutely no insight provided in your comment. Only FUD.

Re:sleezeball (1)

deisama (1745478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283558)

Its not that I have a problem with selling OSS software. My issue is with someone who is not actively involved in a project profitting off the work of those who are.

The way I see it is, Team A puts a lot of effort and pride into something they want to share with everyone. For whatever reason, Team A decides not to sell it or try to make money, they instead decide to let other people have it so that they can enjoy it too.
Person B comes in, recompiles project and than sell its to other people. And Team A doesn't get any of that money, or benefit in anyway from them doing so.

Person B==Sleezeball.

But I don't know, maybe I am to biased on this. I wrote a plugin for Notepad++ that lets you compare files, and all I can think about it is how shitty I'd feel if someone took my source recompiled it as Compare++ and started trying to charge people money for it. Even if whatever license I put it under allows such things, I still think its disrespectful.

Re:sleezeball (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283316)

But its a highly useful app to have, immediately giving buyers access to a lot of old games. Perphaps thats the problem, without the new platform, needing new applications and new games, development dries ups. Originality is hard to find in the modern world, as are places to be original. But conversions, and translations are just as much useful work. I don't see how you can label a programming a sleezeball just for translating from open source projects. One thing open source was definitely not created for was to close off similar development. I'd agree literal, line for line coping of someone else work and selling it as your own is illegal. But you can't call 'based off some other work' sleeze, unless you want every person have start from caveman level.

---

Programming Legality [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:sleezeball (1)

deisama (1745478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283670)

Yeah, I think "based off of some other work" is to weak of a statement. It's more like "blantantly ripping someone else's work off"

I agree with you on principle. We grow by building off of what others have done. Its the fundamental principle that lets us keep moving forward.

But this guy expressly ignored the original creator's wishes by trying to sell it even when they said it's not allowed. And to make matters worse, it seems that the original creates DID make a android port. So not only did he practically steal their work, he used to to compete with their own product.

Re:sleezeball (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283638)

People have been bitching about this for ages, then finally when his scams get pulled, oh suddenly it's google siding up with the big corporations, give me break, ugh..

A very large percentage of Android Market Apps ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283906)

... are products stolen from other. How do you think the 20% of the apps ended up being trojans.

That is a dirty fact that Google tried to hide for years and is apparently finally trying to take care of it.

Meh... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282752)

I mean, is this really anything more than a minor hiccup? It's pretty easy to install apps around the App Store. It's not like iOS (yet)... There's a ton of free emu's out there for Android. Pick a substitute and game on.

Re:Meh... (-1, Troll)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283820)

I mean, is this really anything more than a minor hiccup? It's pretty easy to install apps around the App Store. It's not like iOS (yet)... There's a ton of free emu's out there for Android. Pick a substitute and game on.

Its ridiculous... Apple is hated so much that even though Android Market is also known everywhere as Android Market were gonna call it App Store anyway, even though minor confusion will occur (Since when can Android users access the App Store? Can iPhones access Android Market, too?) just because it pisses Apple off. And yet... if Apple is so hated, why are the haters so eager to try and be like Apple and decide to call their proprietary package management system "App Store," too? Excuse me while I update my sources for my ubuntu app store, do some version checking with my red hat app store, and my NetBSD app store (remember pkgsrc? must be an app store, too, right?)... oh, and I better check my Windows 7 Android Market for security updates from Microsoft (does it work all ways? Can we just start using proper names for package managers interchangeably???).

Snesoid was based on Snes9X (5, Informative)

byuu (1455609) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282790)

Which has a strict non-commercial license. The developers do not want their work being sold for profit.
So in that instance this has nothing to do with the GPL. Not sure about the other two.
Personally, I'm happy to see this one pulled.

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X (4, Informative)

Aug Leopold (1218486) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283032)

Looks like nesoid is based on FCE Ultra (GNU GPL) and gameboid was based on gpSP (GNU GPL).

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X (5, Informative)

Exophase (2212738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36284058)

yongzh has received a relicense for gpSP by me, the sole copyright holder of the source he forked off of (he isn't using any code from any of the other forks). So Gameboid isn't violating any license agreements. It getting pulled is either at Google's discretion due to complaints against the owner in general or, more likely, Nintendo pressuring him. Remember, Google makes money off of his sales too. I doubt they'd remove emulators that didn't directly correlate to any particular person's specific complaint (nor would they take a complaint from some random non-copyright holder seriously). Nintendo, on the other hand..

Re:Snesoid was based on Snes9X (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 2 years ago | (#36284132)

But what claim does Nintendo have in this case? An emulator doesn't violate Nintendo's right to copy, and the patent for emulation on mobile devices by Nintendo wouldn't be applicable to Google since Google is only distributing software. yongzh might be on the hook for patent infringement, but I dont see how he's violating Nintendo's copyrights nor trademarks.

Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled (4, Insightful)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282820)

"While most speculate that one of the Big Three are behind the purge–Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft"

Why even speculate which of the Big Three it was? The emulators were for:
  - Nintendo SNES
  - Nintendo Gameboy
  - Nintendo NES
  - Nintendo N64

Call me crazy, but if it wasn't pulled because of licensing issues, shouldn't it be obvious who would of had the beef with this guy?

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282840)

Clearly Sony had a problem with people having fun while playing video games. Even if it's a competitor's game, it violates their TOS. They are demanding the credit card #s of anyone who purchased the apps for...safekeeping.

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282980)

Why even speculate which of the Big Three it was? The emulators were for:
    - Nintendo SNES
    - Nintendo Gameboy
    - Nintendo NES
    - Nintendo N64

You forgot a few:
  -Atari 2600
  -Sega Genesis
  -Sega Mastersystem/Gamegear

Re:Somewhat Obvious Who Had It Pulled (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283734)

Is that because the Sony and Microsoft game systems don't have enough decent games to make emulation worthwhile? ;)

"App Store"? (-1, Troll)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282848)

This is why apple is trying to trademark "app store". I thought the story had something to do with where I get my iPhone apps.

Way to go apple (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282906)

Thats why i am staying away from evil and sticking to android.

Re:Way to go apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282958)

reading comprehension fail

Re:Way to go apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283096)

Humor comprehension fail.

Re:Way to go apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283120)

Maybe it wasn't funny.

Re:Way to go apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283494)

~whooooosh~

Re:Way to go apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283240)

If only one could somehow install apps on Android not through the app-store...

The Robot Revolution is coming (2)

zanian (1621285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36282934)

A piece at Android Police has further mention and some more background on the legal position of emulator software.

android snes emulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282936)

as far as snes is concerned "snes9x ex" is far superior to snesoid

Well, maybe a small wall around the garden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282974)

Boy, good thing nobody's telling you what you can install on your Android.

Re:Well, maybe a small wall around the garden (2)

mjtaylor24601 (820998) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283136)

Yes it's such a shame you can only install apps that come from the Android Market.....oh wait

Don't care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36282988)

The author has a chinese name, I have no pity on him.

Emulators are only used to play pirated games, despite what the non-existant homebrew crew says.

Re:Don't care (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283022)

Your blatant racism aside, despite what our bastardized copyright laws say I don't see anything wrong with playing a 10-30 year old console game in an emulator, even if *gasp* you didn't buy it. Even more so if it's a game that's currently not available for a modern platform.

And what if I actually *DO* own the games I play in an emulator? Then it's absolutely positively 100% LEGAL.

Re:Don't care (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36284000)

Only if you dump them.

But really, no one's going to track you down because you downloaded a copy of Zoop! for the Genesis.

Re:Don't care (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283038)

Read the article. It references some very useful information including the fact that there are most certainly legal exceptions to these "obsolete" games out there.

Re:Don't care (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283142)

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

Re:Don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283276)

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

No it isn't.

Re:Don't care (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283746)

Yes, it is. All these people are out there 'stealing roms' yet Nintendo's Virtual Console, for example, is quite successful.

Citation.

Needed.

Re:Don't care (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283748)

Emulators are only used to play pirated games

Citation needed.

echo "Emulators are only used to play pirated games"| sed -e s,only,mainly,

That should have fixed it. :)

Re:Don't care (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283774)

A year ago I would have beleived that, but we're not seeing the death of a bunch of ROM sites or a dip in the value of used games. It is easy to believe that emulators are all about 'free games', but darned if anybody could actually prove any effect of it.

I am starting to think that most emulation enthusiasts are people re-living the nostalgia of games they've already paid for.

Very interesting information (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283010)

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 FR 68472-01"

I realize this exception is being stated for video games and computer programs, but it rather reminds me of Disney's Dong of the South in laser disc format.

Re:Very interesting information (1)

BancBoy (578080) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283304)

" it rather reminds me of Disney's Dong of the South in laser disc format.

Thanks for that!

Re:Very interesting information (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283336)

[...] formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware [...] shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace

Interesting, but this doesn't apply to the current discussion. The emulators in question were for Nintendo Gamecube (with which the Wii is backwards compatible), Nintendo Gameboy (with which the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible), NES and SNES (for which Nintendo offer emulation on the Wii), so there is no requirement for original hardware in this case.

Re:Very interesting information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283410)

NES and SNES would fall under that exemption. Unless one can insert the original cartridge into the Wii and play it, it's an obsolete format. Simply allowing me to re-purchase the same game for a new system does not let it avoid that clause. Now if Nintendo offered the emulated games for free provided one had the original cartridge then MAYBE it would, but they do not. Also all that only has to do with the DMCA which covers technical copy protection mechanisms, not emulation. Granted they are slightly entwined these days.

GBA is discontinued (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283422)

Nintendo Gameboy (with which the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible)

The Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Advance SP, and Game Boy Player are all discontinued. Nintendo no longer makes hardware capable of playing Game Boy Game Paks.

NES and SNES (for which Nintendo offer emulation on the Wii)

Except for those games that haven't yet been republished on Virtual Console. Let me know when Earthbound is available.

Re:Very interesting information (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283502)

What? A gamecube emulator on a phone? I knew the hardware was underpowered, but damn!

Re:Very interesting information (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283472)

In this notice, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announces that during the period from the time of this notice through October 27, 2009....

[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)][Rules and Regulations][Page 68472-68480] [copyright.gov]

Expired?

How did the LOC define a library or an archive?

The general impression I have is that this was an academic/istitutional excemption.

The LOC on this same ruling rejected circumvention of CSS to allow DVD play under Linux. Rejected circumvention to play region-encoded DVDs.

There were licensed DVD players for the Linux OS. There were many inexpensive ways to play DVDs from other regions and many still legitimate reasons for region encoding.

The burden is always on the one demanding an excemption.

And of course you can sideload the apk ... (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283108)

... so yeah, not really comparable. Even if Google Market had rules as strict as the iTunes store, it would still be fine with me because the user ultimately has control over what is installed. Google is free to provide a "protected space" (whether or not it's a good idea is a different story) if they want to -- users that want to install other apps are free to do so.

Even AT&T, who used to restrict sideloaded apps, have said they will remove the restrictions via firmware updates. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/05/att-sideload-android-amazon/ [wired.com] -- those of us on SPCS/VZ/TM never had the restriction to being with.

So this is a story about what? Google having a market that they control? We knew that.

The author ripped off other people's projects (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283118)

He took open source emulators, made ports, and charged for the ports. That's wrong and he's a charlatan and a cheat.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283170)

The author took the time to port multiple OS emulators for the benefit of thousands of people who would never had access to them on their smartphones and charged a few bucks for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283292)

I stole your car but used it to deliver pizzas to hundreds of people, and charged a few bucks for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283330)

Then he should have released the source code and complied with the license, and everyone would have been happy.

How happy do you think were the people he ripped off the code from? How encouraged to continue developing that emulator? Even in the scene you don't sell releases. This guy was a scumbag.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283524)

The author took the time to port multiple OS emulators for the benefit of thousands of people who would never had access to them on their smartphones, charged a few bucks, and closed the source code illegally for the trouble.

Just playing devil's advocate.

FTFY

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283250)

Uh, that's expressly permitted by the GPL (though not the SNES9X license, apparently). If you release software that says "you can feel free to make money off this", and I make money off it, how have I done anything wrong?

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283406)

If you release software that says "you can feel free to make money off this", and I make money off it, how have I done anything wrong?

Two of the emulators that people port to everything under the sun (VisualBoyAdvance and FCEUX) are GPL. In this case, if you fail to pass on the copylefted source code, then you've done something wrong. And if you do pass it on, you haven't done anything wrong, but anybody else will have the right to rebuild it to APK and submit it as a free app to Amazon, AppsLIb, and SlideME.

Re:The author ripped off other people's projects (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283528)

not to mention that the snes emulator specifically prohibited charging for redistributions.

no supposedly about it (1)

godsfilth (999026) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283274)

He sold gpl apps without attributing the original authors, though afaik not a breach of the gpl still a dick thing to do, when asked for source by paying customers (me included) , if he answered at all, he said he had no need to show the source. I have also seen people talking about his ports of snes9x, which he called snesoid and i believe his genesis emulator, gensoid, being ports of applications released under a no commerce license and he sold those as well, and again without attribution to the original author, i have yet to confirm anything on those.

Walled Garden (1, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283294)

And once again Apple's knee-jerk restrictionist, bizarre App Store(tm) policy comes around to bite ANOTHER innocent developer who most definitely wasn't engaged in any unethical behaviour at all.

Shame on you, Apple. Shame on you. This is a prime example of why everyone should buy Android devices, because the bits just want to be free, man. Open your mind! ...

Internet dickery aside, seriously, these apps deserved to be pulled for a number of reasons and Google did the right thing. But people should be under no illusions... speaking as a huge Google fanboy here (who uses an iPhone 4, lol, go figure) just because it's Google instead of Apple who control the gates of the garden doesn't mean the walls still aren't there... they just protect against different things and have different interests at heart.

Re:Walled Garden (0)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283376)

fanboyism aside

Fixed that for you. Banning an app from one store is not equivalent to banning it from a device (and no, jailbreaking and sideloading are not equivalent).

Emulators are legal (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283296)

Just ask people like VMware, or Microsoft or sun.. ( oracle ).

What you do WITH the emulator may or may not be, but why is that a valid reason to pull something? Most anything can be used in a nefarious way, even bricks..

I don't see what this man did wrong. (0)

dopefish7590 (1286472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283492)

This guy had ported emulators, and allowed you to get them on your phone for free. He wanted to get money from this of course, so he also released a payed version with a little bit of extra functionality as incentive. Emulators are fully legal, the only thing that may be illegal is what you do with them. The emulators that were ported were free too. SNES9x had a non-commercial license attached to it, but in the end, he allowed you to use it for free. The payed version was little more than a "service fee" if you will. I am sad to see his work pulled, and if this could be resolved in any way, I would be all for it.

Re:I don't see what this man did wrong. (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283548)

I'll try to explain using smallish words. He took other peoples emulators, ported then to Android, and charged money. These other peoples emulators had licenses on them that either required he make the source code for his changes available (which he did not do) or forbade charging money (which he did). It has nothing to do with emulators being OK or not. It has to do with copy write and what he was and was not allowed to do with other peoples code.

Not Just Zhang (1)

ForgedArtificer (1777038) | more than 2 years ago | (#36283540)

This has nothing to do with Zhang. ZodTTD also had his account suspended and all of his apps removed, which included numerous emulators such as PSX4Droid.

My money is on Nintendo for this. They already went on a witch hunt recently against any app involving Pokemon getting many of the best removed.

Is it just me, or is the big N getting just a little crazier than usual lately, when you add to all of this the 3DS TOS issues?

Good. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283544)

Stealing open source code and then selling it without providing said code and in fact downright refusing to do so is a douche thing to do and explicitly forbidden in the license to said code. I'm glad they removed it, regardless of the reasoning (though I certainly hope that is what it was)

hfghgf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36283728)

there is much that only assumption is only .
http://play-makeover-games-online.coolgames.im/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...