yongzh apps pulled

[Medion]

Why would these open source devs feel tthat robbing us of that benefit is good?

They don't. Their code was essentially stolen. Their work was licensed for non-commercial use only. The terms were that you can use their code to make emulators anywhere, but the product has to be free. Yongzh did the following;

-used the code for commercial gain
-did not credit ANY of the authors for the code that he used

That's absolutely theft. He deserved to have it yanked, and he needs to give refunds to those who purchased the app. It was illegal for him to sell these apps as per the software licensing agreements related to their code.

 

[MJM128]

No one has confirmed if that is in fact true. Though the Sega emulators were confirmed pulled by the request of Sega.

Secondly don't these development realize they are hurting users of android by doing this? U request open source work to be pulled because the dev wont share changes in the code but you are not even concerned with porting your work else where? In effect saying play this on a PC it else I hate you!

In either case I think it is more likely Nintendo complained given that Sega previously had and it worked. What pisses me off is we may lose future emulator development for other consoles.

Then get your own DAMN code. If developers don't want to use the code under the licences that it was released. Then don't STEAL the code. It's that simple. The original developers could've kept the code closed, but they believed that keeping it open would allow people to edit, improve upon, and keep it alive. The developer that ported it to android, stopped that mentality, and tried to make a quick buck (well more like a quick million dollars on stolen work).

What pisses me off is that you don't understand how wrong this developer is.

 

[Trev186]

Then get your own DAMN code. If developers don't want to use the code under the licences that it was released. Then don't STEAL the code. It's that simple. The original developers could've kept the code closed, but they believed that keeping it open would allow people to edit, improve upon, and keep it alive. The developer that ported it to android, stopped that mentality, and tried to make a quick buck (well more like a quick million dollars on stolen work).

What pisses me off is that you don't understand how wrong this developer is.

As long as someone ports the emulators I could care less about your code that your not using to make money any how. It is better to have some emulators then none at all.

It is not like the code is cut and pasted the dev has done a lot to improve it and I don't mind paying a small amount of money for it. Unless the dev comes and ports the work himself I can care less

 

[Yeahha]

It isn't a matter of what the end user cares, you want a working emulator and you are willing to pay for it woop te do. It is a matter of who owns the original source code. If he takes an open source product that is specifically made with the purpose of being non-commercial and licensed that way it is illegal for him to sell it regardlessof modifications. The end user is giving him money for someone else's work. Both he and Google have a lot of ill gains because of this. Other emulators are in the same boat, FPSE stands for Free PlayStation Emulator yet android users are paying for it I would think it will be removed soon as well.

It is rarely a matter of what the end user thinks or else we would all still be using p2p networks. If you truly don't care who gets the money for items you purchase next time you use Amazon calculate an extra 10% in there and send it to me, not because I have worked on whatever you are buying but because I spent the time to write this.

 

[MJM128]

As long as someone ports the emulators I could care less about your code that your not using to make money any how.

Well that's just sad. Regardless, he's a thief, and his apps being removed i'm fully in support of. There's PLENTY of other emulators out there on the market.

 

[Trev186]

It isn't a matter of what the end user cares, you want a working emulator and you are willing to pay for it woop te do. It is a matter of who owns the original source code. If he takes an open source product that is specifically made with the purpose of being non-commercial and licensed that way it is illegal for him to sell it regardlessof modifications. The end user is giving him money for someone else's work. Both he and Google have a lot of ill gains because of this. Other emulators are in the same boat, FPSE stands for Free PlayStation Emulator yet android users are paying for it I would think it will be removed soon as well.

It is rarely a matter of what the end user thinks or else we would all still be using p2p networks. If you truly don't care who gets the money for items you purchase next time you use Amazon calculate an extra 10% in there and send it to me, not because I have worked on whatever you are buying but because I spent the time to write this.

That's the problem. These guys go open source. Offer no support for porting the projects but then try and dictate how everything goes. I would be more sypmpathetic if these guys would stop abandoning their projects and continue porting them and supporting them. Instead you just cry foul. If they were so concerned about some one stealing the emulator source why did they open it in the first place? The dev has no chance of making money off of it either way and can prove no financial harm. Which is why the thousands of emulator users on android feel that your just trying to ruin everyone's party. I don't get it do you want these apps removed so android users can't have them at all? Or just someone to comply with the open souurce thing and not charge $2.00 for an app that gives access to 1000s of games? Cause honestly since the original dev cares little for throwing us android users a bone I have no problem giving someone a couple bucks for their effort and support regardless if they use the source code . You guys did the same type of whining about VLC on IOS when it was free because it was behind apples default DRM. Now not a single IOS user will ever have VLC on their phone. That sure was nice. You guys preach this open source crap but then basically fight any porting work whether it be paid or free.

Ironically your speaking in legal terms when the very open source emulator is also a legal grey area.

I feel this is just open source cry babies banging their drum and Nintendo and Sega are the real reason the apps were removed especially since Sony and Sega had other emulators removed earlier this year.

 

[MJM128]

You're really ignorant on what open source actually is. You can still make a profit if he wanted to, but he has to release his app open source. He can accept donations from it. The fact of the matter is, if you don't want to go by THEIR rules don't use THEIR code. Otherwise you're just a thief. Stop trying to call stealing something else.

I have no problem donating a few bucks to a dev who does a good port who also follows the rules of the original devs.

 

[Trev186]

Well that's just sad. Regardless, he's a thief, and his apps being removed i'm fully in support of. There's PLENTY of other emulators out there on the market.

Yes and you will find that many of them suck compared to yongzh or are just copies abadnoned. Which are also based off stolen source.

Yongzh has always been the first to bring us new emulators. Anyone else working on a n64 emulator? Nope the only other one on the market is some Guy who took yongzhs and relisted it under a different name.

Just help me understand why someone who makes an app who knows that the original creators of the console feel is All so theft feels that he is entitled to tell people what to do with the source once he releases it on the internet. I have no probelm with the Guy asking for a cut but why try so hard to have the thing removed with no replacement?

 

[MJM128]

If the original people didn't open source their work. You'd have no emulators then. So when this guy abandons his work, then what? Open source is to continue on the development and not have it in anyone person's possession per say. The guy has made millions off of stolen code. It's that simple. He could still make money off of it, just release the code like he's legally suppose to.

EDIT: with that I will stop replying to you. You obviously think stealing is okay as long as you get your emulators. To me, that's just not right. Code your own damn app, instead of stealing.

 

[Trev186]

If the original people didn't open source their work. You'd have no emulators then. So when this guy abandons his work, then what? Open source is to continue on the development and not have it in anyone person's possession per say. The guy has made millions off of stolen code. It's that simple. He could still make money off of it, just release the code like he's legally suppose to.

EDIT: with that I will stop replying to you. You obviously think stealing is okay as long as you get your emulators. To me, that's just not right. Code your own damn app, instead of stealing.

I agree with you mostly I'm just made cause none of these devs come even close to porting their work as fast as yongzh does nor do many if then seem interested in doing so

 

[crisiscorex]

It isn't a matter of what the end user cares, you want a working emulator and you are willing to pay for it woop te do. It is a matter of who owns the original source code. If he takes an open source product that is specifically made with the purpose of being non-commercial and licensed that way it is illegal for him to sell it regardlessof modifications. The end user is giving him money for someone else's work. Both he and Google have a lot of ill gains because of this. Other emulators are in the same boat, FPSE stands for Free PlayStation Emulator yet android users are paying for it I would think it will be removed soon as well.

It is rarely a matter of what the end user thinks or else we would all still be using p2p networks. If you truly don't care who gets the money for items you purchase next time you use Amazon calculate an extra 10% in there and send it to me, not because I have worked on whatever you are buying but because I spent the time to write this.

fpsece doesnt mean free play station emulator

it means First PlayStation Emulator for Windows CE/Android (fpsece) heres the link FPSeCe - &#169 2009

and if im not mistaken didn't the fpse team make their own code? they were around since windows mobile 6.x if im not mistaken their not violating open source code violations and can charge if they feel free to.

and as for the n64oid case i think that it wasn't cool that yongzh "stole the FREE OPEN source code" and i honestly dont think he should have sold it. but if he were to open a page for donations wouldn't he still be benefiting from the source code? many people would be grateful and donate technically that would be violating the terms. keep in mind im a complete stranger to all of these terms and violations and only making assumptions from what im currently reading i really do welcome someone correct me on anything that is incorrect. i really like yongzh's emulators and wish he releases an emulator straight from scratch to avoid all of this, but o well.

 

[MJM128]

@crisiscorex

From my understanding you can release it open source, and still get donations for your work that you put back into the app. But you have to release the app for free, and open source. Just like how linux is open source, but yet there are many people that get paid to develop for it and other open source projects.

Think of cyanogenmod. A VERY popular custom rom for android that is open source, yet you can donate to cyanogenmod for their work.

 

[ardchoille]

It isn't a matter of what the end user cares, you want a working emulator and you are willing to pay for it woop te do. It is a matter of who owns the original source code..

Thank you very much. Code licensing is something few people actually understand.

 

[Yeahha]

fpsece doesnt mean free play station emulator

it means First PlayStation Emulator for Windows CE/Android (fpsece) heres the link FPSeCe - &#169 2009

and if im not mistaken didn't the fpse team make their own code? they were around since windows mobile 6.x if im not mistaken their not violating open source code violations and can charge if they feel free to.

and as for the n64oid case i think that it wasn't cool that yongzh "stole the FREE OPEN source code" and i honestly dont think he should have sold it. but if he were to open a page for donations wouldn't he still be benefiting from the source code? many people would be grateful and donate technically that would be violating the terms. keep in mind im a complete stranger to all of these terms and violations and only making assumptions from what im currently reading i really do welcome someone correct me on anything that is incorrect. i really like yongzh's emulators and wish he releases an emulator straight from scratch to avoid all of this, but o well.

Um you didn't link to FPSE but rather FPSeCe which is something different, good luck with anagrams.

 

[crisiscorex]

thanks for clearing that up =) and like i said before and il state it again i think yongzh should do that keep it for free and then just accept donations it will be much better than selling it, and if im not mistaken he already started charging for the n64oid emulator witch isnt really fair at all. I LOVE CYANOGEN MOD their amazing ima donate as soon as i get paid though been tight on money for a few months but i love their work.

 

[crisiscorex]

Um you didn't link to FPSE but rather FPSeCe which is something different, good luck with anagrams.

well you cant really blame me i didn't bother looking at that one the only fpsece i came across was that one so no need to add the smart allick remark at the end. o well my bad for not researching well enough.

 

[Therev29]

I'm no developer or really understand open source code licensing for that matter but my interpretation:
I was under the impression that because he DID release a completely free version to the android market he was complying with the non commercial licensing with the original dev's terms. And for the paid version we were paying for Yongzh's personal work and updates on the app.
From reading the above posts, it now sounds like an all or nothing??

And as for FPSE, they do the same thing that Yongzh did, have a free version and then donate if you want save states etc.. to me thats just semantics of "donating" for the extras or "paying". also for the android version I believe that the dev Schtruck has the ok from the original dev and works with him side by side on it. (share $) could be wrong though.

 

[Slug]

I was under the impression that because he DID release a completely free version to the android market he was complying with the non commercial licensing with the original dev's terms. And for the paid version we were paying for Yongzh's personal work and updates on the app.

If the paid version included the code licenced for non-commercial use only then it was in breach. The code was made available by its authors/devs for use, but under specific terms. This isn't exactly something new or revolutionary - it's been going on for years. Incidently, open source doesn't preclude for-profit use if all the respective licences involved allow it. The developer is still obliged to make the open source code available, including any changes made, under the original licence.

That's the problem. These guys go open source. Offer no support for porting the projects but then try and dictate how everything goes.

That's how it works. Devs make source code available to anyone who wants to use it, and other devs take that code and work it into their own projects. The licencing terms are known from the start - there's always some sort of EULA file alongside the code in the repository.

If they were so concerned about some one stealing the emulator source why did they open it in the first place?

Maybe because they, perhaps naively these days, expected fellow-developers to understand and respect the open source ethos?

On a general note, to preempt any possibility of unpleasantness, please keep comments within the Rules i.e. civil and impersonal. Spirited debate is encouraged, but disrespect or rudeness is not acceptable.

 

[crisiscorex]

hey guys zodttd stated that they give cuts to the original open source developers meaning that they deal with all of the "licensing rules" behind the scenes if im not mistaken. its all in his page. ZodTTD: Home Of Homebrew 2nd post.

 

[Yeahha]

If they do handle things behind the scenes and give credit where it is due then that is great, I hope his post is honest. It seems that the removal from the market and account suspension is all on the part of Google. Just leave it to them to bite the hand that feeds. Google gets a 30% cut off each app sold they got their share and decided to "clean up" the market.

 

[crisiscorex]

If they do handle things behind the scenes and give credit where it is due then that is great, I hope his post is honest. It seems that the removal from the market and account suspension is all on the part of Google. Just leave it to them to bite the hand that feeds. Google gets a 30% cut off each app sold they got their share and decided to "clean up" the market.

thats interesting news i didnt know google got a 30% cut.

 

[Yeahha]

thats interesting news i didnt know google got a 30% cut.

Yeah it seems that is the industry standard Apple and Amazon also take that much as well. Amazon has some other rules governing their prices however, they set the sell price bot the dev and if your app is listed in the Amazon app store and the market and you reduce the price of you app in the market for any reason (sale) then that reduces the max sell price of your app in Amazon's store permanently. I think Google found a way around this where it will always show the full price but the sell price shows at Google checkout

 

[A.Nonymous]

thats interesting news i didnt know google got a 30% cut.

Yeah, it's a big part of the kerfuffle with in-app purchases on Apple and Apple requiring devs to offer them. I think that change goes into effect in June or July. Can't remember.

 

[Therev29]

Not to be ignorant, but it sounds like semantics. Instead of paid version just label it donate version? Or is that still breach? I know every license is different but for the non commercial being discussed.

For more understanding, is this called out by the original developer (in due right) or by say Nintendo trying to find a way to protect their product by having it pulled. Lol, emulators always take so much heat. I just want to play games.

 

[Yeahha]

Not to be ignorant, but it sounds like semantics. Instead of paid version just label it donate version? Or is that still breach? I know every license is different but for the non commercial being discussed.

For more understanding, is this called out by the original developer (in due right) or by say Nintendo trying to find a way to protect their product by having it pulled. Lol, emulators always take so much heat. I just want to play games.

I think it would need to be free with an option to donate not.donate for more content, but I would need to see the actual license to verify. From what zod said it looks like the complaints may have have come from the OEM which I think is ridiculous seeing as how much Nintendo, Sega, and Sony are actually making off systems and games they stopped stopped production and support for years ago. But with things like the Wii virtual console they do still make money off the games