What's new

Glide64 'Napalm' Public Release 1.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

nmn

Mupen64Plus Dev.
And here I thought Glide64 was GPL...

It probably is. I really wish someone would enforce GPL around the emu-scene, because It begins to lose it's value when people pull shit like this. Not to say i don't respect the developers, but if this is GPL, then they aren't respecting GPL either. I wouldn't be so mad if this were the first time, but it's most definitely not the first time. More like the 4th or 5th, as far as i remember (I have not been here that long though)
 

smcd

Active member
but glide64 does not appear to be gpl'd? so... http://glide64.emuxhaven.net/sources.php looking through the help file and the previous code release i couldn't find anything. The wrapper may or may not be, I can't easily find info in the packages shown there...
 
Last edited:

mudlord

Banned
It probably is. I really wish someone would enforce GPL around the emu-scene, because It begins to lose it's value when people pull shit like this. Not to say i don't respect the developers, but if this is GPL, then they aren't respecting GPL either. I wouldn't be so mad if this were the first time, but it's most definitely not the first time. More like the 4th or 5th, as far as i remember (I have not been here that long though)

Sheesh!

Let me say this:

* Glide64 is GPL
* GlideHQ is GPL (source is released)
* Glitch64 (the wrapper) is NOT GPL (source is released)
* My gltest.exe code is NOT GPL, but BSD. It is BSD because I use a proprietary sound system. And I'm not going to use a opensource system, because I found none that play XM/S3M/IT/MOD modules perfect like BASS. (source is released, but no one cares). And no, I'm not going to use SDL. I rather use things that have zero bloat.

Look on the Glide64 forums for code.

Gonetz will release the code when he has time for the plugin, so just wait. Plus, porting over the current Glide64 Wonder Plus HQ code is strongly recommended before you attempt to port current Napalm code.
 

okaygo

Mupen64Plus Dev.
Sheesh!

Let me say this:

* Glide64 is GPL
* GlideHQ is GPL (source is released)
* Glitch64 (the wrapper) is NOT GPL (source is released)
* My gltest.exe code is NOT GPL, but BSD. It is BSD because I use a proprietary sound system. And I'm not going to use a opensource system, because I found none that play XM/S3M/IT/MOD modules perfect like BASS. (source is released, but no one cares). And no, I'm not going to use SDL. I rather use things that have zero bloat.

Look on the Glide64 forums for code.

Gonetz will release the code when he has time for the plugin, so just wait. Plus, porting over the current Glide64 Wonder Plus HQ code is strongly recommended before you attempt to port current Napalm code.

Where are you?? :(
Add me back on MSN
 

nmn

Mupen64Plus Dev.
Sheesh!

Let me say this:

* Glide64 is GPL
* GlideHQ is GPL (source is released)
* Glitch64 (the wrapper) is NOT GPL (source is released)
* My gltest.exe code is NOT GPL, but BSD. It is BSD because I use a proprietary sound system. And I'm not going to use a opensource system, because I found none that play XM/S3M/IT/MOD modules perfect like BASS. (source is released, but no one cares). And no, I'm not going to use SDL. I rather use things that have zero bloat.

Look on the Glide64 forums for code.

Gonetz will release the code when he has time for the plugin, so just wait. Plus, porting over the current Glide64 Wonder Plus HQ code is strongly recommended before you attempt to port current Napalm code.

- SDL's audio sucks
- You have a point about GPL audio libraries.

I don't really care if it's GPL tbh. I just hope you don't withhold source. Glide64 is really good software and we wish for it to be available for Linux. We don't have the same plug ins as Windows - The best plug in we have is /probably/ Rice Video right now because Glide64 Wonder Plus crashes too much (at least on the Linux port, I didn't do too much heavy testing with it on Windows but I don't recall it crashing too much) but napalm is sure to give it at least a run for its money.

And the whole GPL thing, I still meant that seriously. I hate it when people abuse GPL as if it holds no grounds. My view on things, If you can't release source you can't release binaries of a GPL software. And that's legally true with GPL. Still though, I have extremely mixed strong views: It IS the work of the authors, and I did nothing to help develop it, but voilation of GPL drives me insane. (If I found out Mozilla put the Firefox source repositories to private and only did binary releases in the future, I would go mental when I tried to grab the source code again.)
 

mudlord

Banned
And the whole GPL thing, I still meant that seriously. I hate it when people abuse GPL as if it holds no grounds. My view on things, If you can't release source you can't release binaries of a GPL software. And that's legally true with GPL. Still though, I have extremely mixed strong views: It IS the work of the authors, and I did nothing to help develop it, but voilation of GPL drives me insane. (If I found out Mozilla put the Firefox source repositories to private and only did binary releases in the future, I would go mental when I tried to grab the source code again.)

And by those grounds, you should be pissed off at the ZSNES developers too for having a private subversion suppository, and so they will only release code at release intervals OR at milestone builds.

In defense of Gonetz, I feel that he will release the source. He did in previous occasions, so whats stopping him now? Egos? I honestly think there is a legitimate reason and he will release the code when it is clean enough. Just like AamirM and his cycle accurate Megadrive emulator.

That said, I despise the GPL in any shape or form. I rather have code in BSD, public domain, or being proprietary. I just can't stand how the FSF is pushing things with it.

I hope that sounds reasonable.

Where are you??
Add me back on MSN

Gimme your MSN addy then I'll try to find some time to chat.

Yeah, mudlord isn't in MSN lately... he's busy with university atm AFAIK.

Yup, currently its exam/assessment season, so I have very little time to work on things and chat. Of course, I do have free time after these periods, and then I usually work on things (like when I first picked up VBA-M when I was on holidays).

I don't really care if it's GPL tbh. I just hope you don't withhold source. Glide64 is really good software and we wish for it to be available for Linux. We don't have the same plug ins as Windows - The best plug in we have is /probably/ Rice Video right now because Glide64 Wonder Plus crashes too much (at least on the Linux port, I didn't do too much heavy testing with it on Windows but I don't recall it crashing too much) but napalm is sure to give it at least a run for its money.

On Windows, Glide64 is super stable. Least Napalm is, during and after the private beta testing.

And the code I wrote for Glide64, such as portions of the wrapper and gltest.exe are open source. Its just for the wrapper, there is no precise license we chose, and gltest.exe is BSD-based because I like it, and due to the sound library issues I mentioned before. I'd love to see a decent sound library that plays chiptune formats accurately, but so far, I seen no open source ones that come even close to Ian Luck's code in BASS (which also shares code with XMPlay).
 
Last edited:

Richard42

Emulator Developer
I don't really want to get in the middle of a heated discussion but there seems to be some misunderstanding of the GPL.

And by those grounds, you should be pissed off at the ZSNES developers too for having a private subversion suppository, and so they will only release code at release intervals OR at milestone builds.

There is no problem with a private svn repository. The prime requirement of the GPL is that whenever someone distributes a binary version of the GPL'd software, he/she must also either distribute the source code or include an offer for a user to receive the source code for free or for a small fee. That's it.

So, if they are not distributing binaries based on the code in their SVN repository, then there's no problem with having a closed repo and not distributing the source.

In defense of Gonetz, I feel that he will release the source. He did in previous occasions, so whats stopping him now? Egos? I honestly think there is a legitimate reason and he will release the code when it is clean enough. Just like AamirM and his cycle accurate Megadrive emulator.

It's not a choice. If he is distributing binaries but not source of GPL'd code, and not including an offer to get the source which was used to build those binaries, then he is infringing on the copyrights of the other developers and is breaking the license by distributing those binaries.

It's not a matter of cleaning up the code. If the code is dirty then why is he distributing binaries based on that code anyway? You are not in compliance with the license if you distribute some binaries and then later distribute source code which was not the code used to build those binaries.

You will notice that I am careful to always release source packages of Mupen64Plus along with the binary packages. This is because I understand the requirements of the license and want to abide by it honestly.

That said, I despise the GPL in any shape or form. I rather have code in BSD, public domain, or being proprietary. I just can't stand how the FSF is pushing things with it.

This is a somewhat non-intuitive point of view for a software engineer to take. The free software movement is really (like many things in life) about power and control. The GPL gives power to the developers and takes power away from the business people. For a programmer to say that he doesn't like the license which gives him power is a curious statement.

If we didn't have the GPL there would be no Linux, no GCC, no Apache, no Firefox or Thunderbird, no Eclipse, no Python, no Gnome, KDE, Qt, WxWidgets, no GIMP, no OpenOffice, no Mupen64Plus. Without the GPL the entire world of software would be just as fucked up and balkanized as the Microsoft ecosystem. We'd all be subject to the whims of industry executives whose duties lie in providing profit for shareholders and business partners, and not satisfying customers. We'd all be breaking the law and massively pirating because we'd have no other reasonable choice, just like the music industry is stuck in a business model which has given music lovers no other choice.

It's only because of the GPL that I can sit on top of a mammoth software stack which took hundreds of millions of $$ worth of economic effort to develop, and I can analyze, understand, and control every single component involved without exception, to make it work for me exactly the way that I want it to. What's not to like about that?

In the end the GPL will also provide much more business value than would have been realized if the same software had been developed under proprietary licenses. It's leveling the playing field and giving everyone in the industry a common platform upon which to freely innovate and push computing to the next level. Many companies have caught on to this -- it's only the ones who have massive vested interests in the old systems which are trying to hold everyone else back.
 

nmn

Mupen64Plus Dev.
And by those grounds, you should be pissed off at the ZSNES developers too for having a private subversion suppository, and so they will only release code at release intervals OR at milestone builds.
But they never redistribute binaries without source. Completely legal.

In defense of Gonetz, I feel that he will release the source. He did in previous occasions, so whats stopping him now? Egos? I honestly think there is a legitimate reason and he will release the code when it is clean enough. Just like AamirM and his cycle accurate Megadrive emulator.
As of now, Glide 64 Napalm is illegal software. I'm sorry, this is plain fact, not a scare tactic or some stupid come back, but nothing will happen anyways because GPL Violations usually go unnoticed or are never acted on. I just thought it's worth noting. It's like releasing software with MSVC++6 introductory edition - which is also illegal in a similar sense.

That said, I despise the GPL in any shape or form. I rather have code in BSD, public domain, or being proprietary. I just can't stand how the FSF is pushing things with it.

I hope that sounds reasonable.
Well, There are reasons to use BSD. But GPL is useful for these sorts of things. With BSD people can take your code and can sell it as is, granted credit is given. Sometimes this is perfectly fine. but PD is worse - People can steal work and do whatever they want to. It's arguably illegal, or causes some legal issues, that could be used against one of the people involved in the software.

Proprietary software is going backwards completely. This means everything good you've done can only be improved on by you or people you authorize or recieve way-too-much cash from. Though Linux is not a very popular platform for desktop users, Mupen64Plus is doing surprisingly well because of it's Open Source properties. Let me tell you something, I would not be on Linux if it were proprietary like Windows. It would lose most of its benefits. Not to mention things would suck, very bad. But to each's own, if somehow this sounds like your idea of 'progress' then I guess I can't do anything to stop you.

Look. I'm not pointing anything new out - GPL requires sources with any binary release, nothing more or less. I'm not interested in flaming the developers of good software, but when I see GPL, I expect GPL.
 
Last edited:

okaygo

Mupen64Plus Dev.
This thread needs some comical relief:

ngbbs4433fc4022439.jpg


DO A BARREL ROLL!
 

mudlord

Banned
This is a somewhat non-intuitive point of view for a software engineer to take. The free software movement is really (like many things in life) about power and control. The GPL gives power to the developers and takes power away from the business people. For a programmer to say that he doesn't like the license which gives him power is a curious statement.

Well, I hate its restrictiveness. I rather a licence that stipulates that we can do what the hell we want, than follow some twisted license devised by a liberationist that wants everything to be free. Yes, the main reasons I hate the GPL is:

* I hate Richard Stallman and his contraversial views on software licensing
* I hate the FSF, and its agressive pushiness of everything GPL
* I hate the restrictiveness of the license.

I don't give a rat's ass about power, I just want people to use my code how the hell they want. If they want to use some of my DLL-hiding code in gltest.exe in some virus, I don't care.

Personally, I would love some of my code in a business application, I'd be flattered to say the least.

Without the GPL the entire world of software would be just as fucked up and balkanized as the Microsoft ecosystem.

I certainly don't think so. There's other licenses that work just as well. Like the LGPL. Even that's not as bad as the real thing.

As of now, Glide 64 Napalm is illegal software. I'm sorry, this is plain fact, not a scare tactic or some stupid come back, but nothing will happen anyways because GPL Violations usually go unnoticed or are never acted on. I just thought it's worth noting. It's like releasing software with MSVC++6 introductory edition - which is also illegal in a similar sense.

Well, if you have a problem, go to the Glide64 forum and complain about it! Go yell at Gonetz for not sticking to the license. And yell at us for not putting the wrapper under the GPL too, since GPL is a viral license!!!:angry:

With BSD people can take your code and can sell it as is, granted credit is given. Sometimes this is perfectly fine. but PD is worse - People can steal work and do whatever they want to. It's arguably illegal, or causes some legal issues, that could be used against one of the people involved in the software.

if somehow this sounds like your idea of 'progress' then I guess I can't do anything to stop you.

...so your saying GPL is the way of the future? :plain:

Look. I'm not pointing anything new out - GPL requires sources with any binary release, nothing more or less. I'm not interested in flaming the developers of good software, but when I see GPL, I expect GPL.

You have already flamed them for not sticking to everyone's favourite "free" license!

And this is another reason why I can't stand the GPL: Idiotic arguments over licensing.

And okaygo: This is why I refuse to work with you guys on this project. There is too much personal and ideological differences to even consider it.
 
Last edited:

ebenblues

Mupen64Plus Dev.
And okaygo: This is why I refuse to work with you guys on this project. There is too much personal and ideological differences to even consider it.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I find that having a diverse group of developers who can candidly discuss their point of view without flying off the handle or taking things too personally can lead to more innovative software, regardless of the license.
 

mudlord

Banned
I find that having a diverse group of developers who can candidly discuss their point of view without flying off the handle or taking things too personally can lead to more innovative software, regardless of the license.

Indeed, but I did just fly off the handle, due to my views on licensing. Though, given VBA-M is GPL, I find the devs I work with, aren't that pushy about the GPL. Thats my problem I guess, is that I don't like working with people when things as trivial as licensing can be a dividing issue.
 

okaygo

Mupen64Plus Dev.
Indeed, but I did just fly off the handle, due to my views on licensing. Though, given VBA-M is GPL, I find the devs I work with, aren't that pushy about the GPL. Thats my problem I guess, is that I don't like working with people when things as trivial as licensing can be a dividing issue.

All I do is code, I let Richard worry about the licensing part. Also nobody here is getting upset with you or dislikes you, or you would be banned or something (considering we are all mods) I hope that shows a bit of character quality.. at least the team is fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top