#70702 - viko - Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:47 am
News from the M3 offical spokesman, the next kernel of m3 will include mp3 player, txt viewer, picture viewer(bmp,jpg...which moonshell supported), movie player(*.dpg), all moonshell features.
from the picture they release, we are pretty sure that they use moonshell's open source code, and then modify the code and combine it as M3's kernel. Of couse, they won't release any source about the "modified moonshell". It's illegal, right?
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]
#70703 - wintermute - Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:56 am
#70706 - Normmatt - Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:07 am
that looks cool. i would like to see the sources to that released
#70707 - El Hobito - Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:12 am
as long as moonlight is credited, theres nothing wrong with it.
#70710 - MaHe - Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:52 am
| El Hobito wrote: |
| as long as moonlight is credited, theres nothing wrong with it. |
I doubt he will be credited. MoonShell has done almost the most in the homebrew community and if they don't happen to credit him, that's simply retarded. I know M3 is basicly quite a good product, but some design was stolen from SuperCard, now they even want to rob MoonLight. I wish they'd burn in hell.
#70714 - viko - Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:18 am
Moonshell is not for benefit gaining, which M3 is. After moonshell being the kernel, they sell M3 means they sell moonshell as well. I don't think this is allowed under the terms of the GPL license.
#70715 - Mrshlee - Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:21 am
if they make the original firmware with the hardware "the product itself".. then offer an improved firmware on the webpage..
Giving customers a good product isn't against the GPL - They don't need to opensource the changes they made to make moonshell function with there hardware... they SHOULD but they don't neeed to. Its a touchy issue.
_________________
MrShlee.com
Projects
Dev-Scene
MyTechpedia
#70719 - ?hr - Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:14 am
i think, if moonshell is used as the kernel, moonshell/moonlight should receive money for each sold m3(around 10% of every m3).
#70726 - tieubao - Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:30 pm
moa . it's a evil tidings for me ! I use super card sd +_+ Moonshell homebrew is ending by 0.991 for super card ?
#70727 - ?hr - Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:32 pm
i dont think so, because moonshell wont work with the m3 team together, i think. m3 team: piracy!
#70728 - bafio - Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:44 pm
| viko wrote: |
Of couse, they won't release any source about the "modified moonshell". It's illegal, right?
|
If moonshello is gpl, and/or some of the libraries he uses are, than the source code must be released as GPL as well, otherwise it's illegal. If the license is a BSD-like, than they can do all they want as long as they credit him and all the other authors.
I hope they are forced to release the source at least.
Bafio
#70731 - Darkflame - Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:09 pm
All depends what Moonshell's licence is.
Certainly would be criminal if he doesnt get a credit.
If the worse is true (no source code, no credit), we should encourage people to avoid the product completely.
Moonlight has done a heck of a lot of hardwork, so we should do what we can to discourage companys from takeing adventure of him.
#70741 - Mrshlee - Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:26 pm
| Darkflame wrote: |
All depends what Moonshell's licence is.
Certainly would be criminal if he doesnt get a credit.
If the worse is true (no source code, no credit), we should encourage people to avoid the product completely.
Moonlight has done a heck of a lot of hardwork, so we should do what we can to discourage companys from takeing adventure of him. |
I totally agree that they shouldn't take advantage of him and like everything if sourcecode is used and they open source it completely *very unlikely* the community would continue to patch/improve it and do there own thing.
If they don't release it.. but give him credit - There Devs will continue to update and support a high quality product.. if they release it good for them if they close it.. they are still going to put out a quality product.
I'm a fan of the GPL and I believe they SHOULD release the kernel but if they are using the base Homeshell and simply including support for there own functionality... thats were its upto to personal believes.
_________________
MrShlee.com
Projects
Dev-Scene
MyTechpedia
#70743 - JaJa - Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:40 pm
Hmm....
I don't think they'll credit him.
I don't think they'll release the source.
I think they'll change it just enough so they can claim it's their own, which it looks like they have done already.
Although some of the libraries that are used in moonshell are GPL.
| Quote: |
| libmpeg2 is a free library for decoding mpeg-2 and mpeg-1 video streams. It is released under the terms of the GPL license. |
and | Quote: |
| MPlayer was originally written by ?rp?d Gere?ffy and has been extended and worked on by many more since then, see the AUTHORS file for an (incomplete)list. You are free to use it under the terms of the GNU General Public License,as described in the LICENSE file. |
But i don't know what position that puts them in. Software licenses have never been that enforceable.
#70744 - Frz - Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:46 pm
| Mrshlee wrote: |
if they make the original firmware with the hardware "the product itself".. then offer an improved firmware on the webpage..
Giving customers a good product isn't against the GPL - They don't need to opensource the changes they made to make moonshell function with there hardware... they SHOULD but they don't neeed to. Its a touchy issue. |
Have you ever read the GPL? That would be a "derived work" and as such the complete source has to be released (but not nescessarily on the internet, they could choose to just send it out on a cd)
Oh and btw. selling gpl products is perfectly legal as long as customers get the possibility to receive the complete sourcecode
#70745 - Snowy? - Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:57 pm
This is even worse than watching the News on TV.
Before everyone starts pointing fingers and SPECULATING wait and see first.
The only thing I see when people post like this is possiable connections to other groups with people that are scared their product will be inferior (thus the need to slag off or belittle the compertition)
If were going to speculate here Moonshell/Moonlight has been gone for a fair few days from this forum but yen he still is working on bits and pieces for Moonshell (said he had a cold over a week ago), does anyone one know weather or not he's been paid to help/write the M3 software? I don't think it was ever mentioned where/how he worked out the M3 SD code (although he did say talking to someone at/had something to do with M3).
The other thing is that those are only screenshots so it might just look similar heck they might of paid Moonshell for the interface... to be honnest at this point this is the equivalence of Nintendo killing El Hobito because their interfaces they designed look similar.
I'm just going to wait and see what real information comes out I have no doubt that Moonshell/Moonlight will be the better for it eventually because well we respect him and it appears that he is a very resourcefull person.
Kudos to M3 if they have paid him to write them something Moonshell/Moonlight deserves it!
Edit Maybe he left for Chinese New Year... I think the celebrations end today though... not too sure though
#70752 - GragonSon - Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:31 pm
I think Moonshell willl be credited because M3 team did credit him last time when they use Moonshell to play mp3.
#70772 - tssf - Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:48 pm
| Snowy? wrote: |
This is even worse than watching the News on TV.
Before everyone starts pointing fingers and SPECULATING wait and see first.
The only thing I see when people post like this is possiable connections to other groups with people that are scared their product will be inferior (thus the need to slag off or belittle the compertition)
If were going to speculate here Moonshell/Moonlight has been gone for a fair few days from this forum but yen he still is working on bits and pieces for Moonshell (said he had a cold over a week ago), does anyone one know weather or not he's been paid to help/write the M3 software? I don't think it was ever mentioned where/how he worked out the M3 SD code (although he did say talking to someone at/had something to do with M3).
The other thing is that those are only screenshots so it might just look similar heck they might of paid Moonshell for the interface... to be honnest at this point this is the equivalence of Nintendo killing El Hobito because their interfaces they designed look similar.
I'm just going to wait and see what real information comes out I have no doubt that Moonshell/Moonlight will be the better for it eventually because well we respect him and it appears that he is a very resourcefull person.
Kudos to M3 if they have paid him to write them something Moonshell/Moonlight deserves it!
Edit Maybe he left for Chinese New Year... I think the celebrations end today though... not too sure though |
Does Chinese New Year have any effect on the Japanese?
Anyway, someone should email MoonLight about this startling news and development.
If he is not involved and they're stealing his code, he could probably sue.
EDIT: Do you guys think they'll use Chishm's CF driver? Or will they use their own? ..I guess we'll find out soon.
_________________
Mathew Valente [TSSF]
------
Chrono Resurrection Musician
#70780 - Snowy? - Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:57 pm
Well they are celebrated on the same day - or rather used to be (I do recall seeing celebratory festivals on TV in Japan once - or was that a fertility festival on Eurotrash... I forget lol)
Here's a little bit about it (quickly googled page)
http://www.artelino.com/articles/japanese-new-year.asp
Besides a lot of people from around the world also visit China just to see the celebrations there, if I lived across the shore I would atleast every once in a while.
Anyway enough from me.
#70784 - Dudu.exe - Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:25 pm
if they keep the source open.. they can
_________________
http://flickr.com/photos/stuffbox
#70825 - SPiercey - Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:27 am
Moonshell is open source isn't it? If it is that means the source code is open to anyone to use and it's open to the M3 team, the Supercard team, and what ever team, personally I hope they do add it because then I wont have to shut my DS off to open a different file.
Even if it does play .dpg, mp3s and whatnot it dosn't mean they stole or even use moonshells code anyways. they could have programed there own program to run .dpgs and everything.
Don't jump to any conclusions before you hear something soild from moonlight or the M3 team because no one really knows.
#70827 - m2pt5 - Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:31 am
| SPiercey wrote: |
| Moonshell is open source isn't it? If it is that means the source code is open to anyone to use |
Stop right there. Large parts of Moonshell are released under the GPL, which states, in part, that any derivitave works must also be open source.
_________________
Don't sign your posts, it's dumb.
#70868 - viko - Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:25 am
http://www.gbalpha.com/gbamedia/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardID=2&ID=4770&page=1
This is the offical news posted in M3 offical Chinese forum, you need to register to read this post. you can use my nick to read it. But chinese only.
viko
123456
#70870 - The 9th Sage - Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:54 am
Hmm...I don't know...if they do use MoonShell as the base for a new firmware for the M3, although it looks and appears to function better than what they have now (heh heh), I'm not sure I want it. They probably won't update it as much as Moonlight would MoonShell, and sure as Hell hope they credit him because that is going to piss me off something horrible if they don't. He's put tons of work into MoonShell and deserves some kind of credit should they use MoonShell like that.
_________________
Now with 20% More Old Man from Zelda 1 than ever before!
#70907 - Snowy? - Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:23 pm
Well Moonshell/Moonlight seems to be saying he had no part in it :(
| Quote: |
Hello, dear all MoonShell users.
I do not do communications with the M3 development staff.
I do not insist on my copyright at all.
The M3 development staff uses the source code of MoonShell.
This is completely free. I do not take part.
If you think for me.
Please do not criticize the M3 staff for my reward.
I do not want honor and money. The wanted one is only a better software.
I do not criticize the M3 development staff at all.
If something wonderful can be done by using my software, I am very glad.
This is a request. Please do not fight for me.
THANKS FOR ALL!!
I think that it is likely to be criticized if the M3 development staff violates it about GPL. |
From:
http://mdxonline.dyndns.org/archives/2006/02/hello_dear_all.html
Dam there goes my hope for a decent company... this is if they have used the same code and not just the same front end... dam fine of Moonshell/Moonlight to let them off the hook though.
The M3 guys should atleast send him m3/g6 adaptors and maybe a dev DS. Hey if your going to use someone elses work atleast have the decentcy to help them do it.
#70908 - Critical_Impact - Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:28 pm
| SPiercey wrote: |
Moonshell is open source isn't it? If it is that means the source code is open to anyone to use and it's open to the M3 team, the Supercard team, and what ever team, personally I hope they do add it because then I wont have to shut my DS off to open a different file.
Even if it does play .dpg, mp3s and whatnot it dosn't mean they stole or even use moonshells code anyways. they could have programed there own program to run .dpgs and everything.
Don't jump to any conclusions before you hear something soild from moonlight or the M3 team because no one really knows. |
dpgs are unique because moonshell actually made the format, its a very specific type of video.
#70920 - kevinc - Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:55 pm
| Quote: |
Hello, dear all MoonShell users.
I do not do communications with the M3 development staff.
I do not insist on my copyright at all.
The M3 development staff uses the source code of MoonShell.
This is completely free. I do not take part.
If you think for me.
Please do not criticize the M3 staff for my reward.
I do not want honor and money. The wanted one is only a better software.
|
Well, it seems he wants his code under a BSD-like license. However, as long as the M3 staff link against GPL source (like libmp3) they are obligated under the GPL.
#70934 - Snowy? - Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:27 pm
| Critical_Impact wrote: |
| dpgs are unique because moonshell actually made the format, its a very specific type of video. |
I did wonder if it was since a quick google search brought up well nothing on the subject (besides one small it on moonshell), however though the .dpg file extention does not seem to be registered... I wonder how people get them registered these days
#70936 - Parasite - Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:31 pm
Hmm, I've skimmed through this thread and found a lot of _wrong_ or misinformed statements. You should read up on the gpl, gpl-violations.org and some stories about the programmers of iptables.
Iptables is a GPL-based firewall. It has been used in a lot of access points, routers and other embedded devices. The owners of iptables filed a lawsuit against some companies, forcing them to publish the source code. They won.
I've been involved in trying to get a decent uClinux distro on a router. This router used uClinux - patched to work with the specific device - but also some proprietary software. They published the patches, but not the source code of the proprietary software.
The M3-case is the same. They should publish the source code for moonshell on their website, as well as patches they've done to it.
However, they don't have to publish the full source code for their kernel. If moonshell is loaded on top of their current kernel, all is in compliance with the GPL. The GPL is not THAT viral.
If moonshell is published under a BSD license, things are a little different. M3 has to mention they used code from moonshell, but that's it, no further obligations. Microsoft also used a BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack for windows 9x. If you look at the 'hosts' file on a MS windows 98 pc, you can still see this (starting from Win2k, they used their own TCP/IP stack).
As a side note: could somebody explain the attitude towards open-source in the GBA and DS homebrew community? I've found a lot of projects where the binary is put up for download, but the source code is nowhere to be found. Do all you DS devs work from ground up? (using libnds) Are there projects where real collaboration is taking place? Are there sourceforge.net project pages for DS homebrew?
#70945 - JaJa - Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:14 pm
| Critical_Impact wrote: |
| SPiercey wrote: | Moonshell is open source isn't it? If it is that means the source code is open to anyone to use and it's open to the M3 team, the Supercard team, and what ever team, personally I hope they do add it because then I wont have to shut my DS off to open a different file.
Even if it does play .dpg, mp3s and whatnot it dosn't mean they stole or even use moonshells code anyways. they could have programed there own program to run .dpgs and everything.
Don't jump to any conclusions before you hear something soild from moonlight or the M3 team because no one really knows. |
dpgs are unique because moonshell actually made the format, its a very specific type of video. |
Moonshell didn't really make the format. It consists of an Mpeg1 stream and a WAV GSM audio stream. He simply made a sort of container.
#70966 - El Hobito - Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:23 pm
the m3 adapter itself is illegal, what difference does it make if the software is illegal too?
#70985 - Nphinity - Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:42 pm
Moonshell is under essentially a PD licence(public domain). In that so far as I can tell it declares no licence for itself explicitely, only the notice Moonlight posted on the page now. A pity really I doubt moonlight understands how well a commercial company can rape source code.
Anyway... it's varying libraries are under several different licenses. Several are PD, or other very open licence like the BSD lincence. Those allow anyone to do anything with them. Though several require the copywrite notice to be supplied along with any releases, and require that proper props are given.
A few are under GPL. Now.. I can see several of you dont know WTF this means. The GPL licence requires that any dirivitive copies of the work MUST be released under the GPL licence. DONT CONFUSE THIS. It does not mean that works that LINK to this library have to be released under GPL. It means if you take the source, and modify it, the modified source must also be provided under GPL, IF you release a binary version of it.
What does this mean? It means if they release a compiled Moonshell derivitive binary that comes with built versions of everything moonshell links with, that M3 will be required by law(for any countries that signed into the international copywrite agreement[I dont think China signed into this btw]) to release the source code for the GPLed libraries, not for the modified moonshell, AT the request of anyone. They dont have to have the source posted on their site, just have to supply it if you ask for it, and ONLY for the libs in moonshell under GPL.
So in summation, for this to be legal. They must supply with their releases several notices for the libraries they have used, that show copywrite ownership and indimnification information for the varying libraries that require this(several do).
They must not misrepresent the origin of the software(and a credit is requested, but not required) for: zlib, libpng, gba_nds_fat
They must supply a notice for: giflib, libogg, libgsm
And they must, at request, supply souorce(and GPL satements) for: mpeg2dec, libmikmod, libmp3
(must also not promote themselves by mentioning xiph.org without permission)
Anything I didn't mention that is included I could not find a declared license for, software of this nature so far as I know is still owned under copywrite law by the origional designer, and that person can at any point, even after release of a commercial product including their software, declare the software under a particular license, and those using it are then bound by said license.(so be careful if you use any code that doesn't come with a notice of licence, you could get boned)
I feel I should also point out that any violations of these licenses can only be prosecuted by the copywrite owners, or representatives there of. If any of these policies are broken by M3, feel free to contact the copywrite holders.
On a final notice, please don't discourage anyone, including companies, from the FAIR and LEGAL use of open source software.
#70995 - kevinc - Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:29 pm
| Nphinity wrote: |
| Moonshell is under essentially a PD licence(public domain). In that so far as I can tell it declares no licence for itself explicitely, only the notice Moonlight posted on the page now. |
The fact that it doesn't include a license doesn't mean that it's PD. It just means that the author hasn't told us what we are allowed to do with his work. Its ambiguity doesn't mean that it's PD unless the author explicitly states so.
| Quote: |
| The GPL licence requires that any dirivitive copies of the work MUST be released under the GPL licence. DONT CONFUSE THIS. It does not mean that works that LINK to this library have to be released under GPL. |
Static linkage *is* considered a derivative work, since you put the GPL binary inside your program. And according to the Wikipedia GPL article it has been enforced many times in court.
#70998 - The 9th Sage - Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:45 pm
| Quote: |
Hello, dear all MoonShell users.
I do not do communications with the M3 development staff.
I do not insist on my copyright at all.
The M3 development staff uses the source code of MoonShell.
This is completely free. I do not take part.
If you think for me.
Please do not criticize the M3 staff for my reward.
I do not want honor and money. The wanted one is only a better software.
|
Well, if that's the case, that's not so bad I guess..I feel better knowing Moonlight has no problem with this. I really hope (still) that they at least say 'Thank you Moonlight' somewhere, to at least give him a nod since the core of that firmware looks to be his software though.
This reminds me of when Jaleco (I think it was) used Loopy's PocketNES for a NES compliation GBA cart they sold....he was perfectly fine with it because, much like Moonlight he basically said if someone could use it for something useful they were welcome to it. It had the same effect...the author was fine with it but it irritated the users of the software to no end. lol
| El Hobito wrote: |
| the m3 adapter itself is illegal, what difference does it make if the software is illegal too? |
I don't think I would say that neccesarily. It's the stuff some people are doing with it that is illegal. The same with GBA flash carts. Just because someone has one of those it doesn't mean they are using it for 'illicit' purposes or some such thing.
That'd a debate for another thread I guess though. :)
_________________
Now with 20% More Old Man from Zelda 1 than ever before!
Last edited by The 9th Sage on Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
#70999 - M3d10n - Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:47 pm
Well, even if they publish the source, the M3 team is in for another trouble: using moonshell as FW turns it into a MP3-decoding device, and the MP3 licensing says you must pay some royalties for that.
#71006 - Nphinity - Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:26 pm
| kevinc wrote: |
| The fact that it doesn't include a license doesn't mean that it's PD. It just means that the author hasn't told us what we are allowed to do with his work. Its ambiguity doesn't mean that it's PD unless the author explicitly states so. |
Yea I covered that. But the official statement made by moonlight implies that it is pd. He said they were free to use it, and that he doesnt want honor or credit, and is just glad to see it used in such wonderful ways. This is very indicitive of a PD nature... (I did say ESSENTIALLY)
| Quote: |
| Static linkage *is* considered a derivative work, since you put the GPL binary inside your program. And according to the ... |
blah blah blibidy blah. It's such a load of crap. Since when did Wikipedia become the final all there is to it when it comes to facts. It is editable by any shmuck out there.
However, the secion of the GPL that refers to having to put derivitive works under the GPL, is section 2. And it refers to modified copies of the work.
It then goes on to say that you can copy or distribute the origional in the form of object or executable. And only says in this case that you must provide the source code for the GPLed software.
Sure would be nice if they cleared up their intentions tho, cause thing are obviously confusing.
Anyway.. It should be worth pointing out that atleast one of the menioned libs(libmikmod) is under LGPL as well(I forget which one), so that one is atleast safe to link against.
Last edited by Nphinity on Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:51 am; edited 1 time in total
#71007 - ficedula - Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:26 pm
| kevinc wrote: |
Static linkage *is* considered a derivative work, since you put the GPL binary inside your program. And according to the Wikipedia GPL article it has been enforced many times in court. |
Actually, the Wikipedia articles states that nobody is sure for certain whether linking, particularly dynamic, counts as a derivative work or not; there's not been a court case about it involving the GPL, and even if there was, it's something that would differ from country to country. The court cases that were completed, were about whether the GPL was enforcable at all (spoiler: it is) (second spoiler: since the court cases so far have treated the GPL as a contract in clear contradiction to the FSF's views on the matter, it's fairly obvious that their interpretation of the license is unsurprisingly not to be relied on, if you ever thought that.)
The mere fact the binary is inside your program doesn't make it a derivative; I could zip up libmp3 with one of my programs and it doesn't magically become derivative because it's all in one file now. It's derivative if my source was derived from the GPL'd source according to the copyright law in my country.
More importantly, even if linking can create a derivative, accessing GPL'd code through a generic interface almost certainly doesn't, so they could still avoid releasing their source code, if they wanted to, provided the GPL'd code is easily separatable into a distinct library. Which looks to be the case here.
And most importantly, does anybody even know whether they'll be making any changes yet? ;) If they effectively package up Moonshell as it is now without really changing anything beyond sticking an appropriate boot loader on the front, it's not like you'd be missing out on any source...
#71008 - Nphinity - Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:33 pm
| M3d10n wrote: |
| Well, even if they publish the source, the M3 team is in for another trouble: using moonshell as FW turns it into a MP3-decoding device, and the MP3 licensing says you must pay some royalties for that. |
Not really. The device in and of itself can not decode anything. Its simply code sitting on a memory chip. Just like any other piece of software. The execution of the code takes place on a seperate device(the NDS). Now whether or not Frauenhaufers licences allow one to execut code on an arbitrary machine to decode mp3 audio is beyond me, this seems to have been tried a few times here and there, I think the only time royalties ended up being required was when there were profits to be made.
As you prolly know several linux distros do not come with mp3 playback capabilitiy for this very reason. IMO it should be flat out illegal to distrbute anything that decodes mp3 at all in anyway without permission from the patent holders. In this way, people will stop using crappy old patented mp3's and used good higher quality open source oggs instead. Long live VORBIS! (^_^)
#71015 - SPiercey - Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:28 am
| El Hobito wrote: |
| the m3 adapter itself is illegal, what difference does it make if the software is illegal too? |
No playing roms on it is illegal, anything else that you can do with it is perfectly legal. Thats why sites that sell it sasomething like "this is not for commecial roms" because if they didn't say that they wouldn't be able to sell it legaly.
#71026 - duencil - Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:10 am
| Nphinity wrote: |
Since when did Wikipedia become the final all there is to it when it comes to facts. It is editable by any shmuck out there. The GPL plainly and clearly states in section 6:
| Quote: | 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications. |
|
Please. That's quote was taken from the LGPL, and is just adding to the confusion here. The normal stance is that any software linking with GPL software is considered derived and must be released as GPL, or under a second licence negotiated with the copyright holder.
#71065 - HyperHacker - Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:37 am
If anyone actually doubts they used Moonshell, look at picture 7. It's exactly the same interface, save for some minor graphical tweaks (close button, different wallpaper, and desktop icons).
Also check out 8: It's reading text and playing MP3 at the same time. :-)
| Nphinity wrote: |
| IMO it should be flat out illegal to distrbute anything that decodes mp3 at all in anyway without permission from the patent holders. In this way, people will stop using crappy old patented mp3's and used good higher quality open source oggs instead. Long live VORBIS! (^_^) |
Great, then I'll have to convert all my MP3s to OGGs, and they always sound absolutely hideous when I do that.
#71069 - Nphinity - Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:51 am
| HyperHacker wrote: |
Great, then I'll have to convert all my MP3s to OGGs, and they always sound absolutely hideous when I do that. |
Then get a better converter. Mine dont loose any audible quality in conversion proccess. Either that or I just dont have discerning enough of an ear to notice.(perhaps you are re-coding to too low a quality of ogg?)
#71074 - Nphinity - Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:54 am
| duencil wrote: |
| Please. That's quote was taken from the LGPL, and is just adding to the confusion here. |
Sorry, you are right I did. I was looking at an older copy of LGPL entitled "Library General Public Licence", and since I didnt see lesser, and it was included along side a copy of the lesser, I was left thinking I was looking at the normal GPL. I didn't think I remembered that section 6 clause in the normal GPL anyway.
I went ahead and removed that from my prior statement, and change it to a statement referring to my interpretation of the GPL under these circumstance, prolly wanna re-read it. Sorry for the confusion.
#71077 - HyperHacker - Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:46 am
| Nphinity wrote: |
| HyperHacker wrote: |
Great, then I'll have to convert all my MP3s to OGGs, and they always sound absolutely hideous when I do that. |
Then get a better converter. Mine dont loose any audible quality in conversion proccess. Either that or I just dont have discerning enough of an ear to notice.(perhaps you are re-coding to too low a quality of ogg?) |
WinLAME isn't a better convertor? And I don't know how many times I've heard that OGG is lossless, so why is there a quality setting anyway?
#71086 - Nphinity - Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:02 am
| HyperHacker wrote: |
| WinLAME isn't a better convertor? And I don't know how many times I've heard that OGG is lossless, so why is there a quality setting anyway? |
I dont use WinLAME.. so I dunno... but seing as tho lame is for encoding MP3's and not OGGs.. um I dont knwo why it would be soo good. Needs a good decoder, and possibly frequency converter... and a good OGG encoder.
OGG is not losless, except at the highest quality(even then, I think its sposed to be technically not losless dont quote me on that one). It has varying quality levels you can use tho... just like MP3.. variable bit rate.
Some OGG encoders go by bitrate, others use quantinization factors for quality level.
I like to use dbpoweramp for conversion, with the optimized aoTuV OGG encoder.
#71088 - mntorankusu - Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:11 am
WinLAME kinda sucks for OGG files. DBPowerAmp does a much better job.
I have all my music for MoonShell in 48kbps ABR OGG and it sounds pretty decent. Better than 96kbps MP3 at least, and it's half the file size.
#71095 - Xtreme - Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:34 am
| SPiercey wrote: |
| Moonshell is open source isn't it? If it is that means the source code is open to anyone to use and it's open to the M3 team, the Supercard team, and what ever team, personally I hope they do add it because then I wont have to shut my DS off to open a different file. |
What do you mean?
I have used SCSD and the software pached them so I could reset with key to go to the menu.
MoonShell integration sounds great! :) MoonLight just want's to be credited, he doesn't want any money.
_________________
My Theme
DS Lite (FM_V8a) ** R4 Revolution (2GB Transcend) ** SuperCard Lite (2x 2GB Transcend)
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/01.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/02.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/03.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/04.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/05.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/06.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/07.jpg){kind=link}
![[Images not permitted - Click here to view it]](http://guzhongxin.sjsedu.net.cn/me/skin/webm/mengshi/M3/08.jpg){kind=link}