RetroPie is GPL licensed, so am I legally entitled to sell copies of it?

[carlsmith]

Re: Is this a violation of license?

This is not trolling. I have been looking for an answer, but cannot find one, and am genuinely confused. I'm an open source developer, and publish all of my stuff under the GPLv3, so am pretty familiar with what the GPL does and does not allow.

If RetroPie is GPL licensed, then I can legally sell copies of the software, and can sell hardware with RetroPie preinstalled, and charge a premium for RetroPie being installed.

It seems that the RetroPie developers do not want me to sell the software, but I cannot understand why. Could somebody explain what I'm missing please? Thanks.

[BuZz]

@carlsmith No - the RetroPie-Setup script is GPL licenced. The RetroPie image contains software and graphics under non commercial licences.

This is explained on the site - https://retropie.org.uk/about/legal/

[carlsmith]

Thanks for the link. At least I understand the basis of the issue now, though there are no details on that page.

I don't know of any emulators that are available under non-commercial licenses. Open source fundamentally allows commercialisation, so I'm assuming the issue boils down to artists that use Mickey Mouse CC licenses, and that that has tainted the whole project with copyright problems.

I'm happy to remove the non-free content and create a free and open source version of RetroPie, and go from there. I can create my own bevels and overlays, and can reuse most of the ones I've seen so far anyway, as they are derived from the original artwork from the games and consoles, so any claim of ownership by the artists that created the bevels would be invalid.

Maybe I've misunderstood something, but this doesn't seem that difficult to solve.

[carlsmith]

So, I've just read that Snes9x and Genesis Plus GX are not open source. The hypocrisy is amazing :)

I'm going down the list of RetroPie emulators to figure out the subset that are free software (almost all of them), and will replace any non-free crap with open source alternatives.

Why hasn't this been done already?

[mitu]

@carlsmith What makes you say they're not open source ? Just because you think

Open source fundamentally allows commercialisation

that doesn't make it so.

[Hex]

@carlsmith said in RetroPie is GPL licensed, so am I legally entitled to sell copies of it?:

So, I've just read that Snes9x and Genesis Plus GX are not open source. The hypocrisy is amazing :)

I'm going down the list of RetroPie emulators to figure out the subset that are free software (almost all of them), and will replace any non-free crap with open source alternatives.

Why hasn't this been done already?

Please refrain from calling them crap. I hope that the question asked is in genuine curiosity and would like you to keep the conversation civil.

There are a some devs who like to keep their code open source, yet non commercial. It is their choice and right. You say you are an open source dev. Have you ever seen your code blatantly copied and used to create commercial ecosystem without giving you credit or royalties for your work ? I understand how the devs feel and will not disrespect them for their choice.

If you would like to compile an image and sell it with all GPL and other licences that specifically allow commercialization and monetization of the code, go for it. Remember that Retropie is a trademark and refrain from using that term on your product or its promotion. Also if you redirect your users to our forums for support then that shall not be tolerated.

If you have further questions feel free to post them here. We would gladly answer them if they are civil. Jokes aside, this is a sensitive topic and we would you to respect that.

To those who would like to shout at OP; remember he is here to ask for information on the legality of his plans.

[carlsmith]

According to Wikipedia (my emphasis)...

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.

The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized by governments internationally as the standard or de facto definition. In addition, many of the world's largest open source software projects and contributors, including Debian, Drupal Association, FreeBSD Foundation, Linux Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, Wordpress Foundation have committed to upholding the OSI's mission and Open Source Definition through the OSI Affiliate Agreement.

OSI uses The Open Source Definition to determine whether it considers a software license open source.

The Open Source Definition, Section 1...

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.

[Hex]

Source for your quotes? please

[carlsmith]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[Hex]

Wikipedia is not a source for Legal information. I have the ability to make a false pages or any edits i want. Similarly any other person can too.

[carlsmith]

Have you ever seen your code blatantly copied and used to create commercial ecosystem without giving you credit or royalties for your work ?

I never ask anyone to credit me for my work. I enjoy writing code and am glad if people can use it. I'm not egotistical enough to care about my name being on it. The GPL requires credit be given, but I never bother to check that it has been.

[Hex]

As i said

There are a some devs who like to keep their code open source, yet non commercial. It is their choice and right.

[carlsmith]

And as I have shown, your statement is internally contradictory, unless you think Wikipedia has it wrong, or I've misinterpreted the above quotes as explicitly allowing commercial redistribution when they do not??

[Hex]

Retropie-setup is licensed under MIT license which allows commercial use.

Retropie Images contain software licensed under Noncommercial clauses which prohibit commercialization.

You are free to make your own image with emulators that do allow commercial use. and that would be perfectly fine.

You are not allowed to sell Retropie images nor allowed to brand your images as Retropie images or their derivatives.

[carlsmith]

If you would like to compile an image and sell it with all GPL and other licences that specifically allow commercialization and monetization of the code, go for it.

I will, thank you.

Remember that Retropie is a trademark and refrain from using that term on your product or its promotion.

And you claim your not being hostile? I'd love to see RetroPie, who's product is packed with other people's trademarks sue for trademark infringement, but that's fine. I will just tell people it's RetroPie when I'm giving you the credit you're so concerned about.

Also if you redirect your users to our forums for support then that shall not be tolerated.

Again, you're being hostile while asking me not to be.

I had no intention of "redirecting" anyone anywhere. They will find their own way to whichever sites they find useful all by themselves. To be honest, given how nasty and entitled you lot are, I'd be more likely to tell them to avoid this forum.

It's hard to believe you are so protective of your intellectual property when you all pirate tons of video games. Please don't pretend you don't.

[mitu]

@carlsmith Nobody is being hostile to you, it's just your opinions are not shared by others and you're spreading both misinformation and FUD. You know what the RetroPie license is and it has been explained what you can use - commercially or not.

[carlsmith]

I am spreading quotes from Wikipedia.

[Hex]

We have had these problems before and are just informing you about the major pitfalls we had to deal with. I am not being hostile in any way. I am helping you to achieve your goals while conforming to the licenses

Also FYI I have updated the wikipedia article

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose within the confines of the accompanying license.[1] Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. According to scientists who studied it, open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration.[2] The term is often written without a hyphen as "open source software".[3][4][5]

[carlsmith]

Naturally, I'm not going to accept your version of the article. I'm going to go with the version the open source community has agreed on. Your edit will also be fixed as it contradicts the Open Source Definition. I'm not going to do it myself, as I think you're really petty and don't want to stoop to the same level.

Well, I think we've established that this forum continues to be as uninviting and hostile as its reputation. Goodbye.

[Hex]

Yes you are right. I read the Open source initiatives' definition of Open source and it has "free to distribute" in its requirements. In that case the Retropie image is not open source. Where did you read that Retropie was licensed under GPL ?