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

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

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 ?

dankcushions

to be fair, i've run into this before. 'open source' by the accepted definition of it, effectively means GPL, which means it can be commercialised.

previously, i would have taken the term more literally, and just read it as 'the source code is available' rather than it dictating the terms of use, but there you go.

that said, OP is still out of order for calling NC-licensed emulators crap, or saying that theme authors who want to retain creative control of their themes have 'tainted the project'. i think the opposite is true.

there's no performant and good SNES emulator that isn't snes9x. there's no performant and good arcade emulator that isn't FBA or an older MAME core. all of these have NC licenses.

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.

beyond licensing, i think the reasons are fairly clear. your posts demonstrate one of them.

BuZz

Unfortunately I have had to ban the user - not directly because of his attitude in this thread, but because he decided to change his user profile About Page to have a go at the project (How childish!).

He argues about open source, but his upset is just because he wants to make money from RetroPie - as everyone knows, the licence of the components is nothing to do with us, but we do respect them.

I completely understand why some emulator authors chose to put non commercial restrictions in their code licences.

jcook84

@buzz
It's probably the same guy shilling his wares on /vr/. In fact, "carl" reminds me of the person referenced here: https://www.libretro.com/index.php/category/retro-bit/

(It's worth a read)

Hex

I took so much effort in the middle of the night to be helpful. The guy was just looking for a fight. I explained to him everything and yet he insists that his views are the only correct one.

Open source is not OSS.

Jste84

That guy had a stinking attitude and his customers will be in for a delight when he no doubt does attempt to sell 'his' product.

Honestly I don't know how you guys do it. All your hard work and you get idiots like that who offer no thanks for what you've done and make it blatantly clear that they want to use your product to make money.

iek

I (carlsmith) have no intention of selling anything. I teach programming for a living, and while I'm currently unable to work (bed-bound, awaiting a major operation), I fully intend to return to teaching as soon as I can walk again. You can look me up online easily enough. I've been teaching Python for years now.

My interest in RetroPie is as a retro gamer and open source contributor, and I began learning about the project because I was interested in it, and have plenty of time to spare.

You just assume the worst of everyone, and treat people like dog [removed], based on your wildly inaccurate assumptions. There are many examples online.

To be members of the forum (for more than a few hours) everyone must agree with the orthodox view on certain issues, so the forum has become a near perfect echo chamber. You are convincing one another that you know me, but none of you have a clue what you are talking about.

I have no warez to "shill" and did not want a fight. I have no customers to support. I have no products whatsoever. I just wanted to figure out why this project is not open source in the conventional sense, and what it would require to change that.

To be frank, I find it shocking that a community that is all about playing copyrighted video games without a license would be so aggressive in attacking other people in the community for copyright infringement. The pretence that you all just play open source, homebrew titles is absurd. Everyone knows you are hypocrites.

I changed my profile bio to one line of text that calmly described the community here as hostile to open source. You literally banned me for expressing a genuine, heartfelt opinion that you simply didn't like.

I was actually just going to close my account, but couldn't find the option, and didn't want my continued membership to be misinterpreted by the people that know me online as meaning that I am part of this clique.

I will not use puppet accounts to access the site again, so long as you refrain from badmouthing me while I am unable to defend myself. By all means, say your piece here and now, but then let's all just move on. I will respect the ban. It's still your community after all.