Mame++ and Street Fighter III 3rd Strike
- Thread starter t1337Dude
- Start date
Thanks, but the reason I upgraded in the first place was because I'd get a weird "error : something something option c" for half my ROMs. Maybe I was using an early version? Oh well, thanks, I'll try that out.
Alright, I reverted to an earlier version and all is good. I have one more question though - where can I keep up on information about the latest Mame++ Netplay games and such? Is there a forum that is more specific to this? It feels odd to play things such recently cracked and I wouldn't have figured it out without many google searches. I'd like to keep on top of these things.
jpcline004
Gaijin
MAME PPK ( MAME Plus + Kaillera) is an illegal build because it goes against the wishes of the MAME dev team. MAME is open sourced but Kaillera is not, so that is the problem. You can try googling it but its pretty hard to find now but anyway Kaillera doesn't seem to work anymore.
It is sheer idiocy to say that you can't compile something and / or distribute it because it incorporates features of a closed source program..
It may be a GPL violation in some way but seriously..
How many emulators include Kaillera? It's just a netplay package.. It wasn't source code created and donated by the public in any sense. It doesn't take anything away from MAME and frankly I find it appalling that such a large project doesn't have its own, open source, superior netplay code.
Frankly I find the whole idea of the GPL to be hypocritical.. I am not necesarrily against it, as people deserve some protection.. But at the same time, how can people claim to want an open source utopia where all code is free, but then if someone wants to take that code and modify it in some way and create a viable commercial enterprise with it, it is somehow illegal and "wrong".. If you can't accept the consequences of wanting free code available to anyone for their own purposes, then don't release your code...
People can say what they want.. But I find commercial software to be superior to open source competitive alternatives in many cases... especially the usability/GUI department.. It's getting better, but still.. Commercial is not the devil, and neither is closed source.
I'm sure I've just opened a can of worms I'll regret but I still have the freedom not to respond... hah.. until that becomes a GPL requirement to "free communications on Internet Bulletin Board Systems" or some BS....lol
It may be a GPL violation in some way but seriously..
How many emulators include Kaillera? It's just a netplay package.. It wasn't source code created and donated by the public in any sense. It doesn't take anything away from MAME and frankly I find it appalling that such a large project doesn't have its own, open source, superior netplay code.
Frankly I find the whole idea of the GPL to be hypocritical.. I am not necesarrily against it, as people deserve some protection.. But at the same time, how can people claim to want an open source utopia where all code is free, but then if someone wants to take that code and modify it in some way and create a viable commercial enterprise with it, it is somehow illegal and "wrong".. If you can't accept the consequences of wanting free code available to anyone for their own purposes, then don't release your code...
People can say what they want.. But I find commercial software to be superior to open source competitive alternatives in many cases... especially the usability/GUI department.. It's getting better, but still.. Commercial is not the devil, and neither is closed source.
I'm sure I've just opened a can of worms I'll regret but I still have the freedom not to respond... hah.. until that becomes a GPL requirement to "free communications on Internet Bulletin Board Systems" or some BS....lol
Last edited:
jpcline004
Gaijin
The can of worms is right here 
:
http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthread...collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1&new=1209292005
I really just can't understand why Kaillera can't hold itself to the same standard it has for MAME. Basically they want the MAME source to do whatever they see fit, but don't want anyone to do the same with their source code. All they would have to do is go open source with a similar license as MAME and there would be no problem. They might benefit too as I'm sure someone could find and fix the alleged security weaknesses of Kaillera.
The sheer hypocrisy of the situation can be summed up by how Kaillera is responding to the Open K project:
Now is that ironic or what?
:http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthread...collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1&new=1209292005
I really just can't understand why Kaillera can't hold itself to the same standard it has for MAME. Basically they want the MAME source to do whatever they see fit, but don't want anyone to do the same with their source code. All they would have to do is go open source with a similar license as MAME and there would be no problem. They might benefit too as I'm sure someone could find and fix the alleged security weaknesses of Kaillera.
The sheer hypocrisy of the situation can be summed up by how Kaillera is responding to the Open K project:
Now is that ironic or what?
You have no basis for your arguments though.
1. MAME is open source, so everything else should be? That's plain old fashion self righteousness. Being open source doesn't give you the right to tell people what do to with their own code, just because they use your code in a project. As long as your code is properly credited and used appropriately, its tough shit if you don't like what someone has done. Especially if there are no GPL/LGPL violations going on
In any case the problem should be with the people who compiled Mame ++ with Kaillera, not Kaillera itself.. Just because something uses Kaillera doesn't mean the developer of Kaillera was the one who compiled the binaries and did everything.
2. Kaillera was purchased by a third party. That party PAID for the legal rights to the work, including the closed source code. He owns it, he can do anything he pleases with it. It's his legal right to contest copyright infringement in a court.
3. While it may feel good to think Open K caused the new owner to do this, I don't see that claim being made by anyone but you. In the end it doesn't matter though, because if the Open K project is using parts of a closed source project in their own project, then the copyright holder has the right to contest it.. I don't know what the deal about not being patented within the first three years of innovation has to do with anything, but if the owner has legal ground, its tough cookies for them. When it comes down to copyright and patent infringement the person who can prove they came up with an idea and used it FIRST, usually wins. A copyright definitely helps in the owners favor.
But Open K just admitted themselves they were using the client module from the original Kaillera project, a closed source project. If that module was created and not released as an open source project, then they may very well have a legal problem. That's why they said they are waiting for confirmation to see what happens with the next Kaillera release.
The bottom line is they can probably get away with calling themselves Open Kaillera, however.. If it turns out the copyright holder can prove they are using any code he owns the legal rights to, no matter how long ago it was created or how long after creation it took to copyright/patent it, their distribution will become illegal unless they remove that code and use their own open source alternatives.
1. MAME is open source, so everything else should be? That's plain old fashion self righteousness. Being open source doesn't give you the right to tell people what do to with their own code, just because they use your code in a project. As long as your code is properly credited and used appropriately, its tough shit if you don't like what someone has done. Especially if there are no GPL/LGPL violations going on
In any case the problem should be with the people who compiled Mame ++ with Kaillera, not Kaillera itself.. Just because something uses Kaillera doesn't mean the developer of Kaillera was the one who compiled the binaries and did everything.
2. Kaillera was purchased by a third party. That party PAID for the legal rights to the work, including the closed source code. He owns it, he can do anything he pleases with it. It's his legal right to contest copyright infringement in a court.
3. While it may feel good to think Open K caused the new owner to do this, I don't see that claim being made by anyone but you. In the end it doesn't matter though, because if the Open K project is using parts of a closed source project in their own project, then the copyright holder has the right to contest it.. I don't know what the deal about not being patented within the first three years of innovation has to do with anything, but if the owner has legal ground, its tough cookies for them. When it comes down to copyright and patent infringement the person who can prove they came up with an idea and used it FIRST, usually wins. A copyright definitely helps in the owners favor.
But Open K just admitted themselves they were using the client module from the original Kaillera project, a closed source project. If that module was created and not released as an open source project, then they may very well have a legal problem. That's why they said they are waiting for confirmation to see what happens with the next Kaillera release.
The bottom line is they can probably get away with calling themselves Open Kaillera, however.. If it turns out the copyright holder can prove they are using any code he owns the legal rights to, no matter how long ago it was created or how long after creation it took to copyright/patent it, their distribution will become illegal unless they remove that code and use their own open source alternatives.
jpcline004
Gaijin
yes I do, its called the MAME license. If thats what they want to do with the code, thats the rules.
"self righteousness" is people who think MAME or any other open source code should be held to a certain standard and used however they see fit, but their own code is precious and should not be shared with anyone. The license is set up to prevent that. They have made exceptions in the past and will continue to in the future.
Yeah thats true, good point.
Yeah I know how copyrights work. I wasn't saying they had the right to do that, I just thought it was a funny turn of events.
In my opinion, we are lucky to have an amazing open source project like MAME that is actively developed and extremely organized. They could keep it closed source and/or try to make money off of it, but they don't. Thats why it bugs me that people think the code is just public domain and they can do whatever they want with it, but they don't feel obligated to give back in the same way.
Obviously we could argue about this all day and would resolve nothing. I am a proponent of open source software and always will be. Neither of us are right or wrong, we just see it from a different point of view.
