search

sam-itt / teo-ng

Teo-ng - A Thomson TO8 Emulator
http://www.teo-ng.com
GNU General Public License v2.0
10 stars 1 forks source link

licence violation #1

Open gilles504 opened 3 years ago

gilles504 commented 3 years ago

this project is in violation of original project licence GPL. You cannot remove it nor replace authors by your name.

sam-itt commented 3 years ago

Hi,

Can you please elaborate on this ? I by any means don't intend to misrepresent authorship or licensing and as such:

There is even a link to the original project on the very fist line of the readme that is displayed to anyone lands on the github repo.

Full disclosure, my first move was to try to get this changes into vanilla Teo, but to no avail. Hence the fork.

Best,

gilles504 commented 3 years ago

Until further explaination this is at best an hostile fork. Your last comment is obviously wrong, as the owner of repository and regular poster on reference forums on TEO project the last exchange I had from you was a REPLY mail in 2012 because we wanted you to remove an offending repository on sourceforge where you presented teo unmodified as your own project (you never removed the offending repository, still active and misleading today : https://sourceforge.net/projects/teo/).

But even as an hostile fork you must at least follow some rules: your work is a port of an emulator, not an emulator, porting is great but you must make reasonable publicity in order that your change can be merged back (or not) in main project. (pro tip : I learned it from facebook 10 months later, it seems your publicity effort were not that successfull...) you cannot replace copyright by reference of your project, you can, and should display both (for example in "about message" in SDL dialog). a link is not a suitable reference in a readme, it must also be in full text (copyright line with names) the 2 files at toplevel (licence_en.txt and licencefr.txt) must not be removed, you can add a line for your project (and for other projects used, SDL, hatari...). the TEO line must be immediatly after your project line. you must check that you have the rights for the tools are they are not part of teo nor automaticaly GPL (mostly cc90hfe) docs are not covered by GPL even if it is in repository. You have to ask for it use the correct terms, your project is a port, 100% of emulation is from teo. => correct this point in github project title. teo-ng is also not a "continuation". It is a parallel port, the origin project is not dead, it is just mature and maintained and does not need much evolution at this point from emulation point of view.

Some other points not directly related to the github issue: you had no direct right to use the name "TEO" for a TO8 emulator context. TEO was first published (internet and magazines) as a closed source program until v1.0 so the name is not gpl. We need to discuss this point. the website www.teo-ng.com is also problematic, the original project is not referenced nor linked. The call to donations is misleading, you must clarify and use correct terms here.

Silent hostile forks happens too often these days, it is NEVER a problem when fork initiators have a minimal communication, most of the time the fork will be an experimental branch merged back (and sometimes they also become Lead dev, it happened 2x for teo and also for Previous).

JayFoxRox commented 3 years ago

this project is in violation of original project licence GPL. You cannot remove it nor replace authors by your name.

Can you show explicitly where this happened? I looked at this earlier today (before your last reply) and wasn't able to find anything offending. The first copyright messages I found refer to people who aren't @sam-itt.

Until further explaination this is at best an hostile fork.

I don't think it is? It lists a couple of features it offers over the upstream codebase - many of which aren't for a broad audience, but useful for what teo-ng uses them for. I don't get the feeling that it's a hostile fork.

Your last comment is obviously wrong, as the owner of repository and regular poster on reference forums on TEO project the last exchange I had from you was a REPLY mail in 2012 because we wanted you to remove an offending repository on sourceforge where you presented teo unmodified as your own project (you never removed the offending repository, still active and misleading today : https://sourceforge.net/projects/teo/).

The last change is from 8 years go - clearly that's abandoned. Even if it isn't: Mirroring a GPL repo isn't forbidden - not only that.. it's encouraged.

If you think there's an issue, consult Sourceforge support.

But even as an hostile fork you must at least follow some rules:

Again: Probably not a hostile fork. But also: Yes. namely the involved licenses, like the GPL.

_ your work is a port of an emulator, not an emulator, porting is great but you must make reasonable publicity in order that your change can be merged back (or not) in main project. (pro tip : I learned it from facebook 10 months later, it seems your publicity effort were not that successfull...)

This is not a rule anyone has to follow. It's not part of the GPL at all - you can't deliver code under GPL and then make up your own rules. Making up your own rules is a violation of the GPL.

Also not every change is useful in upstream projects. As long as it doesn't fragment the developer community I consider forks to be a non-issue.

_ you cannot replace copyright by reference of your project, you can, and should display both (for example in "about message" in SDL dialog).

The full list is still in the code: https://github.com/sam-itt/teo-ng/blob/2031bd75b82f7cbb266ca41637848bef3466fdb4/src/sdl2/sgui/sabout.c#L39-L48

The GPL does not require the full list in that place either, especially the way it's styled in the original doesn't make it look like a copyright message to me.

_ a link is not a suitable reference in a readme, it must also be in full text (copyright line with names)

I see nothing here which would violate the GPL. The GPL does not demand to be in the README.

_ the 2 files at toplevel (licence_en.txt and licence_fr.txt) must not be removed, you can add a line for your project (and for other projects used, SDL, hatari...). the TEO line must be immediatly after your project line.

This is not part of the GPL either, so you can't demand it.

_ you must check that you have the rights for the tools are they are not part of teo nor automaticaly GPL (mostly cc90hfe)

I can't comment on this as I have no idea about the ecosystem. But if you could point out specific issues, then I'm sure that @sam-itt will look at them.

_ docs are not covered by GPL even if it is in repository. You have to ask for it

Fair point, although the original TEO repository does a very poor job at documenting which files are affected by which license.

_ use the correct terms, your project is a port, 100% of emulation is from teo. => correct this point in github project title.

You can't enforce any of this. There's no license which prevents @sam-itt from doing this, and I don't think it's a misrepresentation either.

A ported emulator is still an emulator. If you paint your car red, it's still a car - demanding to no longer call it a "car" because it is now a different color is ridiculous.

teo-ng is also not a "continuation". It is a parallel port, the origin project is not dead, it is just mature and maintained and does not need much evolution at this point from emulation point of view.

I think "continuation" could be a fair term in this situation.

It's just that teo-ng targets different platforms, where development can continue and evolve. It also takes it into a more modern development direction, where there's also room for evolving.

Some other points not directly related to the github issue: _ you had no direct right to use the name "TEO" for a TO8 emulator context. TEO was first published (internet and magazines) as a closed source program until v1.0 so the name is not gpl. We need to discuss this point.

When skimming over the original license, there was nothing preventing this. Taking a variation of the name when forking is common practice, the GPL allows it. If you don't want it, clearly separate the brand from the GPL and slap a license on it.

However, as an acronym (and name that people have) it's pretty hard to protect this name anyway.

_ the website www.teo-ng.com is also problematic, the original project is not referenced nor linked. The call to donations is misleading, you must clarify and use correct terms here.

Again: Not enforced by the GPL (which the majority of the original TEO seems to be licensed under).

I also don't think the call for donations is misleading either. I don't personally like it either, but it's also very obvious that a lot of love went into this port and its ecosystem. It's a shame that it didn't get more attention.

Silent hostile forks happens too often these days, it is NEVER a problem when fork initiators have a minimal communication, most of the time the fork will be an experimental branch merged back (and sometimes they also become Lead dev, it happened 2x for teo and also for Previous).

To summarize:

I rarely get involved in these discussions lately, but I feel that you are treating @sam-itt unfairly here, @gilles504. I don't see any obvious violation of the GPL. I'm not sure about violations of other TEO licenses (although some violations might exist, considering how convoluted the TEO license situation seems to be, paired with poor documentation in the upstream project).

What I can say: Back when this port was created, @sam-itt got in touch with the nxdk (Open-Source Xbox toolchain) people and was very interested in getting feedback and sharing his code (in the spirit of Open-Source). If there is any legal issue, it's clearly not intended. Also realize that this isn't a huge corporation trying to scam people. It's literally 1 person (@sam-itt) with a small audience, trying to make the world a happier place.

Even though it's probably not the intention, comments like those from @gilles504 are very discouraging and hurt Open-Source. Such comments is what actively drove me away from Open-Source in recent times.

gilles504 commented 3 years ago

I cannot agree with you. You promote a flavor of borderline licence usage where what is not stricly written is authorized... and forget basic ethics that was non written but implicit when GPL2 was published. All the points I listed are direct offences to our developers and project history, and above all to Francois that did a huge amount of work to obtain the most precise 6809 engine in emulators as of today and 1clock tick perfect emulation of the whole machine. Open source is about merit, not over exaggeration to boost an ego. Work on teo-ng is a port and an update of build system, no more, no less.

I will not discuss further, I have no time for the hostile or semi-hostile forks of the open source projects I'm maintaining or contributing. I just hope significant adjustments will be made to address the issues.

Rgds.

Le mar. 22 déc. 2020 à 01:04, Jannik Vogel notifications@github.com a écrit :

this project is in violation of original project licence GPL. You cannot remove it nor replace authors by your name.

Can you show explicitly where this happened? I looked at this earlier today (before your last reply) and wasn't able to find anything offending. The first copyright messages I found refer to people who aren't @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt.

Until further explaination this is at best an hostile fork.

I don't think it is? It lists a couple of features it offers over the upstream codebase - many of which aren't for a broad audience, but useful for what teo-ng uses them for. I don't get the feeling that it's a hostile fork.

Your last comment is obviously wrong, as the owner of repository and regular poster on reference forums on TEO project the last exchange I had from you was a REPLY mail in 2012 because we wanted you to remove an offending repository on sourceforge where you presented teo unmodified as your own project (you never removed the offending repository, still active and misleading today : https://sourceforge.net/projects/teo/).

The last change is from 8 years go - clearly that's abandoned. Even if it isn't: Mirroring a GPL repo isn't forbidden - not only that.. it's encouraged.

If you think there's an issue, consult Sourceforge support.

But even as an hostile fork you must at least follow some rules:

Again: Probably not a hostile fork. But also: Yes. namely the involved licenses, like the GPL.

_ your work is a port of an emulator, not an emulator, porting is great but you must make reasonable publicity in order that your change can be merged back (or not) in main project. (pro tip : I learned it from facebook 10 months later, it seems your publicity effort were not that successfull...)

This is not a rule anyone has to follow. It's not part of the GPL at all - you can't deliver code under GPL and then make up your own rules. Making up your own rules is a violation of the GPL.

Also not every change is useful in upstream projects. As long as it doesn't fragment the developer community I consider forks to be a non-issue.

_ you cannot replace copyright by reference of your project, you can, and should display both (for example in "about message" in SDL dialog).

The full list is still in the code: https://github.com/sam-itt/teo-ng/blob/2031bd75b82f7cbb266ca41637848bef3466fdb4/src/sdl2/sgui/sabout.c#L39-L48

The GPL does not require the full list in that place either, especially the way it's styled in the original doesn't make it look like a copyright message to me.

_ a link is not a suitable reference in a readme, it must also be in full text (copyright line with names)

I see nothing here which would violate the GPL. The GPL does not demand to be in the README.

_ the 2 files at toplevel (licence_en.txt and licence_fr.txt) must not be removed, you can add a line for your project (and for other projects used, SDL, hatari...). the TEO line must be immediatly after your project line.

This is not part of the GPL either, so you can't demand it.

_ you must check that you have the rights for the tools are they are not part of teo nor automaticaly GPL (mostly cc90hfe)

I can't comment on this as I have no idea about the ecosystem. But if you could point out specific issues, then I'm sure that @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt will look at them.

_ docs are not covered by GPL even if it is in repository. You have to ask for it

Fair point, although the original TEO repository does a very poor job at documenting which files are affected by which license.

_ use the correct terms, your project is a port, 100% of emulation is from teo. => correct this point in github project title.

You can't enforce any of this. There's no license which prevents @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt from doing this, and I don't think it's a misrepresentation either.

A ported emulator is still an emulator. If you paint your car red, it's still a car - demanding to no longer call it a "car" because it is now a different color is ridiculous.

teo-ng is also not a "continuation". It is a parallel port, the origin project is not dead, it is just mature and maintained and does not need much evolution at this point from emulation point of view.

I think "continuation" could be a fair term in this situation.

It's just that teo-ng targets different platforms, where development can continue and evolve. It also takes it into a more modern development direction, where there's also room for evolving.

Some other points not directly related to the github issue: _ you had no direct right to use the name "TEO" for a TO8 emulator context. TEO was first published (internet and magazines) as a closed source program until v1.0 so the name is not gpl. We need to discuss this point.

When skimming over the original license, there was nothing preventing this. Taking a variation of the name when forking is common practice, the GPL allows it. If you don't want it, clearly separate the brand from the GPL and slap a license on it.

However, as an acronym (and name that people have) it's pretty hard to protect this name anyway.

_ the website www.teo-ng.com is also problematic, the original project is not referenced nor linked. The call to donations is misleading, you must clarify and use correct terms here.

Again: Not enforced by the GPL (which the majority of the original TEO seems to be licensed under).

I also don't think the call for donations is misleading either. I don't personally like it either, but it's also very obvious that a lot of love went into this port and its ecosystem. It's a shame that it didn't get more attention.

Silent hostile forks happens too often these days, it is NEVER a problem when fork initiators have a minimal communication, most of the time the fork will be an experimental branch merged back (and sometimes they also become Lead dev, it happened 2x for teo and also for Previous).

To summarize:

  • I don't think this is a hostile fork. But real hostile forks happen too often, yes.
  • I'm not sure I understand the rest of your arguments.
  • This is a fork with a more modern ecosystem than the vanilla project seems to have; I'm convinced that modernizing the ecosystem was a goal for @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt; but that's the kind of change you can't simply contribute back.
  • This fork otherwise targets niche platforms with only a handful of users, I don't think it should be upstreamed. Forking it was the right move in my opinion. Not sure about calling it a continuation if upstream is still "alive".
  • Nobody must contribute back to upstream; it's not part of the GPL. If you want that to happen, you should treat potential contributors with respect, rather than accusing them of being a hostile fork and vaguely calling them out for legal issues.

I rarely get involved in these discussions lately, but I feel that you are treating @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt unfairly here, @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504. I don't see any obvious violation of the GPL. I'm not sure about violations of other TEO licenses (although some violations might exist, considering how convoluted the TEO license situation seems to be, paired with poor documentation in the upstream project).

What I can say: Back when this port was created, @sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt got in touch with the nxdk (Open-Source Xbox toolchain) people and was very interested in getting feedback and sharing his code (in the spirit of Open-Source). If there is any legal issue, it's clearly not intended. Also realize that this isn't a huge corporation trying to scam people. It's literally 1 person (@sam-itt https://github.com/sam-itt) with a small audience, trying to make the world a happier place.

Even though it's probably not the intention, comments like those from @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504 are very discouraging and hurt Open-Source. Such comments is what actively drove me away from Open-Source in recent times.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sam-itt/teo-ng/issues/1#issuecomment-749262635, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLECJBSTYZBGQRNMICIPWTSV7PCRANCNFSM4VCV46CA .

sam-itt commented 3 years ago

Unfortunately I couldn't take part in this discussion yesterday as I was driving all day. However I can't just let it slip like that.

The first thing that comes to my mind is wondering why @gilles504 is acting like that, really. This so much wrong on so many levels I didn't even know where to start:

A) You just can't go around making bold claims accusations about licensing violation and copyright appropriation when the very first look at the landing page (about box, readme, etc.) tells otherwise. Especially when asked for clarifications you fail to provide any and worse start to demand to comply with unwritten licencing terms. Decency begs that you at least (God forbids apologising) take your claims back.

B) I'm sorry to say that (really) but the only "hostile" thing here is your behavior. My original intent was to contribute to Teo, give my code, have my features merged in and be done. That's why the very first thing I did was to write on sourceforge to the repo admins. If you are one go and and check your inbox. I had an answer with @hadess, sent patches (including a fix on the dos version, I thought he had merged it but I can't find the commit on sf.net) but he clearly didn't have time to review everything as life was happening to him (and that's ok, life is currently happening to me:)). Therefore I dedicded to roll my own thing and create the website, and spend more time on the whole thing. I've invested quite some time creating patches that applied to the vanilla teo to not be told that I didn't try to contribute.

C) As you bring up the past I think that you should tell the whole story, not the only part that fits your narative.

Before uploading the code on sourceforge (there wasn't anything on sf.net back then, Teo source was distributed on a website), I wrote to the contacts given on that very website and Eric Botcazou replied in a very friendly manner that he was OK with me doing anything with Teo and only asking that I started my versions at 1.9 (I still have that email somewere). I wanted to publish a version including a keyboard fix and do other things (which I did years later with Teo-ng) and needed a repo and back then sf.net was the thing.

And who came out of nowhere stating that I was stealing (while no modifications about authorship or licencing had been made, and no release published)? The very you! I thought that you were rightfully mistaken and explained myself, forwarded you the email with Eric. You never replied and kept silent until today.

So twice in a row you are making false claims - which clearly don't hold water - telling half-truths and incomplete stories, in a pure FUD manner. Why are you doing that?

E) Are you, @gilles504 also harassing going after https://www.bannister.org/software/teo.htm? Or maybe he's a friend of yours and as such gets a free pass? It uses the same software name, I only see his name on the page, and I don't see any links (at first glance, maybe It's somewhere) to get the sourcecode. Ain't that a more "real" licence violation?

F) Teo-ng is a little more than a port to the xbox, and while it's true that it doesn't improve the core emulation part it clearly adds features especially on the Unix version that didn't have neither fullscreen nor joystick support and builds for OS X (in a more GPL compliant way that the Bannister's version of teo). I'm not listing everything here, there a short list on the README, you can do a diff, and the complete history available on github will tell what has been done over the sourceforge version (complete list of all commits of everyone, tell me about authorship misrepresentation...)

G) Last but least, a big thank you for @JayFoxRox for giving a voice to reason and of course his help during the nxdk's port. I'm currently working on another project which will be released in a couple of weeks now and after that I might have a go with some pbkit in nxdk :)

P.S: As @JayFoxRox has already explained to @gilles504 what is the GPL and won't be re-adressing the same parts. However for the docs I don't know and I might need to do a little research about their licencing. Are you @gilles504 claiming authorship for the docs? Which parts? For cc90hfe etc and other tools, I thought they were GPL as well as they where included along with the same licencing files. If it turns out they are not, I'll remove them. They are to this day optional in Teo-ng and I was thinking of making them a separated project since you clearly don't need them If you just want to use the emulator.

P.P.S: My code is GPL, feel free to take it into Teo. I might even shutdown teo-ng if vanilla Teo gets all the improvements I've made there would be no point of me having to maintain teo-ng.

gilles504 commented 3 years ago

this is not a correct transcript of communications: here is the correct timeline from my mail archives (sourceforge archives seems dead now):

1st message 22/02 (no content archived)

2nd message gilles fetis gilles_fetis@users.sourceforge.net

mar. 28 févr. 2012 13:41

À Samuel, gilles Bonjour, En tant qu\'auteur d\'origine (et membre actif de l\'équipe actuelle de développement) de cet émulateur je vous prie de ne plus en utiliser le nom et de désenregistrer le projet de sourceforge. teo étant en licence GPL vous pouvez créer un projet dérivatif si vous le souhaitez mais en aucun cas vous approprier un projet avec une modification mineure de Makefile, ni en utiliser le nom sans notre accord. Merci de votre action rapide. Cordialement,

Gilles Fétis gilles504@gmail.com

Samuel CUELLA noreply@sourceforge.net

28 févr. 2012 14:10

À gilles, Samuel Bonjour,

Vous vous méprenez sur mes intentions : Il n\'a jamais été question de m\'approprier ce projet.

Voici ce qui c\'est passé : J\'ai rencontré un problème de mapping clavier sous X (je ne me souviens plus exactement lequel), et certains souci de compilation. J\'ai résolu ces problèmes et voulu envoyer un patch au mainteneur référencé sur le site officiel de Teo, Eric Botcazou.

Ce dernier m\'a indiqué ne plus maintenir le projet. A l\'époque j\'avais un peu temps et je souhaitait en plus porter la version Unix vers SDL au lieu d\'attaquer X directement, entre autre pour obtenir une version Full Screen, et passer vers un systeme de compilation comme les autotools. Choses que je n\'ai finalement pas faites.

Toujours dans cet état d\'esprit, et suivant la réponse d\'Eric Botcazou déclarant ne plus maintenir teo, je lui ai indiqué mon intention de créer un projet sur sf.net pour stocker mes modifications. Je lui ai alors demandé s\'il s\'opposait à ce que je conserve le nom « teo ». Il a déclaré ne pas avoir d\'objections.

Le projet sf.net contient donc plus des modifications sur les Makefiles une modification du code source qui permet de résoudre un problème de clavier (il me semble maintenant qu\'il s\'agit des symboles qui sont accessibles sur le clavier pc avec alt-gr). Les noms des auteurs originaux figurent toujours dans les en-têtes.

Si vous maintenez votre demande, je changerai le nom du projet sur sf.net si possible ou je le supprimerai.

Cordialement,

Gilles Fétis gilles504@gmail.com

28 févr. 2012 14:30

À Samuel Eric s'est effectivement désengagé du projet et nous avons parfois du mal à communiquer avec lui (il n'a plus vraiment le temps, c'est son droit)... Les problèmes de makefile sont normalement réglés dans la version en cours (1.8.1), il est maintenant aussi possible de créer un package debian.

Ce serait mieux si nous pouvions récupérer le nom teo, je peux aussi regarder si le patch clavier est encore d'actualité. Pour sourceforge je pense qu'il est préférable de renommer le projet actuel (par exemple en teo-1.7.6 qui a l'avantage de ne pas être ambigu), ou bien de le supprimer.

Merci.

=> here you did not get this message because of a "noreply" on mail set by sourceforge

=> so I sent a new message with full address

16 avr. 2012 11:48

À samvel je n'avais pas remarqué le "noreply@sourceforge" comme expéditeur du message... forcément ca marche moins bien comme ca :) Donc le projet a avancé en tant que teo-emulator, il serait bien de désinscrire le projet teo de sourceforge et, au besoin, de rejoindre le projet teo-emulator.

=> then you went silent...

no mail, no join request, nothing. You also never removed or renamed your sourceforge project, sourceforge was still about hosting at that time, not cloning. The repository was heavily modified after this point. You cannot ignore this point because you imported an up to date source code. Lots of post were made on reference forums about the emulator by both of the main maintainers and you know those forums because you put a link on your website. I can be reached by mail, sourceforge, linkedin, facebook, all major french forums, mess board...

You never tried to became part of the project, maybe you have sent a mail to hadess that as contributed for compilation issues but is not a core developer, anyway I never got this information.

I do not deny your work at all, SDL and Hatari/aranym limited GUI is a good choice, I've made the same for Previous, Idle and exl100 and it was planned for the final removal of allegro4 lib for non GTK versions.

But since you did not code any line of emulation your lack of credit is hostile and your claim that you coded an emulator is wrong.

Le mer. 23 déc. 2020 à 12:28, sam-itt notifications@github.com a écrit :

Unfortunately I couldn't take part in this discussion yesterday as I was driving all day. However I can't just let it slip like that.

The first thing that comes to my mind is wondering why @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504 is acting like that, really. This so much wrong on so many levels I didn't even know where to start:

A) You just can't go around making bold claims accusations about licensing violation and copyright appropriation when the very first look at the landing page (about box, readme, etc.) tells otherwise. Especially when asked for clarifications you fail to provide any and worse start to demand to comply with unwritten licencing terms. Decency begs that you at least (God forbids apologising) take your claims back.

B) I'm sorry to say that (really) but the only "hostile" thing here is your behavior. My original intent was to contribute to Teo, give my code, have my features merged in at be done. That's why the very first thing I did was to write on sourceforge to the repo admins. If you are one go and and check your inbox. I had an answer with @hadess https://github.com/hadess, sent patches (he even merged a fix on the dos version) but he clearly didn't have time to review everything as life was happening to him (and that's ok, life is currently happening to me:)). Therefore I dedicded to roll my own thing and create the website, and spend more time on the whole thing. I've invested quite some time creating patches that applied to the vanilla teo to not be told that I didn't try to contribute.

C) As you bring up the past I think that you should tell the whole story, not the only part that fits your narative.

Before uploading the code on sourceforge (there wasn't anything on sf.net back then, Teo source was distributed on a website), I wrote to the contacts given on that very website and Eric Botcazou replied in a very friendly manner that he was OK with me doing anything with Teo and only asking that I started my versions at 1.9 (I still have that email somewere). I wanted to publish a version including a keyboard fix and do other things (which I did years later with Teo-ng) and needed a repo and back then sf.net was the thing.

And who came out of nowhere stating that I was stealing (while no modifications about authorship or licencing had been made, and no release published)? The very you! I thought that you were rightfully mistaken and explained myself, forwarded you the email with Eric. You never replied and kept silent until today.

So twice in a row you are making false claims - which clearly don't hold water - telling half-truths and incomplete stories, in a pure FUD manner. Why are you doing that?

E) Are you, @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504 also harassing going after https://www.bannister.org/software/teo.htm? Or maybe he's a friend of yours and as such gets a free pass? It uses the same software name, I only see his name on the page, and I don't see any links to get the sourcecode. Ain't that a more "real" licence violation?

F) Teo-ng is a little more than a port to the xbox, and while it's true that it doesn't improve the core emulation part it clearly adds features especially on the Unix version that didn't have neither fullscreen nor joystick support and builds for OS X (in a more GPL compliant way that the Bannister's version of teo).

G) Last but least, a big thank you for @JayFoxRox https://github.com/JayFoxRox for giving a voice to reason and of course his help during the nxdk's port. I'm currently working on another project which will be released in a couple of weeks now and after that I might have a go with some pbkit in nxdk :)

P.S: As @JayFoxRox https://github.com/JayFoxRox has already explained to @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504 what is the GPL and won't be re-adressing the same parts. However for the docs I don't know and I might need to do a little research about their licencing. Are you @gilles504 https://github.com/gilles504 claiming authorship for the docs? Which parts? For cc90hfe etc and other tools, I thought they were GPL as well as they where included along with the same licencing files. If it turns out they are not, I'll remove them. They are to this day optional in Teo-ng and I was thinking of making them a separated project since you clearly don't need them If you just want to use the emulator.

P.P.S: My code is GPL, feel free to take it into Teo. I might even shutdown teo-ng if vanilla Teo gets all the improvements I've made there would be no point of me having to maintain teo-ng.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sam-itt/teo-ng/issues/1#issuecomment-750178565, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADLECJAZDYYEU45OPFE4KWTSWHH7BANCNFSM4VCV46CA .