How extremely weird. Why didn't they just use RTEMS openly? Was it for clout or did they want to circumvent the GPLv2? I can't imagine the Wii Homebrew scene being commercially significant that it would matter.
I suspect that it was neither for clout nor circumvention, but ignorance and people doubling down on that ignorance. If you are not specifically bathed in the norms of the FOSS community, GPL is kind of an unintuitive concept. It's a copyright license that forces you to disclaim most of the benefits of copyright protection. If you're coming from a piracy or game modding scene, where copyright is a thing you wipe your ass with, even the bare minimum of GPL compliance is going to seem like a waste of time at best and someone else trying to butt in on your project at worst.
Think about how many pirates do piracy because they think copyright is unethical, versus how many of them are data hoarders, or just want shit for free, or are reselling shady IPTV boxes on eBay. The former two groups are FOSS-adjacent, but the latter two do not care. Then keep in mind how basically any free shit tends to be almost immediately abused by children with an Internet connection and no access to payment rails.
Homebrew scenes seem like a candidate for doing things "the right way", but culturally they're a lot closer to piracy scenes than anyone wants to admit, at least in front of a court.
That's what makes it come off as stupid and kneejerk to me. This guy wrote "The Wii homebrew community was all built on top of a pile of lies and copyright infringement" like it's some kind of shocking revelation. The guy writes it in a way that makes me think it's fueled by some years-long grudge rather than an intent to unravel some kind of conspiracy. It's kinda pathetic, really.
> Homebrew scenes seem like a candidate for doing things "the right way", but culturally they're a lot closer to piracy scenes than anyone wants to admit, at least in front of a court.
I realize the homebrew scene doesn't view themselves this way, but I pretty much view them as part of the piracy scene even when they are antagonistic towards those who pirate games. The main difference is that they are "pirating" hardware rather than software. By that I mean they are overriding DRM created by the hardware vendor to use the hardware in unauthorized ways.
Now it is easy to say that you should be able to do what you want with hardware you own. In most respects, I am sympathetic with that. Yet I don't like that philosophy for one big reason: it creates a huge disincentive to those who want to create open platforms since it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get any traction when they are up against jailbroken devices from huge multinational corporations.
> it creates a huge disincentive to those who want to create open platforms since it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get any traction when they are up against jailbroken devices from huge multinational corporations.
I'm not so sure about that. More specifically, I wonder if there are more or fewer Steam Decks in the wild than jailbroken Nintendo Switch units.
When I was writing that, I was thinking of other platforms. For example: I had a GP2X at one point, which was a handheld console that ran Linux. It clearly wasn't a mass-market device, but it was an open platform with plenty of development tools. It should have been the sort of thing that appealed to homebrew developers. It was appealing for some, but it was up against the Nintendo DS with flash cartridges. There were almost certainly more flash cartridges than GP2X's in the world, even though they were a grey market item (at best). They didn't have a chance, and I think they only managed to produce one successor before going out of business. (Of course, there were other factors. This was right around the time of smartphones becoming popular. Smartphones may have crumby controls for gaming, but at least anyone could develop software for Android and the barrier to entry was relatively low for iOS.)
The Steam Deck, well, that has other things going for it. Yes, it is an open platform. Yet it, along with similar devices, are also PC compatible. That makes it appealing to developers, may they be developing games for Linux or Windows. Perhaps the biggest thing going for it is being backed by Valve, which is large enough to coexist with Nintendo and is unusual for a larger company in that they value an open ecosystem. To understand how unusual that is for a large player entering the market, just look at the original Xbox.
I very much doubt that jailbreaking and the homebrew scene contribute significantly to the difficulty of building a financially viable open hardware platform.
Building a mass market hardware platform of any kind is incredibly difficult on its own merits.
Note the mention that libogc also copies code from the official Nintendo SDK, which is proprietary.
I would guess one of three cases:
- They didn't want to respect the GPL, because they thought their library would be less popular if it were GPLed. (Many homebrew projects don't want to be fully Open Source because they want to hold back some special sauce, either to slow down efforts by the console vendor to stop them, or to differentiate themselves from other homebrew projects for clout. So someone building a foundational library for homebrew on a platform might want to, legitimately or otherwise, avoid presenting themselves as GPLed.)
- They didn't want to respect the GPL because they couldn't, because they were also pulling in proprietary code they weren't supposed to be using anyway.
- They didn't care because they were already ripping off the Nintendo SDK so why not rip off an Open Source project too. For instance, they just pointedly didn't care about copyright at all, which is a very different position than just not caring about code being proprietary.
(I can respect the position of "we're ignoring the copyright on this old game, so that we can do some awesome modding/romhacking", which is very different than ignoring Open Source licenses and failing to even give credit. I don't see the former as hypocrisy; it's just "we should be able to hack on anything". Console game modders / romhackers / etc tend to have a huge amount of respect for the original game and its authors, and give due credit, even if they're technically violating copyright.)
> Many homebrew projects don't want to be fully Open Source because they want to hold back some special sauce, either to slow down efforts by the console vendor to stop them, or to differentiate themselves from other homebrew projects for clout. So someone building a foundational library for homebrew on a platform might want to, legitimately or otherwise, avoid presenting themselves as GPLed.
For context, The Homebrew Channel itself was one of these projects. fail0verflow had put shittons of work into DRM for the Channel and its installer... purely so that you couldn't remove an anti-scam warning screen that they'd put in there to warn people about shady people trying to sell The Homebrew Channel.
Thing is, GPL requires you to explicitly allow that behavior[0], so HBC can't use GPL software.
[0] It is extraordinarily difficult to write a blanket copyright license that provides most of the terms we care for but prohibits this kind of behavior, without giving the authors the ability to veto anything they don't like. Standard operating procedure in the FOSS space has been to just allow all commercial activity.
> Thing is, GPL requires you to explicitly allow that behavior, so HBC can't use GPL software.
Couldn't, not at the time. HBC has been open-sourced some time ago, sans DRM, as the Wii has long lost commercial relevance beyond enthusiast communities. This open-source re-release is what the repository is.
Yes[0], and if Team Twiizers had consciously decided to use RTEMS code in that way, they probably would have been fine. However, libogc still cannot legally strip out the GPL copyright notices and distribute RTEMS code in that way.
That being said, RTEMS itself is trying to relicense to BSD 2-Clause, which would obviate the concerns over copyleft, but NOT the thing that libogc did. In fact, the 2 clauses left in the BSD 2-Clause license are the ones that require you to retain the copyright notices. So libogc is still in the wrong.
What was the nature of the stolen(infringed really) code? Because a naive first glance show that they were distributing source code from a project that requires that you distribute source code.... shrugs, what's the problem here?
So was it removing license comments from the files?
