

ZodTTD, The Android emulator dev, responds to Google taking down his apps. - avree
http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/it-hit-hard/

======
zodttd
Go ahead and continue the negative talk about me in regards to licensing
violation claims if you must. So be it. But as mentioned earlier, I posted
this as to why Google responded the way they did. And it had nothing to do
with open source violations.

To respond to some posts here. I generally don't charge for emulators. An
example of profit sharing for ones I do, gpSPhone is done with an arrangement
between the original author and I. It is licensed accordingly.

Though not an excuse these apps are largely an overblown hobby for me. I've
come to learn how seriously people take this licensing. I always tended to do
a lot of incremental updates, sometimes multiple ones to multiple products a
day. Source control was a mess up until recently. Like I said, this was hobby-
grade.

For those talking about a quick buck. If you think I'm getting rich off these
emulators, you're sorely mistaken. I can easily focus AppStore and do better.
Really all I wanted to do was take peoples requests for ports since the
Tapwave Zodiac, GBA, and GP2X days, and give them something to play with.

I've heard enough bashing of my name over the past year, that I haven't
touched much at all since then. There's a laundry list of updates I want to
do, but there's so much involved now it's not worth the grief. I had way too
many ports being worked on, and spread way too thin.

I'm sure someone else will come along, step up, and do a lot of great work for
emulation and homebrew in general on mobile devices. Just remember they do
this out of love, either for free or unsustainable pay, and deal with tons of
support questions and requests daily. Don't burn them out on politics.

I will gladly respond to concerns, as I have before. Though none of this will
be needed to be discussed soon enough.

~~~
valisystem
> Go ahead and continue the negative talk about me in regards to licensing
> violation claims if you must.

If you want to gain credibility on this, I suggest you to do an extensive
research from your past work, see what open source code you used, and explain
for each case, with more or less verifiable material, what actions, mandatory
or courteous, you have taken in order to respect software license and their
author (code publication, credits, and so on).

~~~
zodttd
Thanks...

This all comes down to freshening up my GitHub and removing a Cydia Store
product. This will be done but I let this mob mentality continue for too long.

I spread myself pretty thin. I can count 20+ projects depending how far into
the couple years I go. I have well over 4GB of development files with the
majority being source trees.

Some of these will be fairly straight forward and not require much action at
all. As Xuzz notes here, I have my projects source up on my GitHub, sometimes
it just needs to be updated. Also sometimes it is updated, but just lands up
needing some organizing to realize it (version number mismatches in code or
instance).

Most however will be difficult when it comes to who to credit. I found out
this is taken close to the heart over the years. I upset someone I respect
very much, Notaz, at one point for not giving credit where credit was due. I
rectified this with psx4droid v3 which I used his source, maintained a COPYING
and README, credited, and kept the source up to date on GitHub. The issue is
many emulators have been rehashed and ported so many times. For instance
psx4droid v3 is based on Notaz PCSX-ReARMed which is a port of PCSX-Reloaded
which is based on PCSX at some point. Along the way it used a MAME author's
source file for handling the GTE. The MAME author contacted me for credit on
the next revision which has not happened yet, and we discussed the issue at
hand was it being passed down so much. So sometimes the credit list is huge
and mostly unknown, and sometimes licenses mismatch if you really look at the
sources.

A good example is SNES which has been rehashed and ported to death from snes9x
(and as Xuzz pointed out, will fix) almost exclusively. The code usually
becomes a huge mix in the end to the point it's a good luck situation to
unravel it.

So doing this is not impossible, I will have to find some balance to please as
many as possible without going insane trying to figure the sort out. Most
being freshening the source at GitHub and checking compliance there. In the
end there will be those who will complain and smear regardless. For those in
this mob, they would never be fans and/or customers in the first place, but
they do affect the overall feel of a company. And that's what concerns me
moving forward...

I appreciate you being calm and courteous with your constructive criticism.

~~~
Aissen
Indeed, this is a hobbyist doing tens of programmers' job in his free time
(this is a compliment) aka a _hacker_.

All these problems you describe remind me of _most_ GPL violations: people not
caring much where code comes from (gotta prototype fast), not using source
management for their _internal_ process, and then finishing a huge pile of
code with no traceability whatsoever with regards to what come from where and
whom. Add to that the fact that you come from the emulator community, who is
more interested in credits and who did what than licenses and legal stuff (as
opposed to OSS communities).

Obviously, you've learned how to use git and other modern tools by now, but
the damage has already been done, and your reputation tarnished. Regaining
that back is not gonna be an easy one, because everyone is watching your every
steps.

I already talked to you on Twitter about a violation in psx4droid: you
published libpsx (<https://github.com/zodttd/libpsx>) which is the emulation
library, the core of the app. But this is _just_ a library, and not the whole
app. And this library is under GPLv2, and you're basically linking to it and
distributing it in your apk. Therefore, the whole app (psx4droid) should be
released as GPL, including the UI, and all the candy around(buildscripts…).
And that's with this kind of borderline behavior that you find so many people
bad-mouthing you here on HN (no one is against the guy making a buck).

~~~
zodttd
Your assessment is fairly accurate. Though I consulted with others over GPLv2
and its usage of libraries. One person consulted with was the author of this
software.

The UI is in Java and is part of a closed source project which I have been
honoring. The library is called by the JNI. It is not linked statically.

If you have more to say on the usage of libraries in GPLv2, please share.

~~~
Aissen
Agreed, dynamic linking of libraries is a relatively grey area with lots of
diverging point of views. This Wikipedia article cites them all, and gives all
the necessary references :
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)

------
Xuzz
I've talked with ZodTTD about this, but I've also done my own research into
the licensing claims. What I've found is that most of his Cydia (and,
presumably, Android) apps do rely on at least one GPL-licensed component.
Note, however, that he _can_ sell GPL'd apps, and the GPL _specifically_
allows this: he just need to release the source code (edit: or give it to
people when they ask).

However, looking at his GitHub, his source releases are _not_ timely (although
they do seem to be complete). If ZodTTD just added "dump source to GitHub" as
part of his release process, there would be no issues here. I don't think
ZodTTD is deliberately trying to steal money or code from anyone, but I think
he misunderstands the importance of putting out the source code for his
emulators _right away_ , as they are released to a store.

(However, there is one exception: SNES9x has a license specifically forbidding
commercial use. ZodTTD's "snes4iphone" then does, in fact, either need to be
taken down or (at least?) made free from now on.)

~~~
cma
Apple routinely waits a longer time than this guy before putting out the
mobile webkit code from a given ios release.

~~~
Xuzz
And they don't release a buildable or complete copy of the source (more info:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2530689>). But, ZodTTD's emulators aren't
in the App Store since Apple won't allow them, so that's not really relevant
here.

~~~
gcb
he was giving grounds to call non-sense the reason of "not timely updating
source repositories because of GPL" given on the first post.

~~~
zodttd
I'm confused as to who is giving who grounds by your comment here.

------
Pewpewarrows
Sorry ZodTTD, that's not how Open Source licenses work. Cutting a back room
deal with some of the original authors for a cut of your profits doesn't
absolve you from blatant violation of a software license. If that even
happened, considering that all we have to go on is your already tarnished word
that you're passing the profits along.

You have a rotten history of taking others' open source work and trying to
turn it around for a quick buck. Google had every right to suspend your
accounts.

~~~
Estragon
Actually, if it's a GNU licence, the original author may be perfectly entitled
to licence the software under more commercially favorable terms. I know of at
least one author who's made a significant amount of money doing this.

~~~
avree
It was GNU GPL.

~~~
georgemcbay
Actually it doesn't matter what license it is. It isn't so much that the GNU
GPL allows or disallows you to sell a commercial version without source but
rather that the original copyright holder can release the software under as
many different licenses as they want to, similar to the way that Nokia (née
Trolltech) used to release Qt as GPL but also sell commercial licenses that
allowed you to not be beholden to the GPL. The trick is that the person
releasing under multiple licenses must own all the code (which is one of the
reasons some projects require copyright assignment to contribute).

Of course all of this is likely irrelevant in this specific case, since I
don't think this guy is telling the truth here, but you can absolutely sell
GPL (or any other FOSS license) licensed code to other parties under a
different license that doesn't require them to share code as long as you hold
the copyright to that code.

~~~
zodttd
What truth am I to tell?

~~~
seabee
Presumably, the 'truth' that they originally found out about. Given there have
been a few spins on the story and one player (Google) is being
characteristically quiet, not everyone will believe you, or be generous to
suppose an innocent misunderstanding happened.

~~~
zodttd
That's a shame. There's not much to this. Summed up here:
[http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-
licens...](http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licensing/)

------
charliesome
I don't have any respect for ZodTTD. For years he's been taking open source
software and reselling it on Cydia with no attribution for the original
authors. As far as I'm concerned, he's a thief.

~~~
dexen
_> As far as I'm concerned, he's a thief._

Oh really? If they violated licencing terms, drop a mail the EFF[1] guys and
they'll help to sort it out. They already have helped in sorting out a bunch
of cases, most often amicably.

If ZodTTD conformed to the licensing terms, what's your point? It's the
original developer that picks particular license -- wide is variety available
already, covering most grounds.

[1] <http://www.eff.org/>

~~~
brigade
EFF only does stuff if an actual copyright holder asks them to (and signs a
legally binding thing as such), not random internet people.

~~~
zodttd
I received a great contact at the EFF during their help towards fighting to
maintain legality of "jailbreaking" of the iPhone.

------
drivebyacct2
The title on reddit was implied that ZodTTD was going to respond to the
licensing claims. I see nothing here that serves as a response to the claims
being levied against yongzh and ZodTTD.

~~~
freakwit
"First and foremost, our takedowns have nothing to do with any sort of open
source licensing violation. Both Yong and I handle developer relations behind
the scenes. We give cuts to original authors at times, and I have posted
sources to my source repository. Though there is a lot of rhetoric surrounding
this, it is not an issue."

------
shareme
ah sorry ZodTTD but you have shown a clear habit of violating the android
market agreements.

What was Google to do pat you on the head and say good job? No, instead they
followed the agreement you signed.

Rather than blame Google why not read the damn thing you signed?!

~~~
zodttd
Cute. But in reality they could tell me what I violated in their terms, and
take down those specific application(s). Then if there was a trend, they could
terminate the account as they normally do. That's the trend. They broke this
trend with me by not only removing the apps but following up with no
interaction on my part by suspending my Google Checkout (!) and Android Market
account for my company and I for life.

Not much of a habit, I had a couple products on there. Only major thing up
there was psx4droid. The rest were lil things I did to learn some techniques
within psx4droid.

The driving motivation to come to Android was a petition of a few thousand
signers asking me to produce exactly what I did.

Also remember Google did not pull my account for the reason of open source
software licensing violations. I received a takedown notice from a game
company. As did Yong.

So your statements and questions are irrelevant but must be responded to now
quite often as it has become accepted among the community.

In short: My product was removed from a takedown from a game company & Google
Android partner. My only issue was Google terminating my Google Checkout and
Android Market accounts instead of just suspending the individual app(s) like
they normally do. This is against Google's traditional ways of doing things on
Market.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
It almost sounds like Google's way of being unreachable, and all mighty. "You,
the peasant, are allowed to work in Our field".

I do hope you get some sort of answers. I loved the stuff you made, and ended
up playing Chrono Trigger with a wiimote on the iphone (and getting crazy
looks at that).

~~~
zodttd
I really don't like the fact there is zero developer support for Market given
the fact it's self-regulated. The game company / Google partner could easily
contact them to remove my app. Fair enough. But how do I contact a human at
Google's Android Market? Haven't figured that out yet.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
"But how do I contact a human at Google..."

Full stop. Sorry for being so trite, but you don't. Doesn't matter if you have
millions in ad revenue or whatnot. Lack of customer service is one of the
biggest reasons from staying away from google offerings.

------
leon_
So this guy takes open source projects and puts them onto the android market
to sell for profit? This isn't an ethical thing to do.

Good thing Google kicked him out of the market.

~~~
danssig
Does Android automatically pick up open source code and publish it to the app
store itself? No? Then isn't the effort of packaging it up, etc. worth
something?

This is largely a site by and for entrepreneurs. Claiming that making money
from working isn't ethical isn't going to go over very well here.

~~~
zodttd
Also note that porting from a desktop environment to a mobile phone involves a
lot more than simply running it through a different compiler. At times there
are very major changes in code required on top of the replacement of input
code, and on top of that a GUI to select games and any phone specific features
in the HAL.

I think people think of this as being very simple. I ask them to write their
own MIPS R3000A -> ARM v5|v7 dynamic recompiler and get back to me. Or if it's
already in place, try debugging it when memory addressing changes for 1:1 RAM
offsets, the functions for certain phones don't clear ICACHE|DCACHE properly,
or there's a bug in it when moving platforms. Happens. A lot.

There is some worth to that. Either way, OSS license violations wasn't why I
was removed from Android and Checkout.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
There's an interesting working theory as to why it happened:

Another commenter, somewhere else on HN, said that Sony was getting ready to
release a Playstation Phone. XPeria, I think the name was. Only makes sense
they remove competition before the "legit" product comes out.

*spit on Sony. Will only use emulators/TPB rips for playstation games. Will not give any money to them in any way shape or form.

~~~
zodttd
I am the one who was removed from Google's Android Market. The game company
issued a takedown notice to Google. Their motives are unknown.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
I was indirectly blaming Sony and their general evilness.

What other company removes features from products, and then sues people who
restore them? And who got away with infecting tens of millions computers with
rootkits?

It is a war in business: you deal with competition any way you can. It's only
illegal if you're caught. And it's not like there's a corporate death
sentence. Hell, even the baby bells are nearly reformed.

------
Animus7
The issue here isn't ZodTTD, it's Google. Whatever licensing issues there are
surrounding this, are we to believe the entire Android team wasn't closely
watching sales of the questionably legal emulators that were selling like
hotcakes on Market?

Google wants to have their cake and eat it too. They'll only support devs as
long as it will help them get their App Store (TM) off the ground.

Good for business, probably. But definitely Evil.

~~~
zodttd
That's part of the discussion I intended for. This wasn't about licensing. And
they could take down the apps in question. But why remove our entire accounts?
The treatment involved by robo-emails and no human support was scary.

