While I "wish" them all the luck... this is me not holding my breath.

I'd buy Nucore over pinbox... if they can demonstrate legal licenses for QEMU.
It's only a matter of time for the computer to give up the ghost in my RFM.

Goes to show how little you understand - or maybe you have insider knowledge.

It's highly unlikely in my opinion that Nucore has not violated the QEMU license agreement.
If they have modified the source of QEMU in any way; they are required under the agreement to release their changes under the same license of QEMU. If they touched one single line of code; that's the whole ball game.

So; If they added code for the Pin2k cpu... its gpu... or any other piece of the emulator ... then they have no choice. No one can convince me that they did were able not modify the emulator... or take pieces of the emulator code to implement the Pin2k system. If you beleive they were; then it's pretty clear you aren't a software engineer.

That's the thing that rubs me the wrong way with Nucore... Great product; but I cannot see HOW they didn't modify QEMU code... and their failure to honor that license agreement makes it an even worse situation.

Pinbox - meh. I see their work as theft... even if is was used to highlight the QEMU infringement.

I for one feel hugely disappointed that this thing was settled out of court - so we'll never know how badly NuCore stole the QEMU codebase. :sigh:

making "libraries" of GPLed code is a slippery slope.
Later versions of GPL license usually include derivative works to include applications which call the GPLed code as part of a library. This is why I tend to assume if the license has certain wording it's to be avoided.

http://wiki.qemu.org/License
GPLv2... is one of those licenses which seems to indicate to me that any modification of any part of the code... including making a "library" triggers the "must distribute code". Even if Nucore somehow made QEMU a static library; at the VERY LEAST they needed to make the static libraries source available.

I wonder if they managed to write the pin2k modules as a library to QEMU... if the QEMU "interface" for those modules is "GPLed"... and as such; aren't they required to release the source for those modules?

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

This is why I really wish FSF would take Nucore to court - just so these questions could be answered definitively and without question.

Yes; Nucore did something right by creating a product we needed.... BUT IMHO; they "cheaped out" by using a GPLed/free/opensource emulator which clearly had to have some kind of modification to emulate the pin2k system. I understand their desire and need to keep that source to themselves for profit and for Williams licensing reasons.... BUT that should have forced them to clearly go with a "for sale" emulator like VMware or something where they could protect that IP.

Again - because we don't know via court documents... or via Nucore's own documentation - we can't be sure of anything.
My gut tells me that QEMU *had* to be modified to "pass" MediaGX GFX and other SOC registers to the nucore software. There is no way Nucore implemented a hardware model of the MediaGX CPU on their usb proprietary card. As a result; the QEMU software had to translate MediaGX framebuffers / gfx calls to the host's Video card. Because of this; short of seeing documents - I have to believe they modified the emulation host software (qemu) to accomplish their goals.

If I had infinite time and resources; I'd obtain a copy of nucore's own qemu implementation and do a disassembly vs stock qemu. I'd almost be willing to bet the two implementations have binary changes which would pretty much "seal" the deal that they broke the license.

Doesn't matter. *IF* AMD or Cyrix at the time released programmer manuals with SOC information; it's now in the public domain anyway. AMD can't "pull" information they released. It's the same situation with many other companies - once you release a datasheet / manual with how to do something - you forgive your rights to reign in opensource projects. At best; you can only sue competitors copying implementations - not software apps using the information to accomplish a goal. Could you imagine if AMD tried to sue Microsoft for using x86-64bit extensions. Just wouldn't/couldn't happen.

*IF* Nucore modified any bit of QEMU to support MediaGX chips... then they were legally obligated to share that source - regardless of if AMD's IP was used. Nucore had ZERO CHOICE given they then distributed binaries of said modifications.

I'd bet wms got very little. Rick got it all... after lining pockets of nucore.

My point wasn't in implying Rick shouldn't get paid... but that I doubt WMS is getting much if anything.

They CAN make it legal... either way I hope they return.

lololol... what do you think?
NuCore is dead... they just won't admit it.

I'm 98% certain the "lawsuit" they brought against the Pinbox team is "done" and settled out of court.

However, what came up in that lawsuit ... I think it's earlier in this thread... is that NuCore violated terms of GPL claiming they could compile in source code from GPLed code into their closed source binaries. That isn't the case. Perhaps the Free Software Foundation actually has them in court for this violation.

I'm not sure... and really; I'm only spreading conjecture. The facts are that NuCore has been MIA since they filed suit against the Pinbox team... and that is a pretty clear motivation if you ask me.

All of that sad; I *hope* I'm wrong as I have a working RFM Pinball which needs a tube swap. One day; sadly, I may need to keep my system running and I'd rather support a GPL-compliant implementation of NuCore.

This finally happened:
https://www.pinballnews.com/site/2017/08/22/nucore-returns/
and in this thread:
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/nucore-returns#post-4038324

But sadily; they are still not offering the source code under GPL agreements.

Has anyone actually gotten the source code?
If they never fill any orders for the source code; then they aren't in compliance.
My gut tells me that they have no intention of shipping any orders for that source code.