Duh um I liked to see a glass shop get a piece of pinball 2000 glass. If you do get it from them it will be 3x the price. So NO you cannot get this at your local glass shop.

Pin2k glass isn't regular pinball glass. It has some kind of weird reflective tint on it.

Any pics of the glass off the machine? The only one I've seen is when they first came out....what is the reflective material used on the upper half of the glass?

It's part of the glass. Dark and upper part mirrored.

LTG : )

It's used to reflect the CRT monitor video.

The Mirroring is screened onto the glass in a special process. I've seen the stash of glass that Rob Anthony has, he's your best source.

I reckon if you were hard up, regular glass with some mirrored tint on the top half would work.

Will work. Will look like crap.

LTG : )™

*Sigh* I see action in here and I think there will be an update on Nucor returning . . . nope, just glass talk. I do need a new sheet of glass now that I think about it . . . will snag one from Rob at TPF.

I'll start a new thread when that time draws near. I don't expect to be done with this soon. I'll provide updates every three months or when something happens that I can talk about. The only thing I can say right now is we are using this time to update Nucore with new features, improved performance, bug fixes, etc.

I heard InvisiGlass works awesome on RFM. Haven't tried it yet myself..i'm too cheap

Put in a new bonus waive or two. That would make us all happy to wait.

Haha! Non-reflective glass instead of mirrored glass?

Leave my wife out of this ...

Your wife was caught on video doing dirty things with Justin Verlander. Lol

Who do you think shot the video?

vw-oh-snap-o.gif

Nucore, we wants it we needs it.

Full motion to dismiss was filed a few days ago, here are the parts relevant to our discussion (enlarge and it's readable):

motion to dismiss.png

Code snippet from QEMU source (exhibit A referenced above):
QEMU GREP.png

Code snippet from NuCore source (exhibit B referenced above):
NuCore GREP.png

Wow... talking in hypotheticals and 'I'm not the bad guy here' arguments? Yeah, don't see that one winning over any judge. Hope there is something more there in his defense.

I got a little bit of that, but the verbatim QEMU code in the NuCore source is pretty damning.

Well....

Didn't that just blow up in Nucore's face.

Would be good to get it . . . wish they could release it again.

They might have to.....at no charge.

Don't take too much from one side or the other side's memorandums . . . they always look convincing, but oftentimes have major holes of their own.

That said, litigation is always filled with uncertainty. Never know what will come from it; lawyers often are the biggest winners sadly . . .

It's just interesting to see the issues of nucore's use of software that requires them to release it.

......which is why we now see them NOT selling it (and hurriedly pulling it off the shelf). One could suppose that they are trying to rewrite the code without the issues of QUMU. However...it's already too late for them if this is the case.

Makes more than a little sense given all the player involved, and the issues with PPS.

I'll be watching with some interest as this unfolds.

Portions of the release may contain QEMU... but that'd doesn't preclude that other portions of the code aren't copy protected. Did BGP violate opensource... maybe. But I'm guessing it won't give others the right to distribute their code.

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but the defense here seems to be:

"They weren't making money on it, so no copyright exists! And hey, there may be other copyright violated here which means that I should have been able to do it because what goes around comes around, right!"

Having said this, I don't personally care if he has more to his defense than this. Like I said, no matter what you believe about a product, the way to change it is NOT to just release it again yourself.

I said this before, and again, exactly. It all depends on how it was done. I've released products using open source code in the past, and there are a lot of details there. Just because you use open source code to program or even base your code in does not mean you cannot sell the upgrades, changes, and new code that you create yourself.

Yeah, but their issues could range anywhere from simply packaging things poorly vs what they need to do for license to full on modification. Notice the guy doesn't even take on the topic of if its LEGAL use of the code or not.. which ironically seems to shadow exactly what the guy participating on the QEMU project stated. Talking about fingerprints... but falling short of actually discussing how its being used, if its actually modified, etc. I fail to see how a judge even takes any of that into account given the presentation vs the claims.

All of that really has got to be tangent to the guy getting busted for ripping off nucore's stuff. Even if nucore were violating some licensing with part of their code... there is no vigilante excuse in the law that allows him to do whatever he wants with nucore materials.

THe way I read it is the dismissal plea is saying that BGP cannot intentionally harm itself and then blame someone else for the damage. It's all going to come down to the judges understanding of derivative work WRT GPL, LGPL.

If someone thinks BGP is somehow going to rewrite QEMU, they will be waiting long after the cows come home to see a "new and improved" nucore hit the market. I just think this is one fantastic example of the pot suing the kettle. A foundation of sand is what BGP's Nucore was built on. Tough shit.. chew harder.

I'm not seeing a single argument in BGP's favor above that isn't rooted in a logical fallacy. For example, this is absolutely NOT the case:

In fact, the defense here seems to be:
"Nucore is a derivative work and as such is required to be released under the license from which it was derived. Therefore, BGP cannot suffer damages at the hand of defendant for simply enforcing the license implied by Nucore's use of the OSS from which it was derived.

While I agree that the argument presented is quite a bit weaker than it could have been, I must completely disagree that Nucore's code was ripped off. In fact, I think that is exactly what the plea is claiming to deny (although quite poorly).

How long before a ruling?

In fact, the defense here seems to be:
"Nucore is a derivative work and as such is required to be released under the license from which it was derived. Therefore, BGP cannot suffer damages at the hand of defendant for simply enforcing the license implied by Nucore's use of the OSS from which it was derived.

That's how I interpret the defense as well.

Well the rights owns to WMS pinball are makeing money off of that? why this should be free and the rights owns should have no say about what you use to get your HARDWARE working.

I think it's actually one step further. What I read is (point 27) "The product was not for sale at the time the alleged acts happened, and continues to be unavailable, therefore no damages can be claimed since no sales were actually lost."

Remember, this is a civil case (ie: not criminal), so you need to prove that the alleged actions actually resulted in damages. So, in addition to saying that "We can't infringe on copyright that BGP didn't have", he's saying "they suffered no damages even if we did infringe".

That's how I read it anyway.
Keith

But that's the thing. Depending on how you interpret the GNU license, you don't need to release everything. For instance, this:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."

Unless I'm wrong, and I've worked under these sorts of agreements in the past, the QEMU release would have been it's own thing, and NuCore would be considered an independent and separate work. Again, how I interpret this, the GNU agreement is speaking of the core code. I don't have a NuCore set, but from what I can tell, the thing that they should have been doing (and for all I know, may have been doing) is state that the work was done on the QEMU platform and provide a copy of the source code for the version they used. Because the running of a pinball machine is pretty far outside of the scope of what QEMU was built for, you could reasonably state that this was done as an independent work in itself for the sections that were added to it.

Now, again, I'm no lawyer and I'm lucky in that I have worked with the person that created the GNU open source part of the projects I have done, but from what I understand this is a totally reasonable answer to the whole thing.

Regardless, deciding that you're a vigilante isn't really a very good legal argument.

You can fix your HARDWARE without NuCore, so this is a moot point. If this was the way that Williams released it, and then they refused to give it out, sell it, or anything else and when systems broke, it just needed this software to boot, then I think I'd feel differently, as Williams would be legally stopping you from repairing your machine. But they aren't. Your HARDWARE can be repaired without NuCore completely legally.

From developing in the linux community your interpretation is indeed correct. They need to release the relevant source changes for QEMU and nothing else. At least that is how it was always handled when I was doing stuff.

but they can shutdown / sue a free VM system that does let you run the code?

I don't think it pretty far outside of the scope of what QEMU was built for as it's just an PC (with an old chipset) + custom pci card the driver board still needs to be there with parallel pass through.

There are other people that may find use with an VM that can also emulate custom cards / work with old apps / os's that are tied to old chip sets.

Now if NuCore took the QEMU code and added the custom pci card to it's code then what can they do use
Mess / Mame code base? same legal issues? to slow?
Dos box code base? same legal issues?
VirtualBox code base? same legal issues?
make there own X86 VM / emu???

Now can Nucore come out the code changes to QEMU or will the WMS rights owners have a fit about that?

I don't understand all the legality but on the surface it sure does appear that nucore guys had stolen and used the open source code for their own profit. That is pretty messed up that they are then trying to sue someone else for release the code they were supposed to have originally kept open source.

Equally messed up is that I purchased a nucore for a premium at one point and the Nucore guys would not provide ANY support for the product. When contacted at one point I was actually told the product is no longer being sold or supported and then no further reply.

Also talking about profit why should WMS right owns profit off of that as well??

Why should they care that some has a VM to replace the old Pin2k cpu?

If there is going to be a lawsuit they need to go after who own the rights to the games as well as they made profit off of this as well with discovery on what they know about the nucore code.

As for suing someone else for release the code they were supposed to have originally kept open source now with the game rights owner pushed for then THAT IS VERY MESSED UP.

This seems like a big mess and for some who read about DMCA abuse and other tech issues (on more IT / tech based web sites) this may even have some big chilling effects.

You don't understand the legality and then accuse us of stealing?

Don and I have never stopped supporting Nucore. We have helped dozens of people with misc issues and just recently two people who posted here were very happy with the extensive support they received. Whoever you talked to was misinformed and it certainly wasn't Don or myself. We have gone to great lengths to make sure people who have purchased Nucore get support.

I said it sure "appears" that the nucore code is stolen from that source code... Is it not? Sure appears to my layman eyes as VERY similar in the evidence docs.

I bought a nucore as a safety net for my RFM and then saw all the trouble people were having with installing and using it once they went to use it. I attempted to sign up through the 'support' forum and never was able to sign in. I then messaged via the contact tab on your (I assume your?) website to inquire about support and install and got a message back saying that nucore was not currently for sale and got ZERO support. I ended up selling the Nucore after realizing it was just a paper weight to me and my RFM CPU worked just fine so it was silly to have as a "backup". It was also nice to know pinbox was out in the world in case I ever needed it. No support, No product, and no immediate need let me know that I was better off getting rid of it.

It was not stolen. You may want to refrain from accusing people of theft when you don't understand the circumstances as you stated yourself. The situation is indeed complex and we would not sell a stolen product.

The contact page is an email that goes to both Don and me. We respond to all support emails. If you were requesting to purchase Nucore we would have sent a response saying it was not for sale. There is no auto responder and we have never refused to help support anyone.

Stop getting your panties in a bunch. I did not accuse you of stealing, but feel free to try and slap me with a lawsuit if you like. LOL.

I will say you are 100% wrong. I messaged through the big guys pinball (or whatever the page is/was for nucore) and was flat out told no sales and no support at that time. I am not going to dig through my emails to try and find a response that was from a few years ago, but it was made very clear that the project was dead at that time, no new support on your 'support forum' and no help at that time. I don't know whom was fielding emails at that time but that is what I was told back then. Was enough to convince me I was silly to have bought it and happily dumped it when I found someone looking for one.

If you emailed us as a Nucore customer we would not have refused to support you. We never have. Search for Nucore support requests here and you'll see us helping people recently and since we started selling the product. I would like to see the email you received as Don and I pride ourselves on the support we provide.

This may not be the best time to ask, but does any of this stuff mean there may be another nucore?

doesn't look like there will be any time soon.

Yes it does. As I posted a while back we were going to re-release it over a year ago. We have also made a number of improvements and will be re-releasing it as an upgrade for existing users and as a for-sale package to new users. It's actually ready to go and hopefully the wait will not be long.

I again would like to thank everyone for the positive support. Our goal is to get this to people as soon as we possibly can.

make-it-so-captain.jpg

Can we preorder.....or wait for the LE

I wish I could just revel in the oh-so-delicious Irony of this lawsuit....

Unfortunately, the biggest losers are the pinheads.

The new SW movie coming out has re-ignited my interest in getting a Pin2K.... Id feel a lot safer with a working Nucore (or homebrew or open source) option available....