You might want to make yourself informed before you come out all guns blazing. I'll lower the comprehension requirement for you some and spell it out for you.

Pinchroma made a statement that the QEMU project had some beliefs based solely on the posting of an individual contributor of the QEMU project (who stated they took some action on their own accord). Taking the statement of an individual, and then transposing that with the beliefs and actions of the larger project.

I guess what you are unaware of is... Pinchroma has been a volunteer, supplier and contributor to JJP for a long time. He has also gotten himself in hot water numerous times in the past for his postings as an individual and struggling to differentiate between his actions as an individual vs his postings/actions reflecting upon JJP or as part of JJP. So for him to leap from an individual contributor acting on their own merit to mean they must reflect what the QEMU project thinks and intends... is something I doubt he wants to be the standard. Water under the bridge here... but the point is about how one makes leaps about how posts are applied to people they are associated with, but may not be speaking on behalf of.

So that's how JJP's name was used. Capache?

And now I know you have a comprehension problem.

Do any of you really know what's going on? This is all what ifs and speculation.

Maybe but due to bad laws like the DMCA maybe even the open source QEMU can be in in legal trouble.

also how much open source code / ripped from pinmame / mame is in pinball arcade?? at least they don't try to shut down VPM.

That's exactly my point. To my knowledge none of us here speculating has seen the NuCore source code. I'm not saying it is one way or the other, but no one has posted any concrete evidence that Nucore or even Pinbox have violated any copyright laws.

NuCors guy said it "looks like" Pinbox redistributed their software. QEMU guy said it "looks like" Nucore modified their code. That's really all we have right now.

Huh? What does DMCA have to do with a legitimate open source project?

with DMCA abuse like this
http://www.copyhype.com/2014/03/some-examples-of-dmca-abuse/
https://www.eff.org/document/unintended-consequences-fifteen-years-under-dmca

anything can happen not likely to happen with most open source projects.

But out side of pinball VM systems can be used to get about software that licence locked to hardware by faking mac address, getting round software that is licensed by socket. Tell the system I have 1 socket with a very high number of cores (more then what 1 of the real cpus has) So I pay less then buying a 2 socket one. Yes that can be a DMCA violation.

This forum is not really the best place to talk about DMCA stuff. Other sites have big posts about the DMCA.

If it actually gets to court, would it be before a judge only, or is there a possibility of having a jury? If the dongle dont fit, theyd have to acquit!

I don't know whats better in a tech case judge only or jury. Maybe with a jury you may get a few people who about computer / tech to be able see pass the BS that may be put in the case.

This ^^^^^^^.

This is the most hilarious clusterfuck I've ever seen. Very entertaining!

You have to remember, Williams Electronics, Inc. still has the last say in everything and may have told their licensor and licensee to secure the problem before it is marketed further. This may be why we're not hearing much more from PPS and Big Guys Pinball.

It's impossible to "secure the problem". You can't go get the cracked copies off the internet and put them away. Those will be out there forever. Suing the guy doesn't solve anything in this regard.

Securing the problem is more about 'what are you doing to prevent this?' - The licensee may have a degree of liability if they do not take adequate measures to protect the IP they have licensed.
Suing the guy is about defending your IP and ensuring a problem doesn't become rampant.

Thanks, Dad! I didn't realize once the genie is out of its bottle that it was impossible to get him back in. It is, however, more difficult to find and implement since the OS is out of date, PPS pulled the roms and its more difficult to find the the app with roms than it was in the past unless you know someone who has it and is willing to share.

Wow, haven't checked on this in a bit, the plot thickens...

Actually appreciating the pinbox stuff more and more now knowing nothing legit may ever make it back.

For those still following, here is the defense's motion to dismiss. I only included the parts I found relevant to our discussion, and redacted MasterGeek's actual name.

Copyright cases tend to have a moral component to them namely, identifying who the free-rider is, who is taking advantage of the effort of others for personal profit.
With all respect to Big Guys Pinball, the Complaint in this case most emphatically misidentifies the alleged free-rider.

What the evidence will show in this case (and the reason why a dismissal is inorder) is that the software that Big Guys Pinball no longer sells, is a derivative work of QEMU. The Defendant, MasterGeek, has never attempted to earn a dime (and has not earned a dime) off of any work of Big Guys Pinball. MasterGeek is emphatically not the free-rider in this case. All MasterGeek is, is one of millions of grateful and cooperative active participants in the Free Software ecosystem, and someone who emphatically supports the core principles of FreeSoftware (which include giving back) for the demonstrable benefit of all humanity.

Big Guys Pinball, on the other hand, by making a derivative work of QEMU, and attempting to profit off of that derivative work, without releasing the source code of their changes, and without releasing the derivative work as required under the GPL and/or LGPL, acted as a free rider to the detriment not only of MasterGeek, but of the entire Free Software ecosystem. And that’s what this case is all about.
Additionally, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It would be grossly inequitable to allow Big Guys Pinball to sue MasterGeek. Big Guys Pinball created a derivative work of QEMU, and then violated both the copyright of the QEMU authors, and also the GPL and LGPL (of which licenses, MasterGeek is an intended third party beneficiary).

Even assuming that all the allegations in the Complaint are true, all PinGeek is accused of doing, is exactly what the GPL and LGPL give him every legal right to do, when Big Guys Pinball intentionally have not fulfilled the “give back” requirements of the GPL and LGPL, with respect to their derivative work of QEMU.

Finally, the Complaint is subject to dismissal, either as a whole or in part, due to the operation of Section 412 of the Copyright Act, and therequirement of registration.The Plaintiff’s registration was not effective until January 31, 2014, and everything that the Plaintiff alleges preceded that date. We do not believe (in light of BigGuys Pinball’s apparent violation of the GPL and the LGPL), that any infringement whatsoever, occurred. But even assuming all the allegations in the Complaint to be true, Section 412, 17U.S.C. sec. 412 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/412), still is fatal to the Plaintiff’s claim.

You missed a redaction.

Although this is an interesting topic to discuss, nobody knows the true facts of the situation. Most of these posts are "if" and "might" type posts, with no facts. Why not let Don and Chuck finish their lawsuit, then I'm sure the true facts of the situation will be revealed and most of you will probably be surprised.

I doubt anybody would want their personal lawsuit discussed on an open forum, and I'm sure this thread isn't helping Don and Chuck's cause.

Fixed.

That's what America's legal system is **supposed** to be about, openness.

It's good to be able to discuss legal things on a forum like this.

Many readers probably never knew what a GPL was before this thread.

Thanks for posting this. The one thing that bugs me in this statement is tossing LGPL and GPL together like they are interchangeable... they are not, and in a way that matters there. Though, complicated further is QEMU has elements that are both LGPL and GPL so really depends what pieces are lifted. The legal system I imagine doesn't cope well with such technical issues like which lines of code are GPL vs LGP and proving all this in court.

What I can't believe is that is enough money here for anyone to bother with actual lawsuits.

Egos get bruised, and people start burning money "on principle" or "to prove a point".

Unfortunately the point people intend on proving is the opposite of the point they intended to prove.

A few short things...

Bingo.

Secondly, for anyone with the claims about if NuCore was or was not illegal based on this other software thing, at the end of the day there are tons of nuances to those licenses that are hard to nail down completely. I have published works using open source licenses to create that work in the past, and depending on lots of different factors, it may or may not be legal to do things with that code.

Having said that, no matter what, Pinbox-man didn't release his code saying, "HEY! NuCore was done wrong, so I'm releasing it!" He came out saying he made this brand new product from the ground up, no problem. That was a lie. If he had come out originally saying that, perhaps this whole thing wouldn't be in litigation right now.

There is a lot more that this affects, but no matter what any of you say or believe, Pinbox guy was not being a 'good guy' in doing what he was doing.

Ah, but that's not really correct here...

So assuming that's correct (i.e. nucore is statically linked, and I have no reason to not believe a project contributor), then there are no outs. The provisions of the LGPL say that it must be DYNAMICALLY linked so that the user can change/update the library if they desire. Alternatively, object code must be provided to relink against a static lib. It sounds very obvious that it's a static link, and I doubt object code has been provided to relink to get them out of that clause.

All courtroom precedings are public. I'm just reposting publically available information, and actually leaving out many personal details.

It may be helping the case of the guy that they are trying to do damage to and from what it appears on the surface, the Nucore guys may in fact be the ones that were violating original copyright agreements concerning the root of the Nucore coding?

Pretty funny that a bunch of butt hurt egos is going to end up costing these guys a bunch of time, energy, and money when it is possible they built nucore on the backs of others coding efforts.

Pot, meet kettle...

Conan, what is best in life?

My understanding of section 6 of LGPL which covers static vs dynamic linking would indicated you can staticlink but would have to release object files and stuff so someone could relink the code. . huge pain

I guess regardless, it boils down to if Nucore complied with however they used LGPL or GPL code which nobody has claimed happened correctly yet. I hadnt seen what you quoted about Deefunkt specifically calling out that he suspected the GPL'd emulator had mods..which is bad for either LGPL or GPL.. And using GPL at all is really bad for them.

At any rate.. All my programming has been for defense (uav autopilots) and now medical devices where this stuff is treated as SOUP (software of unknown providence) and largely avoided . This whole thing sounds like a big pile of SOUP now.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Ug... I'm also in the medical device field and you had to go and mix my hobby and my profession by throwing around terms like SOUP. I come here to get AWAY from work... THANKS ALOT!!

Jaz

IF that response that asay posted is truly Mastergeek's response, then he must have an idiot for a lawyer (ie: representing himself). The link there for the US section 412 of the code points to a non-legal source at Cornell (ie: an internet link which has no legal standing whatsoever). In fact, it's pretty funny since the last line of the link on Cornell's site says this..
"LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII."

Too funny...

Jaz

It's not exactly Bluebook format, but adding a link to Cornell's site is not fatal to the defense.

I added the link so people would know what law he was citing...........

All this law talk is moot. In the end, only the lawyers will get anything at all. If you ask me, these nucore guys have shown themselves to be extremely weak in understanding the ways of the world.

I don't think the 'Robin Hood' defense is gonna work for them

I don't follow their claim of dismissal under s 412 either given all the exclusions in that.

I know its only snips... but that motion didn't look all that convincing to me

( ((drama follow)) )

what a train wreck.

The only thing I see regarding this fuckfest is the price of SW & RFM tanking....that's all & stay tuned!

unlikely as VERY few have ever had a problem with the PRISM or CPUs and Rob is a whiz at fixing them anyway. Nucore was a nicety at best and Pinbox is readily available now if you know where to look. The outcome of this whole drama is likely some lawyers with more money and some brusied egos.

IMHO, the value of pin2K no longer is impacted by the worry of a obsolete system since pinbox got out of the bag.

I agree with whysnow on this one. The value of the pin2k's was already artificially depressed for this reason. The value has already absorbed the risk.

I hope this matter ends soon. In the courtroom nothing ever seems to resolve quickly but perhaps this will be different...

the way this continues to stack up, i'd almost expect disney to step in and say that SWE1 videos were never licensed.

Changing the subject slightly, is the playfield glass available?

I'm going to take a step back -
What even IS a Nucore? I've seen references to it in the past, but since they haven't been available for over two years, I can't find any info on 'em.

http://www.bigguyspinball.com/whatis.shtml

google is your friend. First hit for "nucore pinball"

(google pinball humor...)

go to google.com

type in this popular pinball word --> tilt
then press enter key.

enjoy

Odd - When I search for 'nucore pinball', the first hit is the original thread on Pinside.

Thanks though!

Talk with Rob (Borygard) he still has NOS glass but you need to pick it up at a show he goes to.

http://www.lockwhenlit.com/products.htm

Any glass shop can get you a sheet of tempered glass tailored to your exact measurements. For much less...