Nucore is no more. I believe they didn't want to pay to renew the license. You can try ebay to see if you can find a motherboard?
(Topic ID: 50846)
Linked Games
Playboy
Williams, 1999-
Revenge From Mars
Bally, 1999
-
Star Wars Episode I
Williams, 1999
-
Wizard Blocks
Williams, 1999
Topic Gallery
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider pinchroma.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Well then correct me Chuck. He was asking for answers? There was a thread not too long ago stating no more Nucore's would be made and that there were a few left and they sold out in like 5 mins. Not sure if it was a vendor or not but no one has them and the reason in that thread was not wanting to renew the license so if thats incorrect as you state I apologize but like anything else around here it's all about what you read.
Here was the thread you started Chuck.
http://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/nucore-announcement#post-382963
Stating it was no longer available? So if that's not the case anymore please re-update us, as there seem to still be a want for it.
Quoted from CaptainNeo:Why would you sell p2k because nucore is unavailable? Seems petty.
If your game just went dead. I don't think it's the motherboard. Most likely it's the Power supply. When you could buy AT power supplies. I bought 2 of them as backups, because this is most commonly the thing to go out. Test the molex outputs and see if your getting your 5 and 12 volts out of the plugs. Black to yellow is 12, red to black is 5. Most likely this is your issue.
Do you make it a habit of buying games with a fairly sizable failure rate of which there are no viable replacement parts? To me it made sense.
Quoted from CaptainNeo:Doesn't bother me. I have games that are super rare and very hard to find replacement parts for. I love zaccaria, try finding game specific parts for those sometimes. Miss World is 1 of 4. if something breaks there, i'm screwed 6 ways from sunday. Everything is fixable in someway or another. Sometimes you have to be creative. I would never sacrifice a great game just because it might be hard to fix it down the road.
I'm not talking playfield parts and brackets. Those can be made or modified. The prism card for example isn't something that was used across multiple titles (except swep1) or is a piece of metal a shop can make for you. It's a bit different. If it wasn't running a proprietary card I would have no problem replacing it with modern components should there be an issue. That's what chuck did with an emulator and did extremely well but since that's unavailable I had to bow out.
1 year later
Quoted from swf127:Great, then you're free to go build your own Nucore knock-off. Get yourself a Linux distro, emacs, gcc and go to town bro. It's all downhill from here. When you're done, feel free to make it open source and give it away to whomever you want.
No self respecting developer uses EMACS. VI 
Quoted from swf127:I'm just waiting for someone to call us both pussies for not using ed or teco.
Hah.. Or Pico/Nano..
For those of you that don't understand this piece, open source software is essentially free for use by anyone and it provides the source code however if you are going to modify it in any way and use it in a commercial setting and/or monetize it you must receive approval from the original creators just like any other IP. If what Paul from the QEMU team says is correct and its easily verifiable by him so there is no reason to doubt it then Nucore has taken QEMU code, modified it, sold it as their own without receiving approval.
<Over simplification of course>
Quoted from SadSack:I agree with most of your conclusion, but disagree with your terminology. IP infringement is not stealing. I also deny your assessment of how open source code may be used in a commercial setting.
There are several open source licenses, but they mostly say all derivative work must also be released under the same terms as the source. I have never seen any reference in a license that monetization requires some sort of permission. To which license are you referring as this is a major disruption to my understanding.
You can not sell a licensed product with MODIFIED open source code without explicitly getting approval and releasing it under the same license. And in this particular case the product is not GPL.
You can't modify XXX, claim it to be your own, then subsequently release it closed source.
There is a great FAQ here: http://opensource.org/faq#commercial
Quoted from sd_tom:Depends all on the licensing. In this case we have:
LGPL - does not require permission to use in proprietary software, even if we equate monetization == proprietary. Just requires release of the derivative work. So in this sense I agree with you that Pinchroma is spinning this a bit with talking about some kind of prior permission.
GPL - I suppose you could get special permission to use it in proprietary project; but this doesn't seem to be what we're talking about (presume LGPL just like Deefunkt claimed).
Not spinning anything. If you are going to release something closed source based on modified open source you need to get permission. Thats the general theme of the open source world. GPL/LGPL.
Share and Share alike.
Quoted from sd_tom:think it's just language. There is two paths.. the clearest / default path with LGPL is to release the changes. Secondary, yes you could make a special case to negotiate personally with the authors to keep the changes proprietary but I doubt many would agree to it as it's against the spirit of the license.
100% correct. There are certain instances where they do agree (such as IBM does with many open source products they completely re-write closed source and release). But companies like IBM have significantly more pull LOL.
Quoted from asay:This is not correct.
You can sell a modified product with LGPL, but you are required to provide the source code to the end user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL
But as Deefunkt and that article state, that only applies if the end product is a derivative work - as in actual modifications were made to the open source code. If you simply use the open source libraries or binaries with your own proprietary software, it does not fall under either the GPL or LGPL.
That's what i said? We are saying the same thing.
Quoted from asay:Sorry, this is the part I disagree with:
We don't know that NuCore is a derivative work, that is that it contains any modified QEMU code. Using open source libraries is not derivative work. You also do not need approval, even if it is derivative.
If it's the case that NuCore isn't a derivative of QEMU, it's very different from what the Pinbox guy did.
Honestly who the hell knows and I really don't care one way or another but given that the QEMU team seem to think there is an issue, there is obviously something that caught there eye. Otherwise they wouldn't have made a post or even concerned themselves and that is the crux of the matter. If they got involved there is obviously a license violation somewhere?
Quoted from metallik:So the 64K question: did nucore twiddle with the bits of QEMU enough to trigger an LGPL code-release clause?
Write custom code that calls existing LGPL libraries and sell the end result = no problem. Modify the LGPL libraries themselves and use those in your code and sell the result = no no.
EXACTLY! That's the question and the point behind the previous posts.
Quoted from flynnibus:That is a gross simplification that will only confuse (and fan the flames here). You can release a closed source project, you just have to release your modifications to the project itself - that does NOT constrain your entire product. Your simplification will only confuse the non software people.
Example: I am building an application to do device control. I need a SSH library for comms. I take a LGPL licensed library and need to improve it for my use. I modify the SSH library with my improvements and release my application for sale. That is all perfectly fine, I just need to release my modifications to the ssh library back to the project as well as cite the libraries and their licenses in my release. This depending again on how I use the library in my code.
But the claim from QEMU does not include claims of modification, or precisely what violation of the LGPL they believe NuCore is in breach of. At the least they could be in violation for lack of documentation... depending on their actual use of the code... could be more. It's minutia that the general pinsider reader won't get and will just run for their pitchfork over anyway.
All of these statements need to be predicated on the specific type of license in discussion.
At the least I don't see ANY license information on Nucore's distribution site or with its distributable.. so any use of other licensed libraries is an issue right now at the minimum.
That's why I posted the faq. I don't even understand the intricacies of each of the licenses. There are so many. GPL/LGPL/Mozilla/Apache.. Impossible to keep all of the nuances straight It's just my general understanding which I simplified but again doesn't really differ from what you said it's literally just simplified.
I've never seen nucore before. I had a pin2k for about a month and sold it with all the original parts working so I never needed to purchase nucore but the premise behind it makes sense. You can't find cyrix processors anymore and if cyrix could be emulated thats really the only way to make the Pin2k code function without the original source code available for recompile and probably a hefty amount of modification. It was definitely out of the box thinking to get it functioning.
Quoted from flynnibus:Or to flip this around... a contributor to a Project made a statement on a website regarding the project they are contributing to. A contributor, not the project owner. A contributor who 'took the liberty' of looking into things and didn't claim he was speaking on behalf of the project or it's owners.
Unless you'd like pinside to start taking all your posts as gospel of what the entire JJP team is thinking or behind when you post something about JJP?
I'm not sure I follow? You mean with regards to the QEMU developer making a statement as to whether he was making that statement himself or for the entirety of the QEMU team?
Who knows? only he can answer that.
Quoted from flynnibus:Well precision matters when talking legalities and making big claims like someone is breaking the law. Plus we must recognize one's words may be used to fuel unnecessary fires when they are reapplied by those without an understanding of their own.
There was a very big difference, because as your post inferred, and as some other posters had falsely concluded before... that Nucore would have to open source their entire product. That's completely untrue except in some very specific circumstances.
Other posters who drew comparisons to pinbox as well were also completely off base.
Its unfair and premature to say just how much (if at all) NuCore is in violation. For all we know, it could be worse case and it's not simply a licensing problem but they thought they could just tweet it and claim it as their own. Or it could be the other extreme of documentation issues. There is certainly some smoke there to question NuCore... but between them and QEMU to prove or disprove.
Unless someone where wants to spend the time doing the disassembly and comparisons. I for one, have actual paying jobs to tend to instead
I for one hope there are no licensing issues. Simply because the product filled a HUGE void and did a great job of it. As someone who has had work stolen on many occasions (such is the nature of development unfortunately) I understand exactly why the Nucore team took the action against the pinbox guy. That is just a deplorable act.
I remember reading an article stating that IP "theft/infringement" wasn't actually stealing. I have no idea as to the specifics surrounding that but from a feeling prospecting it sure feels like you are stolen from when someone uses your hard work.
1 week later
Quoted from Firebaall:Any glass shop can get you a sheet of tempered glass tailored to your exact measurements. For much less...
Pin2k glass isn't regular pinball glass. It has some kind of weird reflective tint on it.
Quoted from jfh:Leave my wife out of this ...
Your wife was caught on video doing dirty things with Justin Verlander. Lol
Promoted items from Pinside Marketplace and Pinside Shops!
Hackensack, NJ
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider pinchroma.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Reply
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!
Donate to PinsideGreat to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
