Is this another scam?

esc0rtd3w said:
I have seen people port hen before official releases before. It is open source after all :)
Click to expand...

There is a delicate line between "open source" and "no owner".

Because a project is open source and free to distribute or modify, doesn't mean it's a wild project that anyone do anything.
There are some tacit norms and others normally are written in a license.txt which PS3HEN doesn't include.

I recommend to at least specify which license PS3HEN is using. In my github projects I use GNU GPLv3, which is a copyleft with certain restrictions like the modified source code should be made public or any derivative work should use a different name.
 
aldostools said:
There is a delicate line between "open source" and "no owner".

Because a project is open source and free to distribute or modify, doesn't mean it's a wild project that anyone do anything.
There are some tacit norms and others normally are written in a license.txt which PS3HEN doesn't include.

I recommend to at least specify which license PS3HEN is using. In my github projects I use GNU GPLv3, which is a copyleft with certain restrictions like the modified source code should be made public or any derivative work should use a different name.
Click to expand...
That's a good idea. We can probably add a license type for next release.
 
Imo, problem is, anyone could claim they forked before you add the license.
On the other side, is it really relevant? As you would have to sue someone if you think he/she violated the license

edit:
one thing I forgot, maybe you're right and better add one, else maybe someone could fork, add one and claim you violated his license.
If not sure which one to use. maybe think about unlicense
 
aldostools said:
There is a delicate line between "open source" and "no owner".
Click to expand...

Yea. that is the issue right there,

When you make an unofficial update, first you have to respect the project:
  • Is their an update announced or coming from Official Source?
  • Do we have a need?
In this case we knew there was 4.90 support coming and being developed.
So there was not a need, not some could say they needed 4.90 support and all that.
Well no one is stopping them, anyone can make it privately or whatever. but when you start making YouTube Video's and you are then promoting it. Your trying to step in front of the team with its own work NOT RESPECTING THE PROJECT, but USING the project for own self clout or gain's and even in some cases scams.

Just look at what the Ps3Xploit Team has give us:as a team and also as individuals as well.
Then look at how much the scene has abused them rather then respected them.

Most of the developer here would welcome new comer developer's.
Instead of segmenting projects and doing things wrong why not come by and actually learn,
but some (not all) of them are usually just trying to use the projects to promote themselves in some way for some type of scam or self promotion's built on lies.

We see Ps3Xploit projects and even websites cloned. We have people cloning the site on URL's that try to look like the official and they are adding themselves on the team roster.. This is attempts to try and trick people. https://www.psx-place.com/threads/e...iter-is-back-in-4-90.39772/page-3#post-358878
 
vetzki said:
Imo, problem is, anyone could claim they forked before you add the license.
On the other side, is it really relevant? As you would have to sue someone if you think he/she violated the license

edit:
one thing I forgot, maybe you're right and better add one, else maybe someone could fork, add one and claim you violated his license.
If not sure which one to use. maybe think about unlicense
Click to expand...
This article explains what happens when a software distributed on github doesn't have a license. By default it is assumed that it has copyright unless the author express something different.
https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
If you find software that doesn't have a license, that generally means you have no permission from the creators of the software to use, modify, or share the software. Although a code host such as GitHub may allow you to view and fork the code, this does not imply that you are permitted to use, modify, or share the software for any purpose.
Your options:
  • Ask the maintainers nicely to add a license. Unless the software includes strong indications to the contrary, lack of a license is probably an oversight. If the software is hosted on a site like GitHub, open an issue requesting a license and include a link to this site. If you're bold and it's fairly obvious what license is most appropriate, open a pull request to add a license – see "suggest this license" in the sidebar of the page for each license on this site (e.g., MIT).
  • Don't use the software. Find or create an alternative that is under an open source license.
  • Negotiate a private license. Bring your lawyer.
Click to expand...
 
STLcardsWS said:
Yea. that is the issue right there,

When you make an unofficial update, first you have to respect the project:
  • Is their an update announced or coming from Official Source?
  • Do we have a need?
In this case we knew there was 4.90 support coming and being developed.
So there was not a need, not some could say they needed 4.90 support and all that.
Well no one is stopping them, anyone can make it privately or whatever. but when you start making YouTube Video's and you are then promoting it. Your trying to step in front of the team with its own work NOT RESPECTING THE PROJECT, but USING the project for own self clout or gain's and even in some cases scams.

Just look at what the Ps3Xploit Team has give us:as a team and also as individuals as well.
Then look at how much the scene has abused them rather then respected them.

Most of the developer here would welcome new comer developer's.
Instead of segmenting projects and doing things wrong why not come by and actually learn,
but some (not all) of them are usually just trying to use the projects to promote themselves in some way for some type of scam or self promotion's built on lies.

We see Ps3Xploit projects and even websites cloned. We have people cloning the site on URL's that try to look like the official and they are adding themselves on the team roster.. This is attempts to try and trick people. https://www.psx-place.com/threads/e...iter-is-back-in-4-90.39772/page-3#post-358878
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from but I personally strongly disagree. This is not the same as the bgtoolset dumps, not even close.

Uploading something to Github without any license file is indeed a bit of a gray area, and probably should be corrected, but the fact that, unlike the toolset dumps, this has been uploaded by the real authors, to a public repository, and the authors never said it's only for viewing and they're not willing to allow people to fork it, could make the common person believe they're ok with this.
If the authors decide they want the forks removed that's one thing, but I don't think links to unofficial HEN versions should be removed from this forum unless they actually request that, assuming of-course that they make it very clear that it's not the official version and that the original authors of HEN won't be responsible if it breaks your console (although in the case of HEN that's very unlikely).
 
NiQ said:
I understand where you're coming from but I personally strongly disagree. This is not the same as the bgtoolset dumps, not even close.

Uploading something to Github without any license file is indeed a bit of a gray area, and probably should be corrected, but the fact that, unlike the toolset dumps, this has been uploaded by the real authors, to a public repository, and the authors never said it's only for viewing and they're not willing to allow people to fork it, could make the common person believe they're ok with this.
If the authors decide they want the forks removed that's one thing, but I don't think links to unofficial HEN versions should be removed from this forum unless they actually request that, assuming of-course that they make it very clear that it's not the official version and that the original authors of HEN won't be responsible if it breaks your console (although in the case of HEN that's very unlikely).
Click to expand...

That's why I'm suggesting to include a license file or at least mention in the readme what kind of license it follows.
From my previous post, when a license is not included the default is that the project has copyright and the owner doesn't want it shared. But making the source code public makes this status ambiguous, and that's why the license should be specified to avoid assumptions and prevent potential lawsuits to the authors.

I agree that this case is different, since PS3HEN was published as open source on Github, contrary to bgtoolset.
The issue here is in the way the fork was published: It tries to supplant the identity of the original site, causing confusion to the end-users. There isn't any label that indicates that it is an unofficial fork. And even worse, it's mentioning the original authors (without their permission) and someone else as responsible of that site (and therefore the results from its use).

There isn't any disclaimer about responsibility in case of damages. Making unclear if the authors are responsible or not.

Apart from the lack of respect to the hard work of the authors that were not consulted at least as courtesy.
 
aldostools said:
That's why I'm suggesting to include a license file or at least mention in the readme what kind of license it follows.
From my previous post, when a license is not included the default is that the project has copyright and the owner doesn't want it shared. But making the source code public makes this status ambiguous, and that's why the license should be specified to avoid assumptions and prevent potential lawsuits to the authors.

I agree that this case is different, since PS3HEN was published as open source on Github, contrary to bgtoolset.
The issue here is in the way the fork was published: It tries to supplant the identity of the original site, causing confusion to the end-users. There isn't any label that indicates that it is an unofficial fork. And even worse, it's mentioning the original authors (without their permission) and someone else as responsible of that site (and therefore the results from its use).

There isn't any disclaimer about responsibility in case of damages. Making unclear if the authors are responsible or not.

Apart from the lack of respect to the hard work of the authors that were not consulted at least as courtesy.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree. May I suggest that you license it under the GPLv3? That way it'll make sure forks stay open source (at least if their authors respect licenses). Also you can use clause 7 to add a requirement that all forks must be explicitly named as such.
 
NiQ said:
I don't think links to unofficial HEN versions should be removed from this forum
Click to expand...
i have had 2 hen mods and louay was doing one of them before me. they were posted here by us and we provided support ourselves.

if someone posts links to unofficial ports, they do not know exactly what changes (if any) were made. they can not provide support/help in that case.

some hen modders also support piracy. their install websites will have links to games/stores. we can not link to those pages because we would appear to be supporting piracy. that could lead to the website being taken down.

any real, non-pirate hen modders could easily make pull requests on github to have their code become official. the russians were even told by bg that they could help with official hfw/hen releases, but they only want to be first to release.
 
NiQ said:
I understand where you're coming from but I personally strongly disagree. This is not the same as the bgtoolset dumps, not even close..
Click to expand...

I never compared the two and i do agree its different and my ps3HEN FAQ in the recent 4.90 news you will see i say and mention its different, but both project do deserve respect. Promoting an update when official team has one coming, might not be the lines of respecting it and that is what i was saying and was saying it adding on to aldo's comment about it being a fine line.
 
Your dialogue interested me, because I am a lawyer. Please tell me, did Sony give you consent to change its system software?
Quote from the license agreement:

"You may not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the System Software. To the fullest extent permitted by law, you may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble any portion of the System Software, or create any derivative works, or otherwise attempt to create System Software source code from its object code. You may not use any unauthorized, illegal, counterfeit, or modified hardware or software in connection with the System Software, including use of tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the PS3™ system; violate any laws, regulations or statutes, or rights of SIE, its affiliated companies, or third parties in connection with your access to or use of the System Software, including the access, use, or distribution of any software or hardware that you know or should have known to be infringing or pirated; ...exploit the System Software in any manner other than to use it in your PS3™ system in accordance with the accompanying documentation and with authorized software or hardware, including use of the System Software to design, develop, update, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use in connection with the PS3™ system for any reason. Without limiting the scope of SIE's remedies, any violation of these restrictions will void the PS3™ system's warranty and affect your ability to obtain warranty services and repair services from SIE or its affiliated companies,,,"
 
I'm afraid that would not be fair use. Although perhaps the dispute about the law is not the subject of this forum.
 
FFF256 said:
I'm afraid that would not be fair use. Although perhaps the dispute about the law is not the subject of this forum.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the country. There are countries where modding is legal, some where it's not (in those countries even jailbreaking your iPhone would be illegal!) and yet in some other countries modding is usually legal with a few exceptions, which, unfortunately almost always includes game consoles, since they tend to be abused for piracy. Well, it doesn't look like Sony cares about the PS3 at this point to go after modders anyway.

Anyway, we're kinda getting off-topic here - Let's get back to the topic of licenses for the community's own software. To be realistic - even if some Russian site ignores the license completely, it's not like we have so much extra time and money to hire lawyers and go after them. Still I think that adding licenses is important because it conveys the authors' wishes to users, which would prevent cases like this unofficial HEN issue. For those who actually respect the authors' wishes, it would be very useful to know what their wishes actually are.
 
FFF256 said:
Please tell me, did Sony give you consent to change its system software?
Click to expand...
fair use is a defense claimed when breaking copyright law. just like self-defense against an attacker, we do not need permission. the burden of proof is on us in any court case, so the fact that sony does not sue us means that they hired lawyers better than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Back
Top