SMS License (AFL) Violation?

[peterdcrees]

I am not trying to upset anyone but I have the following questions:

Why is the source code of the current version of SMS not available?

If SMS contains AFL / GPL licensed code then the source code for SMS should be available right?

In the SMS readme it states:

License
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For my code it is the same as for ps2sdk (AFL). For ffmpeg - "GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" .

The AFL is quite clear:

Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the Original Work, and by publishing the address of that information repository in a notice immediately following the copyright notice that applies to the Original Work.

I have seen some comments in the forums about not releasing the code because someone was intending to use it in a commercial product. However I think that use is ALLOWED by the AFL!

Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work and Derivative Works.

[psi88]

I'd guess the parts of SMS that contain AFL code ARE available as source

If you check the download page you can see the bottom states..

SMS source code for version 2.1 (Rev.2) as WebSVN is available here http://svn.ps2dev.org/listing.php?re...MS/&rev=0&sc=0

I'd also guess anything changed since 2.1 (rev2) is all EEUG's own work which he wants to keep private, and he doesnt want THAT code stolen and used by commercial product..

I dont think he's made his own work available as source to anyone he doesnt have 1-1 contact with, unless they can add to the project as he see's fit.. his choice at the end of the day really no matter how many people want it...

[JNABK]

Why is the source code of the current version of SMS not available?


"Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes."

I interpret this to mean only the source of the Original Work must be made available, not the updated work. And as long as you can download that from the Official SMS download site, it meets this requirement.

The AFL is quite clear:

Seems you forgot to read the rest of that:

3) *Grant of Source Code License.* The term "Source Code" means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work.
Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source
Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that
Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute
the Original Work, and by publishing the address of that information
repository in a notice immediately following the copyright notice that
applies to the Original Work.

What that means is you have the right to modify the Original Work to suit your version, not copy the most current version and call it yours to distribute or sell. Just as if you took that original work and added your own codes, your not bound by this to release the source of your 'added' code, only the original you started with.

If SMS contains AFL / GPL licensed code then the source code for SMS should be available right?

And it appears it is:
SMS Official Downloads At the bottom of page.

Im just curious as to 'whats the big deal anyway', not meant to be sarcastic or anything, just curious.

[lee99]

I'd guess the parts of SMS that contain AFL code ARE available as source

If you check the download page you can see the bottom states..

SMS source code for version 2.1 (Rev.2) as WebSVN is available here http://svn.ps2dev.org/listing.php?re...MS/&rev=0&sc=0

I'd also guess anything changed since 2.1 (rev2) is all EEUG's own work which he wants to keep private, and he doesnt want THAT code stolen and used by commercial product..

I dont think he's made his own work available as source to anyone he doesnt have 1-1 contact with, unless they can add to the project as he see's fit.. his choice at the end of the day really no matter how many people want it...

Same thougts over here

[suloku]

AFAIK SMS 2.2 new decoding capacities made it unsuitable for a public source code.

I suppose source uses copyrighted material, but the final SMS binary file doesn't have any copyrighted things, as EUGG has always ben cautious about that.

[psudobuddha]

i kinda feel the same way.

3) *Grant of Source Code License.* The term "Source Code" means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work.
Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source
Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that
Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute
the Original Work, and by publishing the address of that information
repository in a notice immediately following the copyright notice that
applies to the Original Work.

in this particular instance "Original Work" would be interpreted to the current, most up-to-date distributed form; but if the reason he is not distributing it to prevent commercial redistribution, then he should add a text file defining his own terms. Such should be fine, but I would have to read the full AFL to be sure.

[JNABK]

Original work is the Original compilation, how could updated work to that be considered as original too?

If you created something and released it to the public for the very first time, that is your Original work. If you update it and release updated work, your new release isnt an original, its an updated copy OF the original work. This is Derivative Work not Original Work.

Each update is a modification to the original work, its Derived from the Original work and this is what is meant in that section:

Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source
Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that
Licensor distributes.

This is because each updated release ALSO contains the Original Work in which it was updated {derived} from.


If you were to add an entirely different update to that original work using the provided source, and you distribute your work, you only need to provide the source to the Original work your started with.....not the source of your ADDED work because you modified it FROM an original copy and it is no longer JUST the original work. But because you used the Original work in your compilation, you are bound by this license to provide a copy of the Original Work too.

I've read this a few times now and it doesnt say anywhere you must provide any sources to Derivative Work to meet the license requirements.

[lee99]

can we close this tread?
it seems going nowhere
the source will not be public untill Eeug decide it to be.
period!

[psi88]

seconded

[JNABK]

Third-ed