Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:41 am
by squall_leonhart69r

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:39 pm
by SparroHawc
I saw that! Props to Dan for showing willing.

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:04 pm
by adventure_of_link
hey Squall

next time you talk to Dan, tell him I said it's no big deal @ coming over to get the port officialized. I understand he's busy and all, and we're not gonna go away anytime soon :)

and tell him I said congrats on fixing the licensing issues :)

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:00 am
by squall_leonhart69r
:P you lazy bones, you do it!

Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:32 pm
by adventure_of_link
Wait

hey Squall

this squarepusher that you're getting a hold of right now

is this the same squarepusher that's going that whole Snes9X slim thing...

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:39 pm
by Tantric
SparroHawc wrote:At least SNES9x-rr states right on the front page that SNES9x itself has a different license. I think the license listing on the left pane of Google Code's page is listed as GPL primarily out of ignorance. The authors are likely intending to release -their- contributions as GPL or LGPL... but by including SNES9x's source code, yeah, they're failing on the legal grounds.
Actually, the problem was that up until only a year ago Google Code didn't let you pick "Other License" as an option

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:30 pm
by SparroHawc
Ah. Joy. So any emulator older than the addition is likely to be listed as GPL.

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:55 am
by ixfd64
I know this is kind of an old post, but how hard would it be to rewrite the non-GPL code?

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:55 pm
by SparroHawc
Most of SNES9x is non-GPL. Once you're looking at that, you may as well just make a completely separate emulator.