Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ever thought of compiling a database of emufakers?
#1
Since some of the emufakers are the same people over and over again, why not compile some "list" or database to catch them if they try it again.

Just a thought.
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
May I ask what an emufaker is?

I really have no clue Blink
Reply
#3
I don't know if there is an official terminology for it, but its individuals who take other persons/peoples emulation projects and claim them entirely as there own. That they coded the whole thing. That they code it entirely themselves. Its usually a scheme to get paypal donations or recognition.

Its a real problem in the open software world, because the code is right there for anyone to take. I'm sure gabest has expereinced it numerous times with his mediaplayerclassic.
Reply
#4
Fakers do get too much free publicity without further putting them in halls of fame/shame. They are just that after all: attention seekers.
Those following emulation since long have seen plenty of such people over the years. At least they provide download links to their reshcked builds nowadays, so even easier to spot fakery among vaporware.

smiff sums up nicely enough what makes such people tick (googlecached since the domain doesnt respond):
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:http:...a_fake.htm

A funny one never ceasing to entertain is "EmuOS" (a "slimmed down linux distro supposedly finished 70% and able to make pcsx2 run faster on weak components"). Some of these cases can be this entertaining to read about.
http://forums.ngemu.com/emulation-news-s...on-os.html


I made a tentative list in the Bin at emuforums, though that online version has not been updated much to include the past and most recent cases (the thread called "fake emulators and fake emulation").


And for MediaPlayerClassic, groklaw and the FSF shouldve been contacted at the time (the KMP case is this signficant so as to have required their attention to be directed at it. While bullying smallfry router manufacturers can be fun, its nicer to deal with the major offenders in priority).
Even from the little ive seen, its a major licence mess (ensuring compliance not possible without chopping major parts out of that app), and something that has the potential to be as historically interesting as the SCO case (Ahead and AOL could easily jump on the bandwagon too, to remind these KMP people of the law. The code of so many parties under plenty various degress of incompatible licences is so violated the head can spin. Compliance in this case is simply impossible, without reducing it to a mere GUI commanding ridiculously basic functions)
------------------
Invisible rigs specs
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)