I'd structure your bounty more broadly to get an emulator that can be released on real app stores rather than specifically asking for VICE and dancing with the ascetic zealots. Cydia sucks as a distribution mechanism and guarantees near-zero usage of the emulator. Your earlier stated goal was to produce something more convenient than the existing one for loading your own D64's and having access to BASIC. Apple loosened the restrictions on interpreters, so BASIC is not a policy problem anymore, but expecting users to jailbreak and stay on obsolete iOS releases in order to use the emulator is certainly not a more convenient solution for loading your own D64's. Unless you want a bespoke solution for your personal use, it is a waste of time and money to build for Cydia. If you do really want that, then contact the dev who ported it to Android and just offer them the money directly to build one for distribution on Cydia. You'd be better off pursuing an emulator solution that is less encumbered by the license Raj, and such a product would also be portable to Win Mobile 7 (if it is ever a meaningful platform), and if the Android app environment ever ceases to be a haven for piracy and mobile malware, you might even be able to turn some coin releasing it there too. That said, if it must be VICE (because you badly need to change chip revisions in your emulator on your phone...) then how about these options: Rent a Windows VPS, install VICE on it, upload your D64's, and use VNC or equivalent to connect to it from your iPhone or iPad with an app from the real app store. No jailbreaking or app development required, and you can spend your bounty money on VPS rental. Write an interface app that communicates with a cloud-hosted instance of VICE and simply streams the video and commands back and forth. Charge a small recurring fee to cover the cost of hosting each user's VICE instance - say on the EC2 cloud, let people upload D64's to store in the cloud, and thus have all of VICE available to end users while still having a high quality and high performance local user interface running in native code on the device. This approach is extensible to Android as well but I'd build for the Kindle Fire android port before I built for regular android since I think piracy is less likely on that platform. The last thing you need is people making you pay for their server time because they are running a pirated version of your app. Then again, the Fire is built on an obsolete Android code base because the Android 3 source code wasn't released, and good luck getting the Android 4 SDK to work right or finding something to test on for another couple months so building for an archaic Android code base might actually make sense. Um, hooray for "openness". Or maybe it is possible to create a version that can run as locally-stored offline content using HTML 5 - all it has to do is work with webkit and you've got iOS, Android, even Blackberry covered. Well... 60% of the time it will work every time on Android since only god knows what version will be running on any given device or if it will ever get updated. I think this is what GLaDOS was referring to when she mentioned Android hell - it's hell for devs not for androids. Blackberry would be a leap, but they are using webkit so you at least stand a chance. Anyway, I don't think this encapsulation would run into GPL issues since there would be no technical constraints on binary redistribution. On Oct 27, 2011, at 17:04 , Mike Paull wrote: > Agreed. I would like to see the conversation going back to the bounty and the development of the software, using Cydia as the distro point. > > Mike > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 28/10/2011, at 4:22 AM, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> wrote: > >> On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Justin wrote: >> >>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Groepaz <groepaz@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thursday 27 October 2011, you wrote: >>>>> I love how we all suffer due to RMS's idiotic religion that for some reason >>>>> prevents free software from being distributed for free... >>>> >>>> if the istore would be free, this discussion would not exist >>> >>> If the software was truly free, sharing would not be mandatory, and anyone who wanted could compile it and submit it on the store. Forced sharing is at least as dictatorial. >> >> Everyone: maybe we can stop the GPL portion of this discussion since it has been hashed out many times elsewhere. Perhaps you can agree that: >> >> - BSD or similar licenses are more free for people other than the copyright owner to use the software any way they want. Thus, it ends up being more easy to incorporate, including by closed-source products. >> >> - GPL forces more software overall to become GPL due to its viral nature. This may result in there being more open source software available overall, but with the limited freedom of the GPL. >> >> Both have their advantages and disadvantages. >> >> -Nate >> Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2011-10-28 04:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.