The developer of the unofficial Wii tool 'Homebrew Channel' has stopped development after pointing out that 'key members of the community were stealing code from Nintendo and other developers.'
The developer of
GitHub - fail0verflow/hbc: The Homebrew Channel - open source edition
https://github.com/fail0verflow/hbc?tab=readme-ov-file
RTEMS DevKitPro/LibOGC Copying Of Code Without Attribution
https://www.rtems.org/news/2025-05-06-rtems-devkit-libogc-response/
Wii Homebrew Channel development stopped, dev alleges that code was stolen from Nintendo | GoNintendo
https://gonintendo.com/contents/47886-wii-homebrew-channel-development-stopped-dev-alleges-that-code-was-stolen-from
The Homebrew Channel, like most of the Wii tools, utilized a development kit called ' libogc ', much of the code for which was stolen directly from the Nintendo SDK and games made with the Nintendo SDK.
Hector Martin, a developer of the Homebrew Channel, realized this after the development of the Homebrew Channel had already begun, but because the ecosystem of homebrew tools based on libogc had already been established and because at least a significant part of libogc was considered to be original, he continued to use libogc reluctantly while avoiding the use of the code that seemed to be plagiarized. Martin said, 'The fact of the plagiarism was hidden from us at the time because the libogc developers provided it as if it had no copyright issues at all. By the time we found out, the Wii homebrew ecosystem was already established and dominated by libogc.'
However, in May 2025, it was discovered that what was thought to be the remaining important parts of the thread/OS implementation had been plagiarized from another project called ' RTEMS '.
According to an investigation by RTEMS developers, libogc quoted RTEMS code with minimal modifications, and in addition, proper attribution was not given. RTEMS developers complained, 'RTEMS is open source, so you can use it freely as long as you meet the license terms and maintain the copyright. I don't understand why the license details and copyright have been removed and proper attribution has been ignored.'
When Martin filed an issue about this issue, the libogc developers responded inappropriately, closing it immediately, hurling insults at him, and deleting the issue itself.
For these reasons, Martin decided to discontinue development of the Homebrew Channel and archive the repository, stating that 'it is currently not possible to legally and legitimately compile libogc, and I cannot encourage further development of the Homebrew Channel.'
'This goes far beyond ignorance about the copyright implications of reverse engineering Nintendo binaries; it's clear, deliberate, malicious code theft and piracy,' Martin said. 'The current developers of libogc have no interest in tracking this issue or finding a solution, nor have they made any effort to inform the community that the copyright status of this project is problematic.'
On the other hand, Alberto Maldegan, one of the libogc developers, countered, 'I've only been contributing to libogc for the last couple of years, and while I'd like to hold the lead developer accountable , I can confidently say that the allegations of plagiarism are unfounded just by looking at the code.'
Maldegan said, 'It's clear that the libogc developers looked at the RTEMS code, because the variable names in the libogc code are unnaturally similar to the RTEMS code. On the other hand, the code that Martin claims to have plagiarized is strange. For some reason, Martin has used the new libogc code as an example, but if you look at this first version, there are only a few similarities. For example, the variable is_preemtible is in the current libogc and RTEMS, but not in the old libogc. It has existed in RTEMS since at least 1996. So if libogc was copied from RTEMS, , why was this variable not also copied but added later? The accusation against libogc is expressed in clear terms: 'You stole open source code and removed all attribution and copyright information.' It is highly likely that the libogc developers looked at the RTEMS code as a model or source of information. Although it is a gray area, I myself have examples of projects written in C++ that I have translated into Rust and C#, for example, but I do not consider my work to be a derivative work of the original. We are talking about scientific/engineering work, not some kind of artistic work, so it is normal to base your work on the work of others.'
In response to this comment, Martin said, 'The libogc developers claim that the code was not plagiarized, and that the code was not copied as is, but was developed by 'referencing' the code. In fact, the original libogc code is not as perfect a copy of RTEMS as it is now. Rather than completely copying RTEMS, they started out by making some changes and gradually moving closer to the original. Unfortunately for Mardegan and other libogc developers, this is still plagiarism and copyright infringement. Mardegan talks about the example of translation, but translating a project into another programming language 1:1 is absolutely considered a derivative work, just like translating a novel into another human language.' He further refuted.
Related Posts:
