Slashdot Mirror
Domain: onicos.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to onicos.com.
Comments · 10
-
It's a *DIFFERENT* libARC -- ICO's *IS* GPL.TFA points to a different libarc : http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz, not the sourceforge one.
According to the few info available in english on the page, this libarc is used to open quite a lot of different archive format (could some Japanese-speaking
Whereas, the sourceforge one, is mainly designed for a GZIPed ARC file used on the internet archive.
And whereas the libarc you point out is licensed under some sort of permissive license,
the Japanese libarc used by ICO is licensed under GPL. The file "inflate.c" is mentioned in TFA, and the following license/comments are cited
Copyright (C) 2000 Masanao Izumo
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*/
version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */
prefer that if you modify it and redistribute it that you include
comments to that effect with your name and the date. Thank you.
[The history has been moved to the file ChangeLog.]
*/TFA's author then point out a couple of subtle difference all showing that it's this libarc's specific file which is used. (You can find similar "inflate.c" in a lot of decompression libraries. But libarc's has some specific memory subroutines, which can be traced in the disassembled code flow of the US version, or in the list of symbol names in the debug info included with the EU version).
---
Now to go back to the possible outcomes
- The most easy is to stop distributing the infringing piece of work.
Which as pointed out by the
- An alternative is to publish the code, *NOT* of the whole game, as said by some
- The third solution, which wasn't mentioned yet by -
It's a *DIFFERENT* libARC -- ICO's *IS* GPL.TFA points to a different libarc : http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz, not the sourceforge one.
According to the few info available in english on the page, this libarc is used to open quite a lot of different archive format (could some Japanese-speaking
Whereas, the sourceforge one, is mainly designed for a GZIPed ARC file used on the internet archive.
And whereas the libarc you point out is licensed under some sort of permissive license,
the Japanese libarc used by ICO is licensed under GPL. The file "inflate.c" is mentioned in TFA, and the following license/comments are cited
Copyright (C) 2000 Masanao Izumo
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*/
version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */
prefer that if you modify it and redistribute it that you include
comments to that effect with your name and the date. Thank you.
[The history has been moved to the file ChangeLog.]
*/TFA's author then point out a couple of subtle difference all showing that it's this libarc's specific file which is used. (You can find similar "inflate.c" in a lot of decompression libraries. But libarc's has some specific memory subroutines, which can be traced in the disassembled code flow of the US version, or in the list of symbol names in the debug info included with the EU version).
---
Now to go back to the possible outcomes
- The most easy is to stop distributing the infringing piece of work.
Which as pointed out by the
- An alternative is to publish the code, *NOT* of the whole game, as said by some
- The third solution, which wasn't mentioned yet by -
Re:Huh?? What violation??
Different project, actual one from the article (apparently; I didn't read it, but others did... for shame!) is http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz
(Posting anon because this has been mentioned a few times already in the thread, but just a heads up for any stray modders who haven't seen those posts.)
-
Re:Huh?? What violation??
-
Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser
It's definitely a different libarc. ICO uses this one.
More to the point, how does anybody know Sony didn't buy a license from the author?
-
Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL
different libarc. It is this one they are concerned about:
http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz -
Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPLAre you telling me that the license file could be incorrect, and that to know for sure I would need to manually inspect every last line of source code to see if a different license file is specified?
But in this case I happen to agree with the first poster: libarc appears to be covered by a NON-GPL license and therefore Sony is not going to have any problems. Even if libarc itself turns out to be in violation of GPL'ed code, then it is the problem of its author, rather than Sony. You are still thinking of the wrong libarc. The article talks about this librarycalled libarc, and if you open the archive for the source you find a file COPYING that contains the GPL licence.
And that is the only licence given for this library, no other is mentioned elsewere. -
Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPLAre you telling me that the license file could be incorrect, and that to know for sure I would need to manually inspect every last line of source code to see if a different license file is specified?
But in this case I happen to agree with the first poster: libarc appears to be covered by a NON-GPL license and therefore Sony is not going to have any problems. Even if libarc itself turns out to be in violation of GPL'ed code, then it is the problem of its author, rather than Sony. You are still thinking of the wrong libarc. The article talks about this librarycalled libarc, and if you open the archive for the source you find a file COPYING that contains the GPL licence.
And that is the only licence given for this library, no other is mentioned elsewere. -
Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPLLooking at libarc website http://libarc.sourceforge.net/: the license indicated here isn't the GPL..
So either it's not the same libarc or its license has changed or the website is incorrect or the issue happen in some other file but not in libarc..Yeah I found that libarc too. But the article appears to be talking about another libarc from Link to articles libarc It is written in C the libarc you found is written in C++. Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there?
-
Re:Nope
Timidity? I think there's a couple forks around with Soundfont support, as well. It's not as nice as the newer PC/Mac softsynths, but it works and is free. I think the current version is called Timidity++, and is being developed/maintained by someone in japan. Ah.. link here (http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/timidity/).