Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

id and Valve May Be Violating GPL

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

frooge writes "With the recent release of iD's catalog on Steam, it appears DOSBox is being used to run the old DOS games for greater compatibility. According to a post on the Halflife2.net forums, however, this distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license that DOSBox is distributed under, which violates the license. According to the DOSBox developers, they were not notified that it was being used for this release."

4 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Now there's a reason to port Steam to Linux by FliesLikeABrick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Steam now has a reason to be ported to Linux. A lot of the new id games added to Steam play natively on Linux, there are others that use DOSbox, which conveniently works on Linux as well. If Valve ports Steam to Linux... it'd open the door for Linux users to easily buy and play these games, and I'm sure enough people would such that it makes business sense for them to do it.

  2. Re:Does this mean by wayward_bruce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please. Programmers aren't always license experts. It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly, but there have been times where I made assumptions about close source code licenses that could have gotten me into the same trouble. The legal department doesn't review every single decision in an organization and its possible legal implications. It could have been a few guys that just didn't understand the GPL and it was missed because it wasn't the largest project in the company. Not defending them, but not everyone understands "open source" isn't the same as public domain.
    So I can say that copyright infringement isn't always on purpose, some people think that "sharing" means they can download music however they please, and people aren't always reading the fine print. It seems so simple to us because we're around those terms on Slashdot constantly, but there have been times when I might have downloaded a movie or two without knowing for certain that I have the right to do so. I'm not defending P2Pers, but not everyone understands that "available" isn't the same as public domain.

    This sort of argument fares poorly in court, it seems. :)
  3. Re:Does this mean by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well the source for ID's older games is released anyway.

    I personally would prefer if lawsuits and stuff didnt come out.
    ID has been one of the first to port their games to Linux.

  4. Re:Does this mean by crazybasenji · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor. Unfortunately, copyright infringement is often strict liability; in other words, no finding of intent is required.