Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 2 Game ICO Violates the GPL
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the video game ICO for the Playstation 2 is using GPL-licensed code from libarc. Sony could end up having to release the source code for the entire game!"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The key word in there is "could". I doubt anything will actually happen. Never underestimate the power of bureaucracy.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I'm kind of confused where you get the idea that they could have to release all of their source code. It doesn't seem to mention that in the link at all, also its very doubtful that sony would do that regardless. I could be missing something though so if thats the cause I apologize.
Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game? I know little about law, so who has the trump card here?
Now, the FSF, often acting on behalf of the copyright holders, have often allowed infringers to comply by releasing the source under the GPL. But I recall reading here at Slashdot recently that they are starting to play hardball with violators, and not allowing them to comply simply by shipping source. The copyright holder would be fully within his rights to get a permanent injunction against the sale of the game.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Goatsex redirect.. Nice touch.
As numerous other posters have pointed out, this will not result in Sony having to release the source code for their game. The myth of the 'viral GPL' is already going strong enough without /. fuelling it by posting articles like this.
Oh well, time to sit back and watch the trolls have a field day...
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Why have I never heard of this game? And in a related question, why do I want the source code for a game I have never heard of?
Not true, that is the function of the LGPL, the GPL however has no such limitations. If you link part of a GPL library into your software, that software must be GPL. In effect you are actually including parts of the GPL code into your own program, and therefore this is viral. (And no, viral isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is the best way to describe it)
I'm not sure I get you here, but the GPL "infects" even through dynamically linked code. So yes, they may have to release the entire game.
There is no distinction in the GPL between "integrating into their code base" and linking. Because there really is no difference technically (it's all just object files linked together at build time or at run time).
Other code is covered by other licences. These licences most likely explicitely restrict them from releasing the code. The GPL doesn't superscede these other licences.
This is a simple case of copyright infringement. Sony will be obliged to pay damages, and possibly withdraw the game from sale.
I've always thought that knowing the origin of all code is standard procedure. Where I've worked, hiding such a thing is reason enough to fire someone.
Didn't they check? Or they knew perfectly well what they were doing but didn't care. I suppose it's the second.
They didn't care because they are incompetent? Or simply their lawyers told them it didn't matter. I suppose it's the second.
I think you are confusing the GPL with the LGPL. If a library is licensed under the GPL, the program that uses it is GPLed too. You have to link a library licensed under LGPL if you want to keep your software proprietary. That's exactly what the LGPL has been made for.
Mod parent wrong. Compiled in GPL libraries definitely make it a derivative work.
The copyright owner is the only one who can act though so if they can't be found or they accept settlement from Sony the source code can stay private.
1) release the code for ICO under a GPL compatible license (and thereby conforming to the GPL)
2) license the library under different terms (might be difficult depending on the fact if all copyright holders agree to do this)
3) violate copyright (and thereby enter the usual legal road for copyright violations)
They don't have to release the code if they don't want to.
Arm chair lawyer alert! Slashdot, where programmers become legal vigilantes.
How do these libraries save time and money if you have to hire a lawyer first to see what you can actually do with it?
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Looking 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..
[ ] You understand what `implement' means.
The parent has no clue and is confusing the GPL with the LGPL.
I do a little bit of programming (for my own personal systems, mainly embedded) and I understand that for personal use the GPL and its lawyers will NOT prosecute me and chase me across the outback as I am one single person.
However, I would like to know (and I am asking on slashdot because I am confused not because I dont understand how to use google) how I can use GPL'ed code and libraries within my own work and NOT have to release my code.
Thanks in advance
of slashdot readers caring about software licenses, in-between downloading photoshop from thepiratebay...
"Copyright (C) 2000 Masanao Izumo "
I wish him all the best luck in chasing down Sony and enforcing his license. If this copyleft were held by FSF then maybe there would be some arm twisting.
(also making a library GPL instead of LGPL, how annoying)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If I were starting a business, I'd just go on and bright-line and outright abuse the GPL. I would go into business (such as PS2 games or whatever) where any "outrage" by the OSS community would go unnoticed and would simply ignore the empty threats of lawsuits and what-have-you. Heck, many companies are doing this already. it's a very legitimate and none too risky business strategy. For all its good philosophical points that would encourage good hearted individuals to contribute to my bottom line, I would benefit from the fact that enforcement of the GPL is ultimately toothless.
Please, do go on and tell me how, exactly, I'm wrong in this.
Funny, that favicon of the linked site (http://astrange.ithinksw.net/ico/) is a direct use of the Japanese shoshinsha (aka wakaba) mark to denote a unexperienced driver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakaba_mark
I would not be surprised if this mark was trademarked or copyrighted in some way.
(And yes, this is a semi-hearted attempt to point out that it's easy to fall into such traps.)
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
That depends on the validity of the license. In theory, at least, a license is only required if you want to do something that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do; for example, the GPL allows you to distribute software (otherwise a violation of copyright) if you follow its terms. So the question here is, is reverse engineering prohibited by law? If not, Sony can say "prohibited" all they want, but such terms would be legally meaningless--though, of course, they can still sue you and make you spend money to defend yourself.
This is all in my non-lawyerly opinion, of course.
License
Copyright © 2004 Basis Technology Corp.
All Rights Reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of Basis Technology Corporation nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
No mention to the GPLWhat if Sony had already got permission from the author of libarc? The author of libarc could have relicensed the code to Sony. It is obviously very premature to think that Sony is going to release all its game code; they can very well strike a deal with the author who has all the copyrights.
Does anyone else see the resemblance between the GNU icon used as a label on this story and a piece of poo? I know this is waaaaaay off topic (mod me down if you must) but it looks like a big whistling cartoon turd. Some long lost relative of Mr. Hankey's? Anyway, that is all.
The CEOs for all the create IT companies are in a room. A big room.
Suddenly someone screams "Hey, look at the news, it says here that PlayStation 2 Game ICO Violates the GPL!"
And then everyone laughs and cries out "who doesn't?"
It's already beyond common practice.
Onda Technology Institute
The problem lies in the possibility to identify all those parts.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The GPL is indeed viral and does require the full release
of any source dependent or otherwise that is coupled with GPL code.
That said finding the definition of derivative and derivative works on the FSF's GPL FAQ page is quiet
interesting - they've gone to a lot of trouble hiding it towards the end, one would think such an
important FAQ would be say the 1st or 2nd listing.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
Stallman wants you to believe that. Think about it for a minute. The GPL is about distribution. What if you dynamically link (or dlopen) your closed-source app to a GPL library? When you distribute the binary, you are not distributing GPL library code.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
And people wonder why there is opposition to the GPL? I remember recently someone saying that the GNU GPL is far less restrictive than corporate EULAs; I think examples like this show that it *can* be more restrictive in some cases. It doesn't *always* help the users (especially when the end users are people who don't give a flying ... anything about the source code).
I'm 15 and I know exactly what the difference between GPL and LGPL is (not word for word of course, but in general what can be done with them), if you need a lawyer to make sense of it then I'd advise you to just stay clear of it altogether
The libarc project page says that the library is licensed under the BSD license.
What "GPL" violation are these guys talking about?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libarc/
Aside from that, non-free software libraries also have legal issues, and if you wanted to be safe, you would have to hire a lawyer in every case, because you have to deal with redistribution issues, plus in some cases EULAs.
In the case of the GPL you could hire a lawyer once (provided you don't understand the terms after actually reading them) and then reuse that knowledge forever. Also, there are lots of texts explaining the GPL available everywhere.
For other licenses, such as MIT or BSD, the Free Software Foundation can provide you with some pointers. The are biased toward the GPL, and they say so, but they provide all the information you actually need, and do a good job explaining the other licenses implications.
If you compare that situation with alternatives such as buying the distribution of non-free libraries, free software has fewer legal costs. Licenses have legal ramifications. Just because you pay the guy, it doesn't mean he will let you do whatever you want. And if you can't read a free software license alone, of course you will need a lawyer, but then you will need a lawyer to read your EULAs for you.
I know, I was just exaggerating for effect. This is /. you know.
But seriously, do we need so many licenses? They don't do themselves any favours.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
At no point can they be forced to release the sourcecode. The legal system just doesnt work that way.
Assuming it is a GPL(not LGPL) library then yes, to legally distribute the game they have to release the source to all of it. But that doesnt mean that they have to retroactively comply to the license after they broke it, it just means that continuing to distribute it is illegal, and the software authors could sue for financial compensation.
Whether or not its easier to just release the sourcecode (which they may or may not even legally be able to do -- What if it contains restrictively licensed code that conflicts with the GPL?
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Sure. If you don't distribute something you don't need a license for it and so the complications get pushed to the user who actually does the linking. But if you do distribute a dynamic library, it's not different than a statically linked one.
Hey this is a pretty good redirect, other trolls take note.
Is there any evidence that Sony didn't pay Izumo. If they did pay for a license then it won't be a GPL violation. There's noting to say, far as I know, that a software that's been GPL'ed can't be sold with another license by its author.
BTW, inflate.c itself seems to be not under GPL anyway. (Though mblock.c would be.)
nicely done.
If not, then shutup. Who are you to know if they haven't obtained the code with a different license? Who are you to accuse them publicly of violation of other people's copyright? You can't tell the license from binary form!
I cannot believe a company like sony did something stupid, that's _never_ happened before
I might be a singleton demographic but has anybody else here checked out the Webkins community web site for young children? My 7 year old nephew is an addict and was showing it to me recently. One of his favorite games on the site is an obvious knock off (web enabled) of Frozen Bubble, a game included with many Linux Distributions. There was no attribution I could see and I wondered if it was a potential violation of that game's license.
No, the GPL is about copyright.
Its that simple. Release the source! that would be just fucking awesome.
There's no evidence this disassembly was being done for any other reason than to prove ownership/licence of the code used.
If the disassembly was being done to learn how it works then modify it so it bypasses copy protection etc then it would be a problem.
The link was
http://www.google.com/search?xQ=Sony+GPL&q=slashdot&btnI
Yeah, xQ is ignored, q is a search string and btnI is the same as clicking "I'm feeling lucky", i.e. go to the first hit.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
No, we don't need that many licenses. However, that isn't the Gnu project's fault. Stallman came up with a fairly simple, easy to understand, General Public License, applicable to pretty much any software one would want to copyleft. There were already simple, more permissive licenses around (and proliferation among those is not a problem). After that, all sorts of people and companies came up with all sorts of different licenses and variations, with all sorts of provisions. That changed the free software landscape from one where pretty much any free software could be combined, with the result either being under a generally permissive license or the GPL, to the license headache we have today.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's like the old public domain software, but infectious. I miss the idyllic old days when coders had minimal contact with lawyers. It seems against common sense, obviously they should release any changes they made to the library they utilised but to somehow claim their entire work as public domain for a minor addition, well that's legalese, and against the spirit of sharing. Still, it's all politics and licenses these days, the spirit has been caged and has lost its edge. Time for a new rebellion, global union hackers{int lose; int yoke;};
So they want us to pay them for copyrighted material and do not see a problem infringing other people's copyrighted material.
What is the inducement for them to infringe? Well, a commercial compression library license might have cost them $10k. They can't have it both ways. Either they pay for everything (and for companies "in" the circle, they'll probably get those fees down very low and "share" each other's copyrighted code) or they stop bitching about infringement on their own code.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The company I work for has *ALL* licenses checked by lawyers. Open, closed, it doesn't matter. That cost is amortized across all purchased/obtained libraries.
Reading TFA, I couldn't help but notice that the source code does specify the GPL but then also says...
You can do whatever you like with this source file, though I would
prefer that if you modify it and redistribute it that you include
comments to that effect with your name and the date. Thank you.
Which seems to be saying the code is PD?
Clear, Dark Skies
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
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).
:
/. has already been done. This game isn't produced anymore. /. er, only to the specific executable which contains the GPL code ("SCUS_971.13" according to TFA. The other few GB of data that are on the DVD are safe). /.ers (and which would require a little bit more work) would be to separate the functionality into a
---
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
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That game was so atmospheric it was actually scary - that was the main point of the combat, in fact - leave the girl alone to long and shadows attack her, which added a sense of urgency to the puzzle-solving. When I first got a few friends and I sat down to play it, and we would manage about 30mins of ICO before switching over to GTA to de-stress with some car chases and random murder. Then it was back to ICO for another 30mins :)
Watch for Sony to turn this whole thing around and sue the guy for disassembling the game.
Good thing this was Ico, and not Gran Turismo...
If they did not license a copy of libarc from the author, Sony committed copyright infringement and might be subject to statuatory damages of up to 150k per copy of the game sold. Can you register for copyright after an infringement occurs to sue for damages? Or maybe $1000, if we go by the Sony/RIAA 'pricing' for music sharing and minimum statuatory damages.
Sony can not retroactively satisfy the terms of the GPL. Releasing the source code (or a written offer for the source code) would only avoid compounding the infringement on future copies Sony distributes. Past copies they distributed were not conforming to the GPL, therefore unlicensed, therefore committing copyright infringement. They can't say 'oops' just because it took 6 years for their 'THEFT' to be noticed. This is no different than someone sued by the Sony/RIAA for music sharing. As it took so long for the infringement to be noticed, there's not much point in libarc's author going for an injunction to prevent future damages/infringement by stopping the sale of the game and/or destruction of unsold copies.
Now of course, the author of libarc might relent and compromise on your choices #1 or #2. Get a payoff and agree to forgo pursuing copyright infringement damages, or forgive it upon release of the source code.
I am not a lawyer, but this is how I think copyright and GPL applies to a hypothetical situation of Sony distributing a game containing an unlicensed copy of libarc. Any connection to the real world is accidental.
The proof seems pretty haphazard. I don't see where he proves that they're not simply using their own zlib-based function. They produce similiar output, right? What proof is that if libarc evokes zlib? Ico came out in 2001, so the chances of them using a really old version of zlib are quite high- development for the game could have started a couple years earlier, possibly with an early devkit, or even an original playstation development environment.
This could be a coincidence easily, considering the names are so standard and dry- they could easily be almost the same function or whomever wrote this blarg simply misinterpreted the assembly and found a coincidence connected to similiar functions.
At very worst, a japanese engineer thought it was an lgpl-based file, since it started with lib and just messed up. who's going to care?
Where's the beef? Am I missing something?
If your software is complicit in using MySQL as backend for your propietary product (you could have always actively rejected the use of it to avoid this situation), YOU HAVE TO PONY UP FOR A COMMERCIAL LICENSE
Thems the breaks. Same goes for QT, and a bunch of other stuff.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Wow. There's a little superiority complex thing happening there. I didn't realize I was apparently less ethical than you for using proprietary software. Now I do, and I shall apply the appropriate feelings of being chastened.
Or not.
If ICO violates the GPL, Sony not only has to give the source, they have to give ways to recompile it and to execute it on a PS2 ; i.e., to give a way to compile and execute any program on an unmoded PS2 machine. This has more implications than just giving a source code...
A copyright restricts distribution to the copyright holder.
The GPL is a license that gives permission for others to redistribute GPL'd code under its terms. The only relation to copyright is that if you violate the terms of the agreement (GPL isn't a contract) then you may be infringing on the copyright. If you don't copy, redistribute, or otherwise do something that could infringe on a copyrighted work, a GPL notice in some source file means jack squat.
That definition fails for dynamically linked executables. They don't have the library code compiled into their executable. Instead, they run the library code from a copy already installed on the computer.
This is why the GPL specifically uses phrases like "works based on it" which prevents you from weaseling out of it through dynamic linking.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
In my opinion, Ico is the single best game for the PS2 and in the running for the best games of all time. Although never a great commercial success for Sony, it has a strong following. I just bought a copy (used, Sony is no longer selling it) to give as a gift. I was surprised how much I had to pay for it. With many other PS2 games of similar vintage going for $10 or so, used copies of Ico are selling just a bit below new game prices, and new copies are selling for more than new PS3 games.
Technically a puzzle/platform game, I think that it achieves the perfect combination of story, art, drama, technical execution, and intellectual and skill challenge.
Eh? The zlib license definitely doesn't read like public domain, more like the modified BSD license.
I'm going to stray from the more serious GPL talks and just throw in my initial reaction. I'm not sure how games are programmed but if the source is released wouldn't it be pretty awesome to see ICO mods surface. I was a pretty big fan of the game (and Shadow of the Colossus) and a mod of the game could be really fun!
my site of misleading and incorrect information!
And yet, they mocked Bill Gates when he talked about the destructive effect the GPL has on the software industry.
This is why you obfuscate your binaries if you're going to use GPL source in creating it.
It's okay to violate the GPL as long as you cover your tracks.
If it was my GPLd code you were using and you'd be some little guy I'd ask for compliance. If you were a big guy I'd sue you into next wednesday for as much I could press out of it. I'd see no point in being as polite as Richard Stallman and just asking for compliance if you'd be caught proactively breaking the GPL.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
libarc borrows heavily from zlib, which is .. surprise ! .. BSD licensed. There is however no mention of BSD in libarc, which effectively means that it is in violation of BSD license.
Gotta love the ethics of the freedom fighters.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
> What's this "viral GPL myth"? I thought the GPL was viral (and proud of it). Is there some
> confusion out there?
"GPL is viral" is an analogy. As any analogy, it is neither wrong nor right, but work on some level, and break down if taken too far.
The GPL provides programmers with an incitement to put their own code under the GPL, by rewarding the programmer with access to the existing body of GPL'ed code. In that sense you can say that it propagates like life in general, and viruses in particular. However, unlike life, it does not self-propagate. It propagates when the programmer decides that the reward (access to GPL'ed code) is greater than the cost (has to release his own code under a GPL compatible license).
The "myth" would be where the analogy breaks down, e.g. when people mistakenly believe they can "accidentally" make their code GPL'ed, like you can accidentally be infected with a biological or computer virus.
The analogy also has strong negative connotations, and it was specifically invented for those connotation (I was there). This is why viruses, associated with diseases, was chosen, rather than a more positive expression of life.
I have noticed that lately some people who aren't enemies of the GPL have begun using the analogy. I suggest they stop doing that, it brings more darkness than light, and the negative connotations from both biology and computer programs are too strong to overcome.
Do you think that if we were caught giving away Adobe software, Sony Music and Warner Films that we could just go "OK, I'll stop" and be cleared of wrongdoing?
So why does Sony get to do this?
In a legally enforceable way, that is.
This could set a bad precedent if the owners of the code seek legal action against Sony. The companies I've talked to have been worried about using open source code or even using open source tools because something like this may happen. Going after Sony for this would just confirm their fears.
I'm not saying Sony should be allowed to get away with it, that would be worse. People might get the impression that free software developers won't enforce their copyright at all.
Granting Sony a license to use the code in this one case without trying to get legal damages seems like the best solution.
zlib is zlib licensed
EULA: Attempting to enforce further stipulations upon your use of the product after the time of purchase, adding restrictions in addition to standard legal protections without granting any additional benefit to the purchaser.
GPL: No further stipulations added beyond standard "sale" of item. However, it will reduce restrictions on standard legal protections as long as you agree to certain limitations.
EULAs unilaterally add restrictions after the fact, and are not enforced by law if you don't agree to them. The GPL grants you rights in addition to what you are allowed under the law, but you are not required to accept these additional rights. These are two completely different situations, and supporting one without supporting the other is not hypocritical in any way.
The source code for ICO isn't all that useful unless you also get all the data for the game too.
Without that, Sony is just releasing the code for a uselessly obsolete game engine. Is that really a big deal?
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
and libarc removed it
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Okay, two questions. First, where in the GPL does it say that you have to release the source? Second, EVEN IF IT DID say you had to release the source, which it categorically DOES NOT, explain what legal fact would make it true that they'd need to provide the supporting compilers, etc?
http://xkcd.com/16/
*sigh*
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
You don't mean "commercial" because GPL-covered code is distributed for a fee and is thus already commercial code. You mean proprietary code.
Digital Citizen
Let's say I write a closed source linux app. The GNU readline library provides nice user input editing, but is GPL licensed. There are also FREE (as in virus-free) MIT/BSD licensed alternatives (such as tecla or libedit). I, the enterprising programming, can use dlopen/dlsym to runtime-link whichever one is already installed (using my own version if none are available). Does it violate the (spirit of) the GPL if the user has gnu readline installed? Does it violate the (spirit of) the GPL if the user doesn't have gnu readline installed? The distributable binary doesn't contain *any* GPL code. Stallman's position on dynamic linking is out of touch.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
To be able to install the executable, you have to be able to put it on a CD, you have to be able to run this CD, so you don't need a modchip.
Reatraction of the Slashdot Orange Box story, which has been proven by other reviewers to be totally blown out of all proportion by the original articile at 1UP, and the BS spread around by gutter sites like Slashdot.
That only speaks about doing it that way from the beginning - i.e., doing things properly from the beginning. It says nothing about releasing the code retroactively as a way of undoing past infringement - and as such, normal laws apply - meaning the past is the past, and if you infringed in the past, ceasing to infringe in the present and on into the future (by releasing the code) does not in any way change the fact that you are still liable for the previous violation - it still happened. Secondly, the second paragraph you quote doesn't require they distribute the compiler. In fact, it specifically excludes the all componentes of the compiler in the latter half of the paragraph.
In previous cases of violations of the GPL, FSF agreed to "forget" about the violation when the violator released the source code. For the second paragraph, I never talked of the fourniture of the compiler, only of a way to execute the resulting compiled program on the unmoded hardware.
But seriously, do we need so many licenses? They don't do themselves any favours. We don't. But the GPL is the one most widespread license, and it actually has a lot of real and tangible effects. The GPL is one of the tools that make possible the current availability and usage of free software. The fact that it encourages sharing is important.
So no, we don't need that many licenses, let's keep just the most important and popular, I'm OK with that.
but aren't the libraries licensed under LGPL which gives you permission to compile binaries and distribute them so long as you don't change the libs. If you change the libraries you need to release back to the wild under the GPL. If my understanding is wrong then there are thousands of companies that have violated the GPL. Anyone that uses GCC and distributes the results is in violation. Tell me I'm wrong.
SG