Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PlayStation 2 Game ICO Violates the GPL

Posted by kdawson on from the fun-with-dissassembly dept.

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!"

26 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Get real... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sony could end up having to release the source code for the entire game!
    Not going to happen.
    1. Re:Get real... by RupW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sony has to cease distribution of the game. Which they already have done. Because of the way licenses work GPL gives you the choice of cease distribution or release the source. Given this isn't FSF code, there's a third way: contact the original author and negotiate a commercial licence to distribute the code. If this was going to be a problem I expect that's the cheapest solution.
    2. Re:Get real... by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game.

    3. Re:Get real... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given this isn't FSF code, there's a third way: contact the original author and negotiate a commercial licence to distribute the code.

      Any chance that Sony may have done that in the first place and that this guy is making an issue where there isn't one?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Get real... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game. It is indeed unthinkable, because the GPL is not a contract. A judge would likely say that copyright infringement has happened. And that damages have to be paid. Now the plaintiff may offer that Sony could publish the source code under the GPL instead of paying damages. In that case it is completely up to Sony to accept the offer or not, but nobody can force them.

      The only reason why people have published source code in the past was because it was the cheaper solution. If I had one million lines of Linux code and 1000 lines of my own, I would likely publish the source code. If I had 1000 lines of GPL'd code and one million lines of my own, I might be more willing to pay damages.
    5. Re:Get real... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming the original author wrote the entire thing from scratch, true. But if he used any GNU material (or other GPL licensed libraries) himself, then you're right back where you started.

    6. Re:Get real... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any chance that Sony may have done that in the first place and that this guy is making an issue where there isn't one?

      HAHAHAHAHA

      Intellectual property laws don't apply to big corporations!, they only apply to the little guy.

      I think it's more likely that a developer is an idiot and Sony's going to take a "wait until we get a letter from a lawyer" attitude.

    7. Re:Get real... by bladesjester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the GPL is not a contract, then what is it?

      A License, which is what the L stands for.

      One of the characteristics of a contract is that it's negotiable.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Get real... by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course the law applies to big corporations. Sony will be able to sue this guy for violating their EULA by disassembling their game. You don't buy a game from a big company, you just buy a license to use it under their terms and conditions. See? All legal.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  2. Re:They don't have to release the code by EVil+Lawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And, as our trusty friend Amazon.com tells us, the game has already been discontinued by the manufacturer.

  3. Please stop spreading FUD. by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by rhavenn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, the GPL is viral. They would have to supply the source code to people that bought the game. They don't have to supply it everybody, but they do have to supply it to people who bought the game and ask for the source. They can charge for the source, but no more then they charged for the game itself.

      Now, the above holds true ONLY if the libarc is true GPL. If it's LGPL then it's non-issue. The below quote is straight from the GNU site:

      Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?
      A: Yes.

      So, yes..if they linked to libarc then they would have to GPL ICO as well.

      The LGPL is a good license. BSD is a good license. GPLv2 is a maybe license, the GPLv3 is shit.

      Taking somebodies code and making is disappear sucks, but taking someones code and giving credit while using it in a closed app..I don't get why this is such a big deal? Some companies make money selling support for open apps while others make money selling closed apps. Let the market decide vs. forcing the GPL and it's uber linkage pawnage down everyones throat. Software should stand on it's merits, not on it's license.

    2. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by Tet · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The LGPL is a good license. BSD is a good license. GPLv2 is a maybe license, the GPLv3 is shit.

      Errrr.... no. They're all good licenses, with different goals behind them. Choose the one that's right for you. But don't criticize others because they happen to have different goals to you.

      Taking somebodies code and making is disappear sucks, but taking someones code and giving credit while using it in a closed app..I don't get why this is such a big deal?

      How about because the author doens't want that to happen? If you don't care about that, then BSDL or LGPL would seem to be good choices for you. Others do care, and hence the GPL is more appropriate for them.

      Let the market decide vs. forcing the GPL and it's uber linkage pawnage down everyones throat.

      No. Let the author decide. The author of any given bit of code is under no obligation to release it to the public at all. When they choose to do so, they get to release it on the terms they decide. For some that will be "take my code, do what you want with it", while for others it will be "take my code, but any changes you make to it have to be available to all". Different people have different views on it, and there are a range of licenses to choose from that cater for that. Simple, really...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    3. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently there is, and it's based on the definition of 'viral'. The word viral seems to imply that it spreads without the target having any choice, which is simply not true.

      Yes, if you plainly include GPL code into your project, the freeness must transfer when you distribute it, but nowhere in the process does the GPL code move itself into your project. It's always your decision.

      If you don't want that, don't use it. If you don't want the users of your own code to have to make that decision, don't use the GPL, there are great alternatives like BSD. There's no magic here, 'viral' is a bad description.

    4. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is, there is nothing in copyright-law that will force anyone, under any circumstances, to release code.

      If you do not comply with the GPL, it is revoked, which means you have no right to distribute the work. Which makes you guilty of violating copyright.

      You would be punished like any other copyright-violator: By fines, by being forced to stop distribution, by paying compensation to the copyrigth-holders.

      It may be that you are able to -avoid- these other punishments by reaching an *agreement* with the copyright-holder. Such an agreement is a private matter, it can contain backrubs, money, source-releases or the delivery of albino chimpanzes. But its up to you what agreement you enter into, if any.

      The FSF has a history of saying: "We will forgive your past transgressions if you release the code", that is an OFFER by them, not a property of copyright-law or the GPL. You're free to take the offer, or decide -not- to take the offer.

    5. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because people are horribly confused about even blindingly obvious simple cases of law. They are likely confused by the fact that the FSF has a history of saying, "We offer you forgiveness if you release the code" and people somehow think that it says somewhere (it doesn't) that "if you break copyright you have to release the code".

      Possibly the source of the confusion is that if you -did- release the code originally, you wouldn't have been in violation of the GPL, and thus not of copyright.

      ReleaseCode, no_violation = true
      violation, mustReleaseCode = false

      Indeed, unless you're made a spesific offer of forgiveness in exchange for releasing the code by the copyright-holder, releasing the code after being in violation doens't even HELP. You still broke copyright-law, you're still responsible for the damages arising therefrom.

    6. Re:Please stop spreading FUD. by ps236 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market DOES decide. It decides which products to use based on their licences.

      If we need a library/component/whatever for our commercial software, we either look for commercial libraries or BSD/Apache/etc licenced libraries. We won't use GPL, it's just too much hassle. (eg for databases we use SQLite (Public Domain) or PostgreSQL (BSD), not MySQL (GPL)). The cost isn't necessarily the problem, as we'll happily use commercial libraries if their licence conditions are suitable, but licences to use GPL software in commercial products are often hideously expensive and/or badly managed.

      It is the author's right to use GPL if they want to - as long as they realise what they are doing. I'm not convinced that all do, and suspect that some just think that the GPL is an 'open source licence' (which it is) without realising the differences between that and BSD/Apache etc.

      So, the "market" will decide whether to use a BSD/Apache licenced component or a GPL's component. If BSD licenced products are available which are as good as/better than GPL licenced products, the GPL products will often 'lose out' as people looking for components to use will tend to use the simpler licenced products. However, there are many good GPL products which don't have equivalent BSD licenced products, and enough people wanting to use them either in other open source products, or standalone, so GPL still lives.

      GPL is really the result of a 'philosophy' - 'we think all software should be open source, so if we write anything that you want to use, we'll force you to be open source, or otherwise pay through the teeth', rather than just a wish to make their own software open source (which BSD/Apache style licences would cover with a lot less hassle). As long as you realise that, it all makes sense.

  4. How can this happen? by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The GNU Lesser General Public License (formerly the "Library" GPL) has the terms you describe, but the GNU General Public License (without the "Lesser") requires one to release full source if any covered libraries are used.

    So when I use GlibC to compile my C program I always have to release the source? Or if my Linux program makes use of a Library avaliable in Linux I have to release full source?

    I has a doubt, there is a limit you know.

  6. MOD PARENT DOWN: Talking out of his ass by Alphager · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The parent has no clue and is confusing the GPL with the LGPL.

  7. Re:reverse-engineering by rjames13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    Probably yes. But if a criminal broke into your house and found a drug lab and then phoned the police about it you are sunk. You are confusing the law that stops the police from doing this (entrapment) with the non-existent law that stops normal people from doing this.

  8. Imagine this by joaommp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game. by orasio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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? You are the one who says they do that. Some of us use free software because it's the ethical thing to to. Some other people use it because of technical reasons.

    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.
  10. Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game. by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:If I was starting a business by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not all GPL code was written by two hippie wannabees in their parents basement. An awful lot of it is owned by real corporations that can afford to pay real lawyers real money. If your business started making money, they'd either want some of it or compliance with the license on their code.

  12. Re:If I was starting a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IAALS and you are mistaken.

    You might want to look at the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 107 (note that it is split over two pages).

    See also the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, especially section 1.