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!"

11 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 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. 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 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
    2. 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.