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)
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?
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..
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.
This would imply that Sony has to do precisely squat. While I have no reasonable authority to hold forth on this, I do think it might still have a few repercussions.
For one thing it could make the game legal to run on an emulator. The other I can think of is it might possibly allow people to tear apart their binaries. "Legal" reverse engineering requires a lot of rigmarole that may not be necessary here. That might still be a lot more trouble than it's worth. The game is pushing 6 years old after all.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
surely that guys disassembly of the file was in breach of the DMCA too? :)
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.
The licence is a bit confused it contains the standard boilerplate about the GPL then 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.
So seems to retract the GPL ?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
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;
It strikes me as a game that doesn't appeal to action gamers because of a lack of action (and puzzles that are too hard), and doesn't appeal to puzzle gamers because of too much action. It hits a "sweet spot" that appeals to virtually no one.
I found it perfect for me. I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I'm certainly not a fan of twitchy shooters (getting my ass handed to me in FEAR Combat for an hour or so a month does me fine). I loved the slow, deliberate pace of the puzzles in Ico. I didn't find any of them incredibly difficult, and I'm not sure what you meant about having to practice implementing your solution--when I figured out what needed to be done I pretty much went and did it (fighting off the smoke guys in a few places made this a little difficult). Ico was one of the first games I picked up for my PS2, and I still feel it was the best one I played on that system (I thought Shadow was so-so).
This guy's the limit!
Well, at this point I'm purely speculating, but from some of the things said in article this guy has done some analysis of a number of games (including the sequal to ICO, Shadow of the Colossus), and found no other uses of this code. I'm thinking this is probably an isolated case and from the sounds of it may not even be as cut and dry as it sounds because apparently one of the two files cited by the article is actually considered public domain as opposed to GPL. It's possible they may have been using public domain code originally but swapped out part of the code with the GPL code in order to fix a problem with the public domain one and either forgot that they used the GPL code, or believed such a small usage of code (one source file) would go un-noticed. Not that that makes it right of course, but it seems a likely scenario.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Funny because ICO is one of my favourite games ever. I found it kept the old puzzle game style (Easy puzzles with non-obvious solutions that you can do in a heart beat one you realise them) and a HUGE world to explore, where everything is polished and impressive.
ICO's "greatness" comes in that it just tries to be ICO, it's not some uber deep beat em up and it's not some impossible to finish puzzle game. It's just a sleepy little world where you explore and make your way out of the castle at your own pace. Some puzzles are damn hard, some puzzles are damn easy, but the point is that if you wanted you could easily just run around a room admiring the world as easy as you could play it like a speed run.
Maybe it doesn't appeal to the mainstream, but most my friends consider ICO to be a classic because it feels and plays like nothing else. The "vibe" the game gives off is easily one of the deepest and most impressive of all the games I've played in my 15 years of gaming.
I like muppets.