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)
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
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.
You are not missing something. Sony does not have to release the source code unless someone who owns a copy of the game ICO asks for that code. If Sony is infringing then that would need to be the scenario. If they do not want to do so then it would lead to a court case the results of which anyone would be guessing at this stage. And unless they do lose such a court case then no code gets released.
Of course the big question in my mind is are they infringing? In order for them to be infringing they need to have compiled into their game some source code that is licensed under the GPL. It is not totally clear from the article that this is the case it just appears to be so at the moment.
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.
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.
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..
The game is an excellent (but now dated) adventure/puzzle game (with minor action elements), that was something of a sleeper hit in the early-ish days of the PS2, before its software library became the unstoppable juggernaut it eventually turned into.
The basic concept of the game is that the player, who takes the role of a boy with horns, left in a mysterious castle as a sacrifice, must guide a mute girl around and eventually out of said castle, fighting against shadowy enemies and solving increasingly complicated puzzles. The game was notable for a number of reasons.
First, it had a striking visual and aural style. Unlike many early PS2 games, it turned away from bright colours and fancy coloured lighting effects, adopting a colour scheme that verged on monochrome at times, with a heavy emphasis on contrasting light and dark areas. The music was distinctly minimalist, but fitted the game well enough that the soundtrack went on to sell well in its own right.
The game-play was also notable. By contrast with the excess of button-mashing titles that dominated the PS2 scene at the time, Ico had a slower, more thoughtful pace. Combat elements were largely perfunctory - the real challenge was in defeating the puzzles posed by the game environment. In some respects, the gameplay had many parallels to that of the 3d Zelda games, although Ico placed higher degree of emphasis upon artistry than almost anything else around at the time on any platform. There was no enthusiastic voice-over urging you on to rack up big combo attacks, or to rush to the next objective before the bomb went off. Instead, the player experienced a mix of trepidation and a genuine sense of exploration as he made his way through the game world.
Ico never became a huge seller and never got a huge mainstream following. Nevertheless, it's an important part of gaming history. It was the first game to really use the power of its console generation to deliver something other than fancy special effects. It set new standards for story-telling, that remain influential even today. It spawned a "spiritual successor", in the form of "Shadow of the Colossus" (released relatively late in the PS2's life-cycle), which took many of Ico's concepts and developed them further, with greater technical expertise, to deliver an experience which was simultanously substantially flawed and deeply engaging.
So yes, we should care about Ico.
Well - in most sane countries reverse engineering is specifically allowed - no matter what the EULA's say. :)
why do I want the source code for a game I have never heard of?
:p
Because you're tired of playing Tux Racer and the other two GPLed games?
The World's Worst Webcomic!
If you intend to distribute your program to others, then yes, though you might want to investigate some other options first.
If there's particular GPL code you want to use, you could consider contacting the author directly (assuming you can establish a particular copyright holder) and explain what you want to do and see if they're willing to grant you use of their code under a different license. This can be a bit thorny: if they've accepted contributions from other people who haven't explicitly signed their copyright over to them, then the author does not have a legal right to re-license other people's work.
First though, I'd urge you to reconsider your aversion to the GPL. Chances are whatever you're doing isn't particularly unique and masterful, and you'll lose less than you'd think by making the code available.
Another "sneaky" tactic would be to consider who you're distributing the binaries to. You don't have to provide the source with them, only an offer (good for 3 years) to do so. So, if the people you're giving your small project to aren't likely to be interested in the source, you could take that gamble. You don't have to provide the source to anyone you didn't distribute your software to (but be aware that if you put it on a public web site, anybody can download it, and that's distribution). Just be prepared for the possibility that someone will ask for it, and be prepared to hand it over with a smile.
(IANAL, and this is not legal advice.)
Both I and the IEEE beg to differ. You might want to read this link.
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/reverse.html
and
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_9/Sections_906_and_907
about reverse engineering , you will find it is indeed legal to reverse anything in the USA as long as its done for education and is not to be done for profit as well as to make a profit.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
I found this a bit more interesting though: /* 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. */
After the standard GPL stuff, the guy writes this. IANAL, but this clearly sais you can do whatever you want with the code, without asking.
So which one takes legal precedence, the standard GPL statement or his own personal addition to it.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele