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)
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.
You had to label it "Private: Employee X Wedding/Honeymoon Pictures". Then just leave it near the coffee maker...
Labelling it otherwise, like "FY 2007 PSP Sales Report" then leaving it at his desk/sending it via mail is not recommended.
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.
Arm chair lawyer alert! Slashdot, where programmers become legal vigilantes.
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..
Yeah I found that libarc too. But the article appears to be talking about another libarc from Link to articles libarc It is written in C the libarc you found is written in C++. Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there?
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.
No. As the GP pointed out, there are two licenses, the LGPL and the GPL. GLIBC is licensed under the LGPL, therefore you don't have to release the source to your own C program, just any modifications you might have made to GLIBC. As for the library of libarc, erm, I'm not sure what's going on here but I can't see any evidence it's licensed under either the GPL or LGPL. From http://libarc.sourceforge.net/:
Looks like a permissive free software license (*BSD, MIT) to me, not copyleft at all.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
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