Slashdot Mirror
Atari Sub-Sub-Contractor Used ScummVM For Wii Game
MBCook writes "In several recent releases, it seems that Atari published games for the Wii based on ScummVM, which was released under the GPL. Atari contracted Majesco, who contracted a company named Mistic Software with offices in the Ukraine. When the fact that the GPL was being violated was brought to Atari's attention, they were kind at first until it was discovered that Nintendo doesn't allow open source software to be used with the Wii SDK, so updated documentation mentioning the GPL wasn't an available solution. So, what happens to the games? 'There is a period of time in which all current copies have to be sold. Any copies beyond this period or any reprints get fined with quite high fine for each new/remaining copy. The remaining stock has to be destoryed [sic].' Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo."
The tank-sub-contractors used a different technology.
Nintendo literally hates open source. Guess I'll skip that DSi.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Companies do have to be careful how they use GPL code, sure. But the real lesson here is that companies have to be much more careful about who their subcontractors are!
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:
1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0
2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul
3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?
What's more likely is this response: OMG! GPL was violated! String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1! The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this. Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!
Here you go:
http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html
From The blog Post:
The finals
Thus, the facts were:
* There is a GPL violation (their denial has to be proven in a court, strings in executables and the bug above clearly show it)
* Atari could not release source codes because of Nintendo NDA
* Atari could not put GPL clause because of Nintendo NDA
* Atari could not "buy out" ScummVM from us
* There is no possibility to double license ScummVM, at least SCUMM engine
* We do not need any money as a "bribe to keep silent"
I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".
I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.
Of course, Majesco made Psychonaughts, so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path.
It's been a long time.
Provisions prohibiting open source software are not unusual in development and distribution agreements for closed systems. There are similar provisions for all gaming platforms, for example, and for signed drivers for Windows. On the other hand, paid licenses for third-party libraries are fine as long as there is no requirement to release source code.
Something to think about if you believe the playing field is level.
Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Horse status: bolted.
Would you like me to close the stable door?
(Obviously, the reason for nintendo refusing to distribute open source software on their platform is that it may also _requires_ them to distribute a toolchain for the platform, including signing keys etc as required to get code to run. Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.)
I am very curious on what is the reasoning behind Nintendo's forbidding the use of Open Source... i guess they want to protect their APIs or something.
I would love if any brave enough AC could post more of this info.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
There's a landfill for that!
mod me funny
There is a common and dangerous misunderstanding that the GPL is a contract. It isn't. No one can be forced to comply in court. However, noncompliance makes the license invalid, which can mean copyright infringement, per the parent.
Of course, a 1.85 million dollar verdict is unlikely....
Yup, stripping everything out in favour of waggle-based minigames certainly is "destorying" games on the Wii.
Wall of text crits you for 74847284729421 damage.
You die.
I suppose the ability to do this would depend on what software/libs SCUMMVM uses and whether they're GPL, but isn't it often possible for a company to sell a license which permits the use of GPL'ed code without revealing sources (dual-licensing, etc).
Of course, that would only likely work if the engine isn't using GPL'ed libs, because they'd still be locked to the GPL at that point, I believe.
I'm not a FOSS licensing expert though, but that was my understanding of things.
Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then? Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!
ScummVM released their software under the GPL. They did not do this with the intention of preventing Wii development, they did it with the intention of ensuring that all copies of their code, including modified copies, remain open source. ScummVM's developers would love to see ScummVM running on the Wii, and they did not attack anyone for doing this; Nintendo is the belligerent party here, for preventing developers from licensing Wii games in certain ways.
Palm trees and 8
This really should be a story about the legal risks of sub contracting... if you ship the work out, then it's very difficult to make sure all your ducks are in a row.
The measures by which people generally credit Nintendo as 'getting it' recently is on fronts such as getting the price right, first-party titles, innovating enhancement of the gaming experience through a different control paradigm rather than just polygons++ (with the controller change being far cheaper than GPUs to drive polygon count). There are fair criticisms to be leveled over these points, but by and large Nintendo hasn't changed since the Wii release date on this front.
In terms of dealing with intellectual property, Nintendo has always been consistently 'unreasonable' by this standard. Nintendo has always been very hostile toward the concept of developers creating hardware or software to work with their stuff without explicitly entering into an agreement with Nintendo. OSS represents a huge fear of exposing loopholes that could allow third parties to 'exploit' their products.
One huge example of their third-party perspective was their huge fight over Game Genie (was designed, manufactured, and sold by Galoob without consent from Nintendo, and presumably without extortionist license fees). Nintendo ultimately lost that fight, but generally have done all within their marketing, legal and technical powers to prevent anything happening on their equipment without them getting some money.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Damn it, /. ate my comment. I'll try to recreate it.
You're confusing the purpose of the GPL with it's mechanism. The GPL uses copyright law to try and advance the goals of free software and access to source code. Just because it uses copyright law doesn't mean that everyone who supports the GPL agrees with the goals of copyright law (the two are very different).
It'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to complain about GPL violations but also be violating Apple's copyright, e.g., by working on a Hackintosh project. That's hardly hypocritical.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Speedracer: The Videogame --- there's a notice for Lua scripting on the copyright screen, so Nintendo can't be said to be forbidding opensource solely for being opensource, so there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication here.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
From http://www.misticsoftware.com//
Mistic Software is an independent developer located in Montreal, Canada. Mistic has spread its success across the world, adding subsidiaries in France and the Ukraine.
I wonder why Ukraine got emphasized over Canada and France.
And, BTW, it's just Ukraine, no 'the' necessary: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html/
Could Dolphin (Wii/GC emulator) be used as a replacement OS for the Wii?
I run homebrew apps on the wii, and an occasional wii game (usually wii sports).
I wish that such anti-competitive practice of Nintendo was illegal.
...tag it "destory"!
Maybe they could ask Lucas Arts for a licence, maybe they would even get it. But it would probably be little use since the original ones are buggy compared to ScummVM (ask its authors) and don't run on the Wii. Which means a total rewrite would be necessary. They probably used ScummVM because they didn't have the time or money to spare to write their own scripting engine, so that probably wouldn't be an option.
But the real question should be, in my opinion: âWhy is this legal?â(TM) If the law allows companies to forbid running free software on their platform, the law needs to be changed.
Oh, and then one last comment on the practicality of the decision... They can (after they nix the copies of their Wii games) republish the data files for the games only, with some comment in the direction of âRequires ScummVM to run, which is available for all popular platforms, including Windows and the Macâ(TM) and it would be no fault of theirs if someone were to read on the internet how you can get ScummVM running on the Wii.
Use of "viral" is how we know you're a troll. All proprietary code is just as "viral." In fact the reason the games must be destroyed (Atari had no way to resolve the situation) is that Nintendo's signing key, SDK libraries, and whatever else, was "viral" and tainted Atari's product such that it couldn't co-exist with the scummvm code.
"Viral" is just a way of saying that derived works come with conditions, but said in a pejorative way, and intended to imply (and by that I mean "mislead") that the GPL imposing conditions is somehow unusual, rather than the every day normal practice, as Nintendo demonstrated with their conditions on Atari.
If you want to exclude someone and show them as a special case, then sing praises for the BSD and similar licenses. But don't damn the GPL without also damning all the proprietary vendors in the same breath, because they're all just as bad.
I don't see where the GPL requires them to provide the Nintendo SDK.
The ScummVM FAQ states that ScummVM is under the GNU General Public License and links to a copy of version 3 of this license on FSF's server. GPLv3 requires almost anyone who distributes a covered binary to provide source code and Installation Information. For a platform that enforces code signatures, like Wii, such Installation Information includes suitable signing keys.
I'll guess Atari has yet another game to bury.
The GPL is not a EULA. The GPL is a disclaimer of waranty, and a distribution licence. So long as copyright law exists the GPL is a reasonable licence for those who think code should be treated the way the GPL treats code. Also, you're assuming groupthink, where in fact there isn't so much. So long as the code is under the GPL, and copyright exists, companies have to play by the rules. If copyright is destroyed, then the rules no longer need to be played by. These companies are never going to have copyright struck down though, because it is how they make their money.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
That's not really the point. The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform. This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii. Under the GPL terms, this _must_ be released along with the rest of the source code.
I believe this requirement is only present in GPL v3.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
it's a fact that most wii's last for only 13 months, and then cease operation with with a 'cant read disc' error.. it then costs $165 to have them replace the silly dvd drive that only reads the subchanel data for another one.. which is why my wii sits on a shelf gathering dust now
for some reason I much prefer the DS lite, as their are no moving parts to wear out, and stop reading disks! plus it has two screens...
Given that you need a license to use Nintendo's API, would the GPL allow the source code to be compliant, even if there was no way to compile it without the missing API? I know there is the NDA which compounds the issue, but I am thinking of a scenario where there is no NDA.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You don't encourage game development by using NDAs.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Pajama Sam, Freddi Fish, and SPY Fox
Freddie Fish is actually a very good children's game, sort of an easy point and click adventure game. I assume the others are just as good. It is a shame they will be no more.
The bit about open source/GPL software being used isn't the important part of this story. The major point that should be learned is that sub-sub-contracting out to development companies in (sorry, Russia) practically lawless countries can expose the parent company to SEVERE repercussions. Atari wasn't really to blame, other than being too trusting, but they're bearing the costs. The major development houses NEED to be actively involved, at least in an auditing sense, with whoever is actually writing the code.
There is no reason for Nintendo to ban any open source licenses. Third party developers are not able to use GPLv3 code because they are not allowed to distribute the signing key and so can't comply with the GPLv3 irrespective of whether Nintendo explicitly forbids them. Other licenses have no such problems.
For whatever reason, Nintendo does not want developers releasing information about the Nintendo SDK. I'm not sure why, I guess they don't want people publishing SDK information in a way in which others could then derive a "clean room" reconstruction of it - for instance as a compatibility layer to make it easier to port Wii games to other consoles.
A game written using that SDK would fall under that category. It's not specifically open source they have a problem with, as far as I can tell - Nintendo just doesn't allow developers to release their source code publicly, thus Atari can't fulfill the terms of the GPL, which would require them to release the source code for the ScummVM game engine along with the changes made to make it run on the Wii.
So if I understand the situation correctly - Nintendo does not ban open source licenses, they just ban open distribution of code written for the Wii SDK - meaning developers bound under developer agreements can't also fulfill their obligations under GPL-style licenses if they modify GPL code for their projects. Open source licenses without that requirement (more on the BSD end of the spectrum) would be fine. (Again, if I am understanding the situation correctly.)
Bow-ties are cool.
"But the real question should be, in my opinion: Why is this legal? If the law allows companies to forbid running free software on their platform, the law needs to be changed."
It's a little more complicated than that, if I understand correctly. Nintendo isn't forbidding free software from running on their platform, per se.
Instead, if I'm not mistaken, any software running on the Wii platform requires the use of the Nintendo Wii SDK, which includes source code which will get compiled and statically linked into your Wii binary. In order to get the SDK from Nintendo, and to distribute the resulting binary which is a derivative of the SDK, you have to agree to a contract/NDA/License Agreement with Nintendo in which you agree to not disclose the source code for your program (because releasing your source code would reveal information about the APIs implemented by the SDK, which apparently Nintendo is trying to keep a trade secret).
So, what we have is a product (these two Atari games) which are at the same time a derivative of the Nintendo SDK, and also a derivative of the ScummVM. Since it is a derivative of both products, in order to distribute, you have to follow the licenses for both products. However, in this case, the two products have terms which are mutually exclusive. So, there's no possible way to legally distribute the Atari software.
Of course, if someone were to somehow figure out/reverse engineer the Nintendo API's without signing any NDA or contract with Nintendo, they could maybe create an open-source SDK which is 'compatible' with the Nintendo SDK, at which point third parties could start creating GPL programs for Nintendo (although you might not be able to get the software to RUN on a Wii without hacking the wii with some sort of modchip or Bios-flash or something. . . several posters have mentioned that software won't run on a Wii if it's not cryptographically signed using a key from Nintendo.
Nintendo is the belligerent party here, for preventing developers from licensing Wii games in certain ways.
Nope, not at all. It's Nintendo's choice to choose not to use open source software. You have no right to force them to do so which is what you are implying. Open source supporters talk about freedoms all the time - that includes an individuals or a companies freedom to choose not to use open source.
You extremists make the rest of us look bad - knock it off.
It's not about Nintendo not using open source software, it's about them not allowing Wii platform developers to make public any source code that uses the Wii SDK.
I still agree with you, I find the situation distasteful but I don't think Nintendo is in the wrong here. But nevertheless, it's a different issue from what you describe...
Bow-ties are cool.
After reading TFA, I get the impression that besides the GPL violations, the choice of license for ScummVM is itself an issue. The ScummVM developers seem to have no specific interest in getting the code back, rather they just want to be credited for their work on ScummVM and are proud of the fact that it was used in a commercial title. Accordingly, it strikes me that ScummVM was wrapped in entirely the wrong license.
This seems like a textbook case for using the MIT license or some other non-copyleft license where the authors are attributed, but the code isn't forced open. You see this on other projects like LUA or the Vorbis reference decoder, where they are commonly used in commercial games with great success, including Wii games. If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus. If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too.
GPL was originally created to be the opposite of a restrictive copyright, but ironically, the easiest way to give it legal standing was to make it a copyright license. You can be against how copyright laws currently are and still value licenses like GPL.
Who the hell is "Slashdot"? There are now over 100,500,000 individual accounts registered on this site.
This type of comment comes up every time a GPL violation is mentioned: something along the lines of, "It's hypocritical to support enforcing the GPL while at the same time complaining about Microsoft and the RIAA's copyrights." This argument betrays a fundamental confusion between 1) the purpose of the GPL and 2) its mechanism (how it works). Let me explain.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that people who use software have the "four freedoms": the freedom to
1. run the program, for any purpose
2. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
3. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
4. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
You might disagree with the necessity or value of any or all of these, but these are the things that the GPL was designed to ensure.
At this point, it's important to note that prima facie, numbers 3 and 4 are in direct conflict with the typical use of copyright law. The rights to distribute and create derivative works fall exclusively to the copyright holder. However, the GPL turns copyright on its head - it uses the legal framework of copyright to not only permit redistribution and improvements, but to actually require that others do the same. This is why it's sometimes called "copyleft." Thus, the GPL uses the mechanism of copyright law to accomplish its goal. However, this does not mean that the goals of the GPL and copyright law coincide.
Now someone typically comments with "Yeah, but without copyright the GPL couldn't work." First, that is not necessarily true. It's possible that there could be some other legal mechanism by which the GPL could continue to function, e.g., contracts or what have you. Second, without copyright, the GPL might not be as necessary, since presumably copyright law wouldn't prohibit the freedoms the GPL aims to achieve. (There might be other difficulties, such as people obfuscating or otherwise hiding code, but that is another issue).
So if someone is committed to the "four freedoms", they will likely complain about GPL violations, but also violate the copyrights of others: e.g., perhaps someone wants to run OS X on their non-Apple hardware (definitely invoking freedoms 1, 2, and possibly 3 and 4). That's not hypocritical, but in fact principled.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
> I'd like to hear your opinion on it. What is the crucial difference that makes one form of copyright violation okay, and the other not okay? Is it simply the word "profit"?
We believe in freedom of information. Most piracy promotes this--making works more available than they would otherwise be.
Pirating GPL'd software removes freedom, making works less available and making people less able to use it. This game can't be sold now, it seems likely that we won't get to see the source or any improvements to it, etc.
You may notice that there's no contradiction here. We believe in freedom, except for the false freedom of taking freedom away from others. Some people are "purists" who believe that's a "freedom" even though it makes people in aggregate less free. Not us. We care about the freedom of society as a whole more than that of any one individual. Incidentally, this is related to the principle of suboptimization.
You mean like this?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I seem to remember a story a few months back where they distributed code taken from a PC game crack in an official update.
They obviously consider this sort of behaviour acceptable, so I expect they'll have no problem with people pirating their software en masse.
"Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo."
Your vendor is not my problem.
ie, the issue is between Atari/Majesco and the GPL. Whatever they agreed to with Nintendo makes no difference.
Doesn't this show that scummvm is the best scumm emulator out there, what are the advantages of re-licensing to lgpl? To me it seams like a bad idea, give why not lgpl a read, particularly
we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.
It will always be unlikely that closed SDKs are going to allow code to be released (to protect the API), while GPL guarantees that homebrew ports stay 100% open. It is also unlikely that developers will want people to be aware they are using scummvm because (they will think) it may increase piracy, as people will take the game data and play the games elsewhere (they can do this if it runs on a scumm emulator anyway, but corporate boss's don't always follow logic).
Obviously this is just my humble opinion as I've not contributed to scummvm but please be weary of opening yourself up to proprietary (scummvm+evil console closed code) offshoots, especially if there is little benefit.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
ScummVM's developers would love to see ScummVM running on the Wii
Well, someone really ought to tell them, then: ScummVM already runs on the wii. As homebrew.
no qualms violating the copyright of Apple, MSFT, members of the RIAA or the MPAA. That is hypocrisy
If their position is "Copyright good", then yes.
If their position is "Open Source good; oppressive big corporations running unchecked bad", then I fail to see the hypocrisy. Could you please explain it to me?
Or are you saying that the people in question violate the copyrights of Apple's and Microsoft's open source code, or that of **AA Creative Commons music and movies?
I think the people you talk about subscribe to the latter view.
r and also bring your wii and the game(s). We wouldnt want anyone else to ....
No. There is no way to purchase that license. Some of the developers are dead, and there are a lot of smaller devs that contributed enough lines that you'd have to track them down.
Read the blog post from one of the devs.
There is no observable difference to the copyright owner between a library and people with 1,000 copies of a song that was paid for once, so long as none of them play it at the same time. The owner gets paid for one song, and 1,000 people get to listen to it practically whenever they want. The only difference is that the library enforces that only one copy is played at a time, whereas it's only statistically likely that one pirated song out of 1,000 is being played at any given time. I don't have any idea if 1,000 is the appropriate statistical number, but for any given song at any given time, there is a number of purchased copies and an average number of people listening to that song per minute. Divide that average by the length of the song and multiply by the number of owned copies, and there's your number.
Obviously the copyright owner sells fewer copies in the library scenario, but that just means the business model of selling songs has to change.