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."

3 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  2. Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual by bzzfzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the reasoning behind disallowing it? I don't understand.

    The platform is closed and Nintendo control the approval process, what's the downside for them?

    Their attorneys think about the GPL and the FSF the same way slashdotters think about ASCAP and the RIAA.

  3. Re:Stable door status: open. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can demand it, but is an unknowing party subject to the license or simply required to cease distribution when informed? It would be difficult to legally force Nintendo to provide anything in this circumstance...

    Even assuming that any of Nintendo's code would be involved (it's not obvious to me that this would be the case), you couldn't force them to do anything. If they don't comply with the terms of the GPL, then they are not licensed under the GPL, ergo they are guilty of copyright violations. It'd be their choice to comply with the GPL or accept the penalties for copyright violation, which would include having to cease distribution. You can't force a company to comply with a license agreement they never agreed to, you can only punish them for not having a license to begin with.

    So yeah, you're right.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are