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."
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.
The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes. That's probably a GPL violation.
The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution. That's a clear GPL violation.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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...
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
There's a landfill for that!
mod me funny
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
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.