Slashdot Log In
PlayStation 2 Game ICO Violates the GPL
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Nov 28, 2007 05:17 AM
from the fun-with-dissassembly dept.
from the fun-with-dissassembly dept.
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!"
Related Stories
Submission: PlayStation 2 game ICO violates the GPL by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Informative)
You can go after ever used game shop and stop them from redistributing the binaries without source too, if you'd like.
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chance that Sony may have done that in the first place and that this guy is making an issue where there isn't one?
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHA
Intellectual property laws don't apply to big corporations!, they only apply to the little guy.
I think it's more likely that a developer is an idiot and Sony's going to take a "wait until we get a letter from a lawyer" attitude.
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason why people have published source code in the past was because it was the cheaper solution. If I had one million lines of Linux code and 1000 lines of my own, I would likely publish the source code. If I had 1000 lines of GPL'd code and one million lines of my own, I might be more willing to pay damages.
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Get real... (Score:4, Insightful)
A License, which is what the L stands for.
One of the characteristics of a contract is that it's negotiable.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The result of breaking any license is that you have to stop breaking the license and pay compensation. You have the choice between removing the offending code, or start obeying the license. In this case Sony has no reason to not just remove it.
I got an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I got an idea (Score:5, Funny)
Labelling it otherwise, like "FY 2007 PSP Sales Report" then leaving it at his desk/sending it via mail is not recommended.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Circumvention (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/reverse.html [ieeeusa.org]
and
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_9/Sections_906_and_907 [wikisource.org]
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.
Parent
reverse-engineering (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably yes. But if a criminal broke into your house and found a drug lab and then phoned the police about it you are sunk. You are confusing the law that stops the police from doing this (entrapment) with the non-existent law that stops normal people from doing this.
Re:reverse-engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:reverse-engineering (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
They don't have to release the code (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For one thing it could make the game legal to run on an emulator. The other I can think of is it might possibly allow people to tear apart their binaries. "Legal" reverse engineering requires a lot of rigmarole that may not be necessary here. That might still be a lot more trouble than it's worth. The game is pushing 6 years old after all.
Please stop spreading FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well, time to sit back and watch the trolls have a field day...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Please stop spreading FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not comply with the GPL, it is revoked, which means you have no right to distribute the work. Which makes you guilty of violating copyright.
You would be punished like any other copyright-violator: By fines, by being forced to stop distribution, by paying compensation to the copyrigth-holders.
It may be that you are able to -avoid- these other punishments by reaching an *agreement* with the copyright-holder. Such an agreement is a private matter, it can contain backrubs, money, source-releases or the delivery of albino chimpanzes. But its up to you what agreement you enter into, if any.
The FSF has a history of saying: "We will forgive your past transgressions if you release the code", that is an OFFER by them, not a property of copyright-law or the GPL. You're free to take the offer, or decide -not- to take the offer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is close but not fully it
This alleged infringement is not part of the myth. The myth goes like this "if you use any GPL type software to develop your code then you lose all rights to your code". The myth is wrong because it ignores the fact that a GPL complier does not make your code GPL and most libraries you would ever link about are LGPLed not GPLed and you don't have to release the code if you don't distribute etc etc. This Sony case would still be a copyright problem if the code was say copyright
Re:Please stop spreading FUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibly the source of the confusion is that if you -did- release the code originally, you wouldn't have been in violation of the GPL, and thus not of copyright.
ReleaseCode, no_violation = true
violation, mustReleaseCode = false
Indeed, unless you're made a spesific offer of forgiveness in exchange for releasing the code by the copyright-holder, releasing the code after being in violation doens't even HELP. You still broke copyright-law, you're still responsible for the damages arising therefrom.
Parent
Re:Please stop spreading FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Parent
Sony has three options (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I see lawyers.. (Score:5, Funny)
Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
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..
Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL (Score:5, Informative)
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 [onicos.com] It is written in C the libarc you found is written in C++. Not the same program, confusing names, how many libarcs are there?
Parent
If I was starting a business (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, do go on and tell me how, exactly, I'm wrong in this.
Lovely, IOC stole from libarc that stole from zlib (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta love the ethics of the freedom fighters.
You're confusing General license with Lesser (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [sourceforge.net]:
Looks like a permissive free software license (*BSD, MIT) to me, not copyleft at all.
Parent
It's a *DIFFERENT* libARC -- ICO's *IS* GPL. (Score:4, Informative)
According to the few info available in english on the page [onicos.com], this libarc is used to open quite a lot of different archive format (could some Japanese-speaking
Whereas, the sourceforge one [sourceforge.net], is mainly designed for a GZIPed ARC file used on the internet archive.
And whereas the libarc you point out is licensed under some sort of permissive license,
the Japanese libarc used by ICO is licensed under GPL. The file "inflate.c" is mentioned in TFA, and the following license/comments are cited
TFA's author then point out a couple of subtle difference all showing that it's this libarc's specific file which is used. (You can find similar "inflate.c" in a lot of decompression libraries. But libarc's has some specific memory subroutines, which can be traced in the disassembled code flow of the US version, or in the list of symbol names in the debug info included with the EU version).
:
/. has already been done. This game isn't produced anymore. /. er, only to the specific executable which contains the GPL code ("SCUS_971.13" according to TFA. The other few GB of data that are on the DVD are safe). /.ers (and which would require a little bit more work) would be to separate the functionality into a
---
Now to go back to the possible outcomes
- The most easy is to stop distributing the infringing piece of work.
Which as pointed out by the
- An alternative is to publish the code, *NOT* of the whole game, as said by some
- The third solution, which wasn't mentioned yet by
Parent
Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game. (Score:3, Interesting)
of any source dependent or otherwise that is coupled with GPL code.
That said finding the definition of derivative and derivative works on the FSF's GPL FAQ page is quiet
interesting - they've gone to a lot of trouble hiding it towards the end, one would think such an
important FAQ would be say the 1st or 2nd listing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do these libraries save time and money if you have to hire a lawyer first to see what you can actually do with it?
You are the one who says they do that. Some of us use free software because it's the ethical thing to to. Some other people use it because of technical reasons.
Aside from that, non-free software libraries also have legal issues, and if you wanted to be safe, you would have to hire a lawyer in every case, because you have to deal with redistribution issues, plus in some cases EULAs.
In the case of the GPL you could hire a lawyer once (provided you don't understand the terms after actually reading them) and t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming it is a GPL(not LGPL) library then yes, to legally distribute the game they have to release the source to all of it. But that doesnt mean that they have to retroactively comply to the license after they broke it, it just means that continuing to distribute it is illegal, and the software authors could sue for financial compensation.
Whether or not its easier to just release the sourcecode (which they
Re:Where? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What is it? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Because you're tired of playing Tux Racer and the other two GPLed games?
Parent
Re:GPL Violations (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Parent