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!"

Could Would Should

[pavel_987]

The key word in there is "could". I doubt anything will actually happen. Never underestimate the power of bureaucracy.

They don't have to release the code

[MichaelCrawford]

And I quote [gnu.org]:

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

What that means is that they have to stop shipping the game entirely.

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.

You're confusing General license with Lesser

[MichaelCrawford]

The GNU Lesser General Public License (formerly the "Library" GPL) has the terms you describe, but the GNU General Public License (without the "Lesser") requires one to release full source if any covered libraries are used.

No they won;t have to release the source

[91degrees]

Other code is covered by other licences. These licences most likely explicitely restrict them from releasing the code. The GPL doesn't superscede these other licences.

This is a simple case of copyright infringement. Sony will be obliged to pay damages, and possibly withdraw the game from sale.

Re:Where?

[rjames13]

I'm kind of confused where you get the idea that they could have to release all of their source code. It doesn't seem to mention that in the link at all, also its very doubtful that sony would do that regardless. I could be missing something though so if thats the cause I apologize.

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.

Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game.

[pmontra]

I think you are confusing the GPL with the LGPL [wikipedia.org]. 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.

Sony has three options

[El_Muerte_TDS]

1) release the code for ICO under a GPL compatible license (and thereby conforming to the GPL)
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.

Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser

[xenocide2]

You know, it was formerly called the Library GPL because it was used in things like glibc...

Re:Get real...

[OrangeTide]

Sony has to cease distribution of the game. Which they already have done. Because of the way licenses work GPL gives you the choice of cease distribution or release the source. Obviously the easiest route for a now defunct game that you no longer publish is to cease distribution.

You can go after ever used game shop and stop them from redistributing the binaries without source too, if you'd like.

Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser

[tolan-b]

No, because Glibc is licensed under the LGPL not the GPL.

Re:Get real...

[Carewolf]

Exactly. Tag the story "notheydont" or "FUD". This is classic anti-GPL FUD.

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.

Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL

[rjames13]

Looking at libarc website http://libarc.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]: the license indicated here isn't the GPL..

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?

Re:What is it?

[RogueyWon]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:reverse-engineering

[Seahawk]

Well - in most sane countries reverse engineering is specifically allowed - no matter what the EULA's say. :)

Re:Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL

[KanjiMonster]

Are you telling me that the license file could be incorrect, and that to know for sure I would need to manually inspect every last line of source code to see if a different license file is specified?
But in this case I happen to agree with the first poster: libarc appears to be covered by a NON-GPL license and therefore Sony is not going to have any problems. Even if libarc itself turns out to be in violation of GPL'ed code, then it is the problem of its author, rather than Sony.

You are still thinking of the wrong libarc. The article talks about this library [onicos.com]called libarc, and if you open the archive for the source [onicos.com] you find a file COPYING that contains the GPL licence.
And that is the only licence given for this library, no other is mentioned elsewere.

Huh?? What violation??

[rapid_snail]

The libarc project page says that the library is licensed under the BSD license.
What "GPL" violation are these guys talking about?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libarc/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:Please stop spreading FUD.

[rjames13]

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 copyrighted by Microsoft and Sony just put it in their code, which is theft. People get confused because they don't understand both how copyright works and how the GPL works. The GPL just ensures that people who link to GPL code and pass it on also pass on the freedoms that they have in the first place to use that GPL code.

That is what the GPL is, an enforced system of passing on freedom. It is not there to steal your Intellectual Property.

Re:reverse-engineering

[Eivind]

Doesn't matter in the least. You don't need to agree to the licence-agreement to aquire a copy of the game.

If I sell you a shrinkwrapped book - no conditions attached - and then print, on the inside of the front cover, a "licence" prohibiting you from, say, reading the book aloud for your kids. Do you reckon you're bound by that "licence" ? At what point did you enter into the agreement ? Does any random text that you're exposed to subject you to the conditions spelled out -- even if you never AGREE to the text ? Can I hold a contract under your nose that says "by reading this, you agree to give me all your money", and thereafter actually collect from you ?

I wish people would quit the nonsense.

An -agreement- is only an -agreement- when both sides actually -agree- to enter into it.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions contracts require an actual exchange. A one-sided "licence-agreement" that doesn't give you ANYTHING you didn't already have, but requires you to give up something (such as the rigth to study the work) is not valid in such jurisdictions.

Re:GPL Violations

[totally bogus dude]

Am i better off just writing all of my own code from scratch?

If you intend to distribute your program to others, then yes, though you might want to investigate some other options first.

• Write it all yourself. Pros: you can license it however the hell you want. Also, you'll understand how every bit of your program works in great detail. Cons: it takes longer, and you're probably not an expert at everything so some parts of the finished program might not be as good or well-tested as they could be if you used a library from someone else.
• Use a commercial library. Pros: will probably be fine to distribute in binary form (but make sure you read the license for any library you're considering). Saves you time, and you probably get support from the author. Cons: costs money, may impose additional restrictions on what you can do (read the license carefully!)
• Use GPL licensed code. Pros: you can see the code, others can see the code, if it's a project with even a moderate sized userbase it's likely to be high quality and well tested, and lots of people able to provide support for it. Cons: you have to release the code to your own program.
• Use LGPL licensed code. Pros: same as for GPL code. Cons: you have to make it possible for people you distribute your program to to re-link your code with the LGPL library (e.g. newer version or one with bug fixes you can't be bothered shipping).
• Use code under a more permissive license, e.g. BSD. Pros: same as for GPL code. Cons: not many. Normally they have an advertising/credit clause, but you're okay with that.

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.)

Re:Huh?? What violation??

[Anonymous Coward]

Different project, actual one from the article (apparently; I didn't read it, but others did... for shame!) is http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz [onicos.com]

(Posting anon because this has been mentioned a few times already in the thread, but just a heads up for any stray modders who haven't seen those posts.)

Re:Get real...

[notthe9]

For something like this, it's probably almost entirely Sony code. However, since the game is six years old and I assume no longer a bit cash cow for them, there's a chance GPLing might be considered the best option on their end. However just GPLing the code now doesn't erase the copyright infringement, so it won't necessarily help at all. (The libarc people would have to agree that GPLing now will satisfy them.)

libarc? That's an interesting library for them to be using. I guess for compressed storage on their game disk?

Re:Get real...

[orclevegam]

libarc? That's an interesting library for them to be using. I guess for compressed storage on their game disk?

According to the TFA that's exactly what it was used for. As a proof of concept (beyond the evidence in the disassembled code) the author of the article wrote a decompression utility using libarc that can decompress the contents of the game disc.

Re:Sony won't have to release source code to game.

[sqlrob]

The company I work for has *ALL* licenses checked by lawyers. Open, closed, it doesn't matter. That cost is amortized across all purchased/obtained libraries.

It's a *DIFFERENT* libARC -- ICO's *IS* GPL.

[DrYak]

TFA points to a different libarc : http://www.onicos.com/staff/iz/release/libarc-2.0.2.tar.gz [onicos.com], not the sourceforge one.

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 /.er help here ?).
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 :

/*
Copyright (C) 2000 Masanao Izumo

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*/ /* inflate.c -- Not copyrighted 1992 by Mark Adler
version c10p1, 10 January 1993 */ /* 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.
[The history has been moved to the file ChangeLog.]
*/

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).

---

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 /. has already been done. This game isn't produced anymore.
- An alternative is to publish the code, *NOT* of the whole game, as said by some /. 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).
- The third solution, which wasn't mentioned yet by /.ers (and which would require a little bit more work) would be to separate the functionality into a

Re:Circumvention

[BosstonesOwn]

Both I and the IEEE beg to differ. You might want to read this link.

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.

Re:reverse-engineering

[radarjd]

There is a difference between a license and an agreement (contract). A license (in this case) grants you a form of property. Specifically, it grants you some property with restrictions on how that property may be used. It was historically first used of real property, but has been extended to other forms of property as well. For example, a ticket to a show is generally a license to a particular seat at a particular time with some additional restrictions on your conduct at that show. Software is often transferred with a license (whether that license be BSD, GPL, proprietary, etc.) which governs your exercise of property rights over that software.

A contract, by the common law formula, requires an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration for the agreement. There are exceptions to that formula, of course, but it generally holds true. "Consideration" means "payment" in broad terms. Consideration could be money, it could be the promise to perform a certain action or to withhold from performing a certain action.

There are limits as to what a contract or license can do, which gets to your point, I believe. For example, a statement which says "by reading this, you agree to give me all your money" is neither a license nor a contract. If included within a license or a contract it may or may not be enforceable depending on the circumstances. For example, if I have $4, and you agree to give me a book for "all my money", that's likely a reasonable contract. If I have millions of dollars, and you agree to give me the most valuable book in all the world for "all my money", that's also likely enforceable. If, on the other hand, you obtain my agreement by some trick (as in your example above of the book), it's likely not enforceable. I simply will not accept transfer of the book once I am aware of the terms of the license.

In other words, I think you are arguing against the wrong concept. There are such things as licenses, and you may well need one in order to convince someone to transfer some property right in a thing to you. I use GPL'd software under the conditions of its license, just the same as I use proprietary software. I didn't agree to the GPL, but I accept the software under the conditions of the license.

Re:reverse-engineering

[boaworm]

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.

What is it? The best PS2 game

[tgibbs]

In my opinion, Ico is the single best game for the PS2 and in the running for the best games of all time. Although never a great commercial success for Sony, it has a strong following. I just bought a copy (used, Sony is no longer selling it) to give as a gift. I was surprised how much I had to pay for it. With many other PS2 games of similar vintage going for $10 or so, used copies of Ico are selling just a bit below new game prices, and new copies are selling for more than new PS3 games. [amazon.com]

Technically a puzzle/platform game, I think that it achieves the perfect combination of story, art, drama, technical execution, and intellectual and skill challenge.

Lovely, IOC stole from libarc that stole from zlib

[apankrat]

libarc borrows heavily from zlib, which is .. surprise ! .. BSD licensed. There is however no mention of BSD in libarc, which effectively means that it is in violation of BSD license.

Gotta love the ethics of the freedom fighters.