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!"

Get real...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony could end up having to release the source code for the entire game!

Not going to happen.

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:Get real...

[RupW]

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.

Given this isn't FSF code, there's a third way: contact the original author and negotiate a commercial licence to distribute the code. If this was going to be a problem I expect that's the cheapest solution.

Re:Get real...

[gEvil (beta)]

Given this isn't FSF code, there's a third way: contact the original author and negotiate a commercial licence to distribute the code.

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?

Re:

[Hal_Porter]

I hope not, I was looking forward to a good witchburning.

Re:Get real...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope not, I was looking forward to a good witchburning.

You don't need a real issue to have a good witchburning. That's the great thing about it. All you need is a wild allegation and pack of frothing fanboys with pitchforks and you're good to go.

Re:Get real...

[Dr. Evil]

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?

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.

Re:Get real...

[Intron]

Of course the law applies to big corporations. Sony will be able to sue this guy for violating their EULA by disassembling their game. You don't buy a game from a big company, you just buy a license to use it under their terms and conditions. See? All legal.

Re:Get real...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Assuming the original author wrote the entire thing from scratch, true. But if he used any GNU material (or other GPL licensed libraries) himself, then you're right back where you started.

Re:Get real...

[PhilHibbs]

Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game.

Re:Get real...

[gnasher719]

Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game.

It is indeed unthinkable, because the GPL is not a contract. A judge would likely say that copyright infringement has happened. And that damages have to be paid. Now the plaintiff may offer that Sony could publish the source code under the GPL instead of paying damages. In that case it is completely up to Sony to accept the offer or not, but nobody can force them.

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.

Re:

[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 the

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:

[orclevegam]

Well, at this point I'm purely speculating, but from some of the things said in article this guy has done some analysis of a number of games (including the sequal to ICO, Shadow of the Colossus), and found no other uses of this code. I'm thinking this is probably an isolated case and from the sounds of it may not even be as cut and dry as it sounds because apparently one of the two files cited by the article is actually considered public domain as opposed to GPL. It's possible they may have been using publi

Re:Get real...

[bladesjester]

If the GPL is not a contract, then what is it?

A License, which is what the L stands for.

One of the characteristics of a contract is that it's negotiable.

Re:

[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.

Could Would Should

[pavel_987]

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

I got an idea

[eclectro]

Sony could end up having to release the source code for the entire game!"

Rather than go to the all the hassle with lawyers and all, why don't we mail a CD with a Sony rootkit to the Sony CEO and get the source code that way?

Re:I got an idea

[RuBLed]

You had to label it "Private: Employee X Wedding/Honeymoon Pictures". Then just leave it near the coffee maker...

Labelling it otherwise, like "FY 2007 PSP Sales Report" then leaving it at his desk/sending it via mail is not recommended.

Re:

[Nossie]

surely that guys disassembly of the file was in breach of the DMCA too? :)

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.

reverse-engineering

[TwistedSpring]

Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game? I know little about law, so who has the trump card here?

Re:

[rjames13]

Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game? I know little about law, so who has the trump card here?

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:

[rindeee]

I don't know the answer to your question, but it raises an interesting point. Sony's claim could easily be, 'You find out we were doing something wrong by doing something wrong.' Two wrongs not making a right and whatnot. Same concept as in law enforcement (sorry, I don't know legal terms). They've still broken copyright which discovery process wont excuse, but it will be interesting to see if Sony tries to hide behind such a claim. As an aside, it's hilarious to watch huge companies that like to swing

Re:

[Belial6]

I once saw a game crack that had a EULA that said, no one was ever allowed to run the software. I later got the opportunity to ask an EFF lawyer about that, and she said that the EULA would not protect you against copyright violation, and would likely just make any judge you faced annoyed. So, the EFF at least does not think that Sony would be in the right here. I know that the EFF are not judges, but since I actually asked an IP lawyer about this, I though I would relay what I was told.

Depends on the legality of RE

[achurch]

Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game? I know little about law, so who has the trump card here?

That depends on the validity of the license. In theory, at least, a license is only required if you want to do something that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do; for example, the GPL allows you to distribute software (otherwise a violation of copyright) if you follow its terms. So the question here is, is reverse engineering prohibited by law? If not, Sony can say "prohibited" all they want, but such terms would be legally meaningless--though, of course, they can still sue you and make you spend m

Re:reverse-engineering

[Seahawk]

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

Re:

[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

Re:

[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 transfe

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.

Re:

[orasio]

That was what I was thinking as well - surely the EULA says not to reverse engineer the code.

Now, do the people on slashdot agree with breaking a legal(ish) contract to find a GPL violation when they don't agree with breaking privacy laws to catch criminals/terrorists? Interesting dilemma :)

It's not a dilemma.
EULAs are of no value, in most of the world. So it's difficult to make the case that they are valid.
Aside from that, the analogy you are using doesn't stand. One is people vs people, and the other is government vs people. One is a civil issue, and the other is not.

Re:

[Pofy]

>That was what I was thinking as well - surely the EULA says not to reverse engineer the code.

Even if it did and it was enforcable, it doesn't mean the person who reverse engineered it had agreed to it to start with.

Re:

[IBBoard]

Only in terms of degrees, though. And if it is in terms of degrees then how do you set at which degree it is sufficiently 'degree-ful' to be something that shouldn't be done?

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.

Re:

[EVil Lawyer]

And, as our trusty friend Amazon.com tells us, the game has already been discontinued by the manufacturer.

Re:

[bombastinator]

This would imply that Sony has to do precisely squat. While I have no reasonable authority to hold forth on this, I do think it might still have a few repercussions.

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.

[One Childish N00b]

As numerous other posters have pointed out, this will not result in Sony having to release the source code for their game. The myth of the 'viral GPL' is already going strong enough without /. fuelling it by posting articles like this.

Oh well, time to sit back and watch the trolls have a field day...

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The myth of the 'viral GPL' is already going strong enough without /. fuelling it by posting articles like this.

What's this "viral GPL myth"? I thought the GPL was viral (and proud of it). Is there some confusion out there?

Re:Please stop spreading FUD.

[Eivind]

The point is, there is nothing in copyright-law that will force anyone, under any circumstances, to release code.

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.

Re:

[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 copyright

Re:Please stop spreading FUD.

[Eivind]

That's because people are horribly confused about even blindingly obvious simple cases of law. They are likely confused by the fact that the FSF has a history of saying, "We offer you forgiveness if you release the code" and people somehow think that it says somewhere (it doesn't) that "if you break copyright you have to release the code".

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.

Re:Please stop spreading FUD.

[Tet]

The LGPL is a good license. BSD is a good license. GPLv2 is a maybe license, the GPLv3 is shit.

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...

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.

How can this happen?

[Thanshin]

I've always thought that knowing the origin of all code is standard procedure. Where I've worked, hiding such a thing is reason enough to fire someone.

Didn't they check? Or they knew perfectly well what they were doing but didn't care. I suppose it's the second.

They didn't care because they are incompetent? Or simply their lawyers told them it didn't matter. I suppose it's the second.

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.

I see lawyers..

[DraconPern]

Arm chair lawyer alert! Slashdot, where programmers become legal vigilantes.

Confused: libarc doesn't seem to be GPL

[renoX]

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..

Re:

[xenocide2]

In all claims, you should be looking at the header files on the individual source files, not what a project source claims. At any rate, all we've really found out thus far is that the code appears to be duplicated. It's possible that they both plagarized the same third source. But unlikely.

Re:

[johannesg]

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?

1. I cannot see that hold up in court, but I'm not a lawyer.

2. That means using Open Source software has just become about a thousand times more expensive. Rather than just send the license file down to our lawyers, now we need them to read the entire source code? That will be an easy answer then: "buy some comm

Re:

[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.

Re:

[ricegf]

I would need to manually inspect every last line of source code...

Oh, it's not a bad as all that - just inspect the top of every source file. In a good application, they have a copyright notice (asserting ownership) and a distribution license (GPL, BSD, whatever) at the top of every file. So, build a spreadsheet with filename, version, owner and license for each file, then verify that all of the licenses are compatible (check the Free Software Foundation's discussion on this if you need help). Any files w

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:

[aug24]

I looked at this earlier, but it has a different developer and is listed as pre-alpha, so I think it's a different thing. The correct one (linked from TFA) is a japanese language page that I couldn't view, much less read ;-)

J.

Re:

[muyuubyou]

Here http://sourceforge.net/projects/libarc/ [sourceforge.net] ... it specifies BSD license.

Good luck Masanao Izumo

[OrangeTide]

"Copyright (C) 2000 Masanao Izumo "

I wish him all the best luck in chasing down Sony and enforcing his license. If this copyleft were held by FSF then maybe there would be some arm twisting.

(also making a library GPL instead of LGPL, how annoying)

If I was starting a business

[mumblestheclown]

If I were starting a business, I'd just go on and bright-line and outright abuse the GPL. I would go into business (such as PS2 games or whatever) where any "outrage" by the OSS community would go unnoticed and would simply ignore the empty threats of lawsuits and what-have-you. Heck, many companies are doing this already. it's a very legitimate and none too risky business strategy. For all its good philosophical points that would encourage good hearted individuals to contribute to my bottom line, I would benefit from the fact that enforcement of the GPL is ultimately toothless.

Please, do go on and tell me how, exactly, I'm wrong in this.

Re:

[aadvancedGIR]

Leaving the moral aspects aside (after all, they don't mix with "business"), you still need to create some because you'll be competing against a free product with people who know your code better than you do. If you just plan to freeride, I wouldn't bet on your survival unless you find very stupid clients first.

Re:

[totally bogus dude]

You're absolutely right, but you need to consider that there are organisations that will pursue legal action on behalf of free software authors pro bono.

The question then is, how much is your business worth to you; how much are you willing to bet that nobody will come after you?

As another poster pointed out, the GPL is based on copyright law, which makes it difficult to wriggle out of. And if your company makes a habit of "outright abuse" of GPL'd code and gets to be even moderately successful, you're g

Re:

[domatic]

Not all GPL code was written by two hippie wannabees in their parents basement. An awful lot of it is owned by real corporations that can afford to pay real lawyers real money. If your business started making money, they'd either want some of it or compliance with the license on their code.

Mr. Hankey Senior?

[rindeee]

Does anyone else see the resemblance between the GNU icon used as a label on this story and a piece of poo? I know this is waaaaaay off topic (mod me down if you must) but it looks like a big whistling cartoon turd. Some long lost relative of Mr. Hankey's? Anyway, that is all.

Re:

[Megane]

Does anyone else see the resemblance between the GNU icon used as a label on this story and a piece of poo?

I've always thought it looked like a penguin, with the gap between the horns being the penguin's eye.

Now that you mention it, the feet do look somewhat turd-like, but only the feet.

Imagine this

[joaommp]

The CEOs for all the create IT companies are in a room. A big room.

Suddenly someone screams "Hey, look at the news, it says here that PlayStation 2 Game ICO Violates the GPL!"

And then everyone laughs and cries out "who doesn't?"

It's already beyond common practice.

Tip of an iceberg

[Z00L00K]

This is only the tip of an iceberg, you will find a lot of GPL source or extracts of GPL source almost everywhere. Maybe not complete libraries, but some snippets may be found now and then.

The problem lies in the possibility to identify all those parts.

Really? Sony?

[muffen]

I cannot believe a company like sony did something stupid, that's _never_ happened before [thebestpag...iverse.net]

other case of commercial use of FOSS?

[psbrogna]

I might be a singleton demographic but has anybody else here checked out the Webkins community web site for young children? My 7 year old nephew is an addict and was showing it to me recently. One of his favorite games on the site is an obvious knock off (web enabled) of Frozen Bubble, a game included with many Linux Distributions. There was no attribution I could see and I wondered if it was a potential violation of that game's license.

ICO is the best game ever made.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its that simple. Release the source! that would be just fucking awesome.

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.

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.

Re:

[rucs_hack]

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.

So when I use GlibC to compile my C program I always have to release the source? Or if my Linux program makes use of a Library avaliable in Linux I have to release full source?

I has a doubt, there is a limit you know.

Re:

[xenocide2]

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

Re:You're confusing General license with Lesser

[tolan-b]

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

Re:

[unixmaster]

glibc is LGPL , not GPL.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[BabyDave]

Looking at the version numbers (0.2 on the Souceforge page vs 2.0.2 on the page linked by the original article, I think that's a different libarc.

Re:

[JasterBobaMereel]

The licence is a bit confused it contains the standard boilerplate about the GPL then says /* 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.

So seems to retract the GPL ?

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: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.

MOD PARENT DOWN: Talking out of his ass

[Alphager]

The parent has no clue and is confusing the GPL with the LGPL.

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

[xquark]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The GPL is indeed viral and does require the full release
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:

[HappySmileMan]

I'm 15 and I know exactly what the difference between GPL and LGPL is (not word for word of course, but in general what can be done with them), if you need a lawyer to make sense of it then I'd advise you to just stay clear of it altogether

Re:

[orasio]

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:

[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.

Re:

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

At no point can they be forced to release the sourcecode. The legal system just doesnt work that way.

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?

[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:

[TuringTest]

If they have included GPL code, they would also be infringing just for not showing the GPL text at the execution of the game. If that is the case, there would be no need to wait until a client asked for the source code.

Re:

[rjames13]

If they have included GPL code, they would also be infringing just for not showing the GPL text at the execution of the game. If that is the case, there would be no need to wait until a client asked for the source code.

No it would not have to be so discreet it can be hidden away in the menu. It just has to be there. I use many GPLed apps and none of them display any such message at startup, it is always in the help or manual e.g. in Knode Help->About Knode->License Agreement(tab)

d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

From GPL 3

I also note that many others have pointed out that stopping distribution of the code stops the GPL enforcement clauses. And this game is no longer sold by Sony, so they have to disclose zip :)

Re:

[xenocide2]

Don't distribute your work, in source or binaries. You're free to modify as you deem fit. But if you distribute to others, you're supposed to do so under the license. That's the terms of the GPL deal, you're free to reject them but usually the only alternative is not using the software.

But is the source code work of a single man something to be hoarded so? The GPL was also designed to protect your clients, who perhaps you only ship binaries to. Because someday the author might be a client, and wishes to rec

Re:

[Half-pint HAL]

The reason you're safe is not that you're small fry -- the GPL says that if you distribute derivative programs or systems, these have to be under the same license. Personal use is not distribution.

Many web companies are thought to have been taking advantage of this for years. It is claimed that many of the web services we receive are based on in-house improvements of open source code. As their in-house version is never distributed, there is no requirement to distribute the source code (which would help the

Re:

[SharpFang]

Even worse than that...
GPL is non-revokable.

You can dual-license a program you wrote from scratch. Legally it looks like this: you have 'root' version which is 'closeware' - "Nobody but me is allowed to use it, and I am allowed to change the license", and two 'branches' - GPL and the other license. Practically you don't but that's somewhat moot. You're allowed to develop the 'root' and upgrade the 'branches' according to your changes to 'root' but you're not allowed to backport users' changes to the GPL bra

Re:

[oglueck]

This is the loophole that the new license GPL variant (whose name I forgot at the moment) is trying to close.
You mean the AGPL [affero.org].

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: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.

Re:

[fireboy1919]

To summarize, it was just a Zork/Myth-genre game for PS2, with the added continual challenge of having to drag around a retarded mute girl (seriously...she might as well have been a sack of flour).

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 fitt

Re:

[gEvil (beta)]

It strikes me as a game that doesn't appeal to action gamers because of a lack of action (and puzzles that are too hard), and doesn't appeal to puzzle gamers because of too much action. It hits a "sweet spot" that appeals to virtually no one.

I found it perfect for me. I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I'm certainly not a fan of twitchy shooters (getting my ass handed to me in FEAR Combat for an hour or so a month does me fine). I loved the slow, deliberate pace of the puzzles in Ico. I didn't find any of the

Re:

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Funny because ICO is one of my favourite games ever. I found it kept the old puzzle game style (Easy puzzles with non-obvious solutions that you can do in a heart beat one you realise them) and a HUGE world to explore, where everything is polished and impressive.

ICO's "greatness" comes in that it just tries to be ICO, it's not some uber deep beat em up and it's not some impossible to finish puzzle game. It's just a sleepy little world where you explore and make your way out of the castle at your own pace. S

ICO rules!

[kieran]

That game was so atmospheric it was actually scary - that was the main point of the combat, in fact - leave the girl alone to long and shadows attack her, which added a sense of urgency to the puzzle-solving. When I first got a few friends and I sat down to play it, and we would manage about 30mins of ICO before switching over to GTA to de-stress with some car chases and random murder. Then it was back to ICO for another 30mins :)

Re:What is it?

[The Evil Couch]

why do I want the source code for a game I have never heard of?

Because you're tired of playing Tux Racer and the other two GPLed games? :p

Re:

[HappySmileMan]

Hey hey, Tux Racer, Battle for Wesnoth, Super Tux, Secret Maryo Chronicles and that game with the bouncing balls, that's at least FIVE GPL games right there, more than enough for any serious gamer, now stop spreading FUD because I set RMS on you.

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 puzz

Re:

[orasio]

of slashdot readers caring about software licenses, in-between downloading photoshop from thepiratebay...

No way, photoshop does not run on Ubuntu, thank you very much.