id and Valve May Be Violating GPL

frooge writes "With the recent release of iD's catalog on Steam, it appears DOSBox is being used to run the old DOS games for greater compatibility. According to a post on the Halflife2.net forums, however, this distribution does not contain a copy of the GPL license that DOSBox is distributed under, which violates the license. According to the DOSBox developers, they were not notified that it was being used for this release."

Does this mean

I can get a copy of the source for Half-Life 2?

Re:Does this mean

No. It means that they violate copyright law because they didn't conform to the GPL terms. If it's true, they are illegally distributing the software called: DOSbox.

It doesn't mean any code of the old DOS iD games has to be released. Only modifications they might have made to DOSbox will have to be made public.

It's due to the work of the DOSbox creators that VALVe and iD can sell their old software and people can enjoy it. Yet the DOSbox creators don't get any credit for their work. And that is a major shame.

Re:Does this mean

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please. Programmers aren't always license experts. It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly, but there have been times where I made assumptions about close source code licenses that could have gotten me into the same trouble. The legal department doesn't review every single decision in an organization and its possible legal implications. It could have been a few guys that just didn't understand the GPL and it was missed because it wasn't the largest project in the company. Not defending them, but not everyone understands "open source" isn't the same as public domain.

Re:Does this mean

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please.

John Carmack understands perfectly what the GPL is all about, and surely nobody needs to be reminded what a huge contributer he is to open source and open standards. Certainly an oversight and public humiliation is not in order.

Re:Does this mean

You're right, and I'm 100% certain that John did all the packaging of the old games himself, by hand, using DEBUG on an 8086 and monochrome screen.

In reality, this was a business deal between id and Valve, and id probably handed over the playable binaries, and Value handed them to a small group to prepare for distribution and installation over Steam. So rather than blaming id, or claiming Valve did this with evil intent, let us combine two very powerful pieces of wisdom, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor. It is most easily assumed that when Valve handed off the data to be packaged, the worked had the best of intentions by using DOSbox, but was inadequately informed about it's proper use and redistribution.

Re:Does this mean

Yeah, I went to his keynote Friday night; there were a lot of technical questions, and at the same time a lot of questions about steam, etc. At one point someone asked him about porting Doom to Steam and he flat out said "wow, that's pretty cool, I hadn't heard about that yet, but it seems neat".... He's very much on the research side of things and made it very clear that while he's still the posterboy for iD, he has very little control or even desire to muck about with marketing and corperate politics, though at the same time he also said that they were very proud of their decision to ultimately open source everything, and have made many design decisions in the past that have limited them because they wouldn't then be able to open source fully at a later point (he also pointed out that at some point in the future, iD tech 5 would become open source, too).
 
+5, informative.
 

Re:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor. Unfortunately, copyright infringement is often strict liability; in other words, no finding of intent is required.

Re:

[...]public humiliation is not in order.

How about a slap on the wrist? Come on, given Carmack's contributions [wikipedia.org] to free software, it's an even more silly blunder. Especially nowadays that everybody's wound up about the GPL. He's gotta bear at least a token c

Re:

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please. Programmers aren't always license experts. It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly, but t

Re:Does this mean

It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly

It's not simple at all. Start a discussion here about under what circumstances you do or do not need to distribute source and you'll still get a 20 post long thread with people going back and forth about who's right and who's wrong, debating what the words used in the license mean, etc.

And people here should be some of the "experts" on the license.

Re:Does this mean

The only thing people here are 'experts' on is flaming each other.

Re:

That wasn't a very expert flame. You should have called him a dog bothering bucket of lard with a face like a crash-test chimpanzee, less brains than a road killed possum and smelling about as bad as one too. Also he loves Hitler.

That's a proper flam

Re:Does this mean

Can't believe this hasn't been pointed out yet but neither iD nor Valve are exactly garage enterprises. These are pretty big companies and you know, I find it really hard to believe that this never went past a lawyer. Programmers don't have to know anything at all about licenses and stuff like that because that's what the rest of the company is for.

Re:Does this mean

Can't believe this hasn't been pointed out yet but neither iD nor Valve are exactly garage enterprises. These are pretty big companies and you know, I find it really hard to believe that this never went past a lawyer. Programmers don't have to know anything at all about licenses and stuff like that because that's what the rest of the company is for.

I'd hardly call id or Valve pretty big companies. Valve currently lists 104 employees, and id only 34.

Re:Does this mean

Bullshit!

"Open Source" can mean one of two things:

• That you can see the source code. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the literal definition, and the one most normal people (as well as MS) subscribe to.
• That it means the same thing as "Free Software" -- i.e., licensed in such a way to preserve freedom -- except that it may or may not be copyleft. This is the OSI definition.

In neither case does it mean "public domain," which is what you're thinking of.

Re:Does this mean

That you can see the source code. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the literal definition, and the one most normal people (as well as MS) subscribe to.

Microsoft makes it a point to use the term "Shared Source". There is no "literal definition" for such an ill-defined term. You can accept OSI's definition, since they have done all the marketing of that term and it has a lot of mindshare, or you can accept that people interpret it differently, in which case nearly anything goes, including public domain.

That it means the same thing as "Free Software" -- i.e., licensed in such a way to preserve freedom -- except that it may or may not be copyleft. This is the OSI definition.

Now that is complete bullshit. The OSI definition of open source does not "preserve freedom". It fully supports licenses that let derived versions become closed source -- like the BSD license.

In neither case does it mean "public domain,"

Your 0/3. Public domain qualifies as "open source" as defined by the OSI. The OSI meaning of open source is an umbrella one, that includes the GPL, BSD, public domain, etc.

you're wrong, too

Only modifications they might have made to DOSbox will have to be made public.

Please let's get away from this thinking that you can automatically patch up a GPL violation by releasing your modified source code later.

When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code and you are liable for your past and future license violations. You cannot make up for that past violation by coming into compliance, and you cannot restore your license to use the code under the GPL license by coming into compliance.

What that liability entails is something that you can negotiate with the authors about, and if you don't reach an agreement, it's for the courts to decide. Theoretically, if the GPL violation is egregious enough, a court might well hand control over other corporate assets, including unrelated software, to the author of the GPL'ed software.

Many GPL authors will be nice and permit you to remedy past GPL violations by coming into compliance, and they may also grant you permission to use the software under the GPL. But all of that is at their sole discretion.

Re:you're wrong, too

"When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code and you are liable for your past and future license violations. You cannot make up for that past violation by coming into compliance, and you cannot restore your license to use the code under the GPL license by coming into compliance."

Right. Which is why companies caught by projects like gplviolations usually give a "voluntary donation" to a free software project in addition to moving into compliance.

Re:Does this mean

Well the source for ID's older games is released anyway.

I personally would prefer if lawsuits and stuff didnt come out.
ID has been one of the first to port their games to Linux.

Re:Does this mean

Also, since it appears DOSBox is under the GPL and not the LGPL, this WOULD require the source code of these games (as well as graphics, audio and any other components distributed along with DOSBox) to be publicly released. (That whole "viral" thing people talk about)

No, it would only require them to provide the source for their modified DOSBox.

The GPL is clear that using a Free program to execute or operate on proprietary data leaves the data under its original ownership and licensing.

- Nick

Re:

There already a handful of international groups that all they do is try and help with GPL enforcement. However, according to US copyright law, the actual person(s) would would need to handle the enforcement by way of trial would be the one(s) who own the c

Outdated Article

Valve/iD already updated the games with the required files. Old, incorrect news.

Re:Outdated Article

Yes, here's the link:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1 28297&page=5 [halflife2.net]

Looks more like an oversight than a deliberate violation.

Re:Outdated Article

"I can't see how it could be an oversight. "
A better question would be why would they do it intently?
Id has often released their old game engines under the GPL.
1. They had noting to gain by not including the license files.
2. They fixed it as soon as they found they had left out the files.
3. They did no harm to anyone.

So why must you try to see evil when all the evidence points to a simple human error?

This is why GPL zealots get on my nerves. They are all for copyleft, they hate closes source licenses, they hate software patents, and they hate DRM. But if someone fails to cross every t and dot every i when distributing GPL code then they are are plotting villains.

They made a minor error and they fixed the error all before it even showed up on Slashdot.

Re:

Your mistaken too.

1. executables/binaries/object code distributed must have an offer to have a verbatim copy of the source code used to build that object code. this offer must be made available for at least 3 years.

2. the source you make available must inc

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN FOR WRONGNESS

You left off two parts of section 3., (b and c), which state:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They're not required to do subsection a), which you quoted, just one of the three. But since they may just be including as opposed to selling Dosbox, subsection c) may well be acceptable. A lot of GPL'd software comes without the source -- many Linux distros don't include the source, either, but you can still get it. I'm pretty sure my copy of Ubuntu didn't come with source code, and I don't recall seeing an offer to get the source code during the install (but then who pays attention to license terms during an OS install?).

Actually, you're wrong

The worst judgement that can be brought against a GPL violator is an injunction preventing further distribution. The GPL does not have any provisions to deny the license to those who have violated it, and so any violators can simply rectify their procedures and continue.

Thus, the GPL *does* allow you to fix problems retroactively.

Re:

Okay, Valve distributes a copy of the software in violation of the license. It thus runs into: "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." So Valv

Developers not notified... so what!

GPL violations aside, there is no need to notify the developers if you intend to use code under GPL.

The only time you'd need to contact the developers is if you want to get an alternative license. Quite often people will release code under GPL and also be prepared to release it under alternative licenses, perhaps for a fee.

Re:Developers not notified... so what!

Yes, and so the fact that they hadn't contacted the developers in this case was relevant since otherwise they could've been using dosbox under another license that the developers OK'ed.

Just to be clear

Before anyone jumps on the summary for being incorrect - there is no need to notify a developer when you use or distribute GPL software. However if you want to distribute in violation of the license then there are only two ways:

1. Get the developer to waive the license (hasn't happened according to summary, which was worth mentioning as it means the only option is (2))
2. Pile a huge stack of cash in a vault to pay off copyright violation damages

The third option, which isn't usually available when you screw up with non-free software, is to apologise really fast and comply with the GPL*. Although there are no guarantees free software developers are usually nice folks who can overlook a mistake.

It is one reason why all the 'viral' fud about the GPL is so annoying (not that it applies to this case, as there is no derivative product, but it usually rears it's ugly head in these threads). All the GPL does is give you an Option Three which isn't usually available - you would be in court for damages instead of sitting across a table from a bunch of altrustic techies seeking a negotiated solution.

*Historically stopping distribution and rewriting the offending module usually is an option too, depending on how antagonistic you were before admitting your mistake.

Could you vultures wait?

It hasn't even been a working week even before the people who gave us great things like the GPL'd quake 1/2/3 source got jumped on for slighting you trolls.

Re:Could you vultures wait?

I don't really know why ID are being blamed for this, since Valve is the distributor. Unlike ID, who gave us GPL'd Doom, Quake, etc, Valve gave us DRM'd Half Life, and deserve no sympathy when they get caught infringing copyright.

Re:Could you vultures wait?

If any of us started distributing Id's copyrighted materials in violation of their license, I'm sure it'd take less than a week for their legal team to put an end to it.

And I'm sure they wouldn't be very nice about it, either.

Transparently divisive rubbish.

Small oversight by (on id's part) a hugely prolific developer of GPL'd software. Easily corrected and pushed out to clients straight away.

Attacking John Carmack for this precipitately is basically irrational. It also stinks of divisive trolling.

The man's licensed (a great deal of) his own software under the GPL, for goodness' sake.

Re:Transparently divisive rubbish.

You are correct, but that's a whole different point than the GPs. The GP said that if you violate the GPL, your bridges are burned forever and ever, amen. You can't make it right, you can't fix it. One simple mistake and you are done forever.

However, there's absolutely NOTHING the GPL that says that at all. The GPL is pretty straightforward, really: If you abide by our terms, you can distribute. If you don't abide, you have no right to distribute. Valve/ID are now abiding by the terms**, so they can distribute. Case closed.

Because of their Steam technology, they were even able to retroactively distribute the copy of the GPL to everyone they had already distributed the software to. That makes them fully compliant with every distribution they've done. Case beaten like a dead horse.

** (This is assuming that Valve/ID will honor requests for the source code, of which I've not heard a yea or nay on.)

Now there's a reason to port Steam to Linux

Steam now has a reason to be ported to Linux. A lot of the new id games added to Steam play natively on Linux, there are others that use DOSbox, which conveniently works on Linux as well. If Valve ports Steam to Linux... it'd open the door for Linux users to easily buy and play these games, and I'm sure enough people would such that it makes business sense for them to do it.

Bought it last night... or this morning...

DosBox is not configured well, it runs 320x200 games in a kind of widescreen. I've been able to use DosBox to run DOS 320x200 games (some of them in the package) with the correct aspect ratio. Anyway. The real problem is that the DOS games come without their setup.exe files and are configured not to use wave blaster/general midi. Whatever, just grab gzdoom or something and everything's well again :). Anyway, The package's great, it has Hexen II and Quake 1,2,3 including the mission packs (Win32 versions all of them). Also, the Master Levels. Good stuff.

Not Fixed, more serious GPL violation

Just downloaded the pack. It's using a modified, binary-only dosbox. They have added the license and thanks.txt back, however, it still is infringing.

I copied dosbox.exe to a seperate directory, and it complained about missing SDL dlls. Using stock SDL dlls, it says "Failed to find steam". As such, they are distributing a modified binary-only version of a GPL application. Given the distribution has already happened, they are legally obligated to distribute the source code to the steam "stub" present in their dosbox application. Failing that, they are guilty of some serious copyright infringment, and statutory damages can be huge.

I suspect it wouldn't look good in court having a very large, well-known software company stealing code from little guys, and using it as the foundation for a significant commercial project. This also makes it look willfull, as opposed to accidental infringement. Furthermore, given iD's technology licensing platform, which includes significant GPL distribution, they would have a hard time claiming ignorance.

Re:

Given the distribution has already happened, they are legally obligated to distribute the source code to the steam "stub" present in their dosbox application. Failing that, they are guilty of some serious copyright infringment, and statutory damages can be

Well spotted!

I had wondered about this. This warrants further investigation.

Steam applications all include some copy protection code that involves communicating with the main Steam.exe program: this is most visible in games that weren't designed for Steam, such as Defc

Re:

Umm....what does your comment have to do with the article? Likening the GPL with copy protection is like comparing apples and elephants...two completely unrelated topics.

Re:Avoiding The Viral GPL

Yes. It's not like iD has released [slashdot.org] anything GLP [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org].

Oh, wait...

Re:Avoiding The Viral GPL

They could have complied with the GPL easily, by bundling the DOSBox sources (or a notice saying that they would be supplied on request for a reasonable fee). Or, they could have developed their own DOS emulator.

This is not a GPL violation, it's a copyright law violation. They distributed a product that they did not have the right to distribute. I wonder how well they would take it if the DOSBox team decided to distribute Half Life 2 to a few thousand people - probably not very well. The fact that there was a non-discriminatory license available for free is irrelevant. A proprietary software company decided not to respect the copyrights of a piece of software, and distributed it without a license. Considering Valve's fondness for DRM, I wonder if they subscribe to the 'if it's not bolted down' philosophy...

Re:Avoiding The Viral GPL

And this sort of thing is the reason companies are afraid of GPL. Back in reality, silly things like this are ignored because someone notices the mistake, fixes the problem, the authors of the original software are fine with it because it was a silly mistake that MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN PEOPLE PRETENDING TO BE LAWYERS. On the other hand, now big companies that could help make GPL'd software more common to the everyday user are now more afraid of using it. Why should they, its cheaper to pay for commercial software than to deal with all the bad press that can come from an honest mistake made by a bunch of raving GPL fanboys. Yes, I'm more than slightly annoyed with this kind of license bullshit.

Re:

All Valve needs to do is fix the problem. In most cases, if a company distributes software without the owners permission, there would be a lawsuit, followed by money changing hands. In this case, all we have so far is a few forum posts.

All Valve needs to

Re:Avoiding The Viral GPL

It does if you want to be listened to. Talking bollocks because everyone else is talking bollocks only ensures that they'll treat you like they do everyone else.

Talking sense when everyone else around you has none is more likely to get you somewhere.

Re:

> Now I may be wrong on which license DB uses
It uses GLP v. 2.

> it would mean that both DOSBox and the game shipping along with it would be required to release source code.

No. They have not embedded DOSBox into their own code, so the GPL "virus" do n

Re:

Since they distribute DOSBox in binary form they are obligated under the GPL to make the source to DOSBox available. They are not obligated to provide source for the games since DOSBox is an emulator, which is to say, a kind of interpreter, not a library

Re:Aren't they being lazy?

The old games are largely written in x86 assembly language. They do not use libraries for interacting with the machine, they issue DOS system calls and [video] BIOS calls directly. Porting them to other platforms would effectively mean re-writing them. You could add an abstraction layer, replacing the low-level calls with library calls, and then write a library that would translate these into something higher-level. Or you could use a generic version of this; a DOS emulator. Doom and Quake were written in a mixture of C and assembly, and the assembly often had fall-back routines. Quake had an abstraction layer long before the open source release, with VESA, DirectDraw, X11 and OpenGL versions.