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."

call me a noob...

[thatskinnyguy]

But I don't see what the big deal is here.

Could you vultures wait?

[Time Doctor]

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:Does this mean

[ZephyrXero]

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 copyright on DOSBox, and then licensed it via the GPL. Now of course, this could also potentially come from any of the subsequent authors or forks of the project as well, even those who redistribute it like the organizations behind various Linux distros. But, it would be probably still be much more powerful if the original or current copyright holder of the DOSBox code were to be the one to bring action against ID and Valve.

Re:Does this mean

[porkThreeWays]

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:call me a noob...

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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 not touch their code and do not apply to the games. They are however required to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code for DOSBox.

--
MiniMax

Re:Does this mean

[Daniel Phillips]

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:Developers not notified... so what!

[Jare]

That's the point - if you don't see the license files, the next step before crying foul is to ask the developers if they arranged a different license. Since the developers say they hadn't been contacted, it's safe to assume they didn't arrange a different license.

Re:Developers not notified... so what!

[babbling]

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.

Re:Does this mean

[bluephone]

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.

Transparently divisive rubbish.

[Ed Black]

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:Could you vultures wait?

[TheRaven64]

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:Does this mean

[Dhalka226]

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:Could you vultures wait?

[tuffy]

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.

Re:Does this mean

[Crayon Kid]

[...]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 chide.

How this plays out depends on id/Valve's reaction, I guess. A simple apology is all it takes for this to be forgotten in no time.

Re:Does this mean

[GalionTheElf]

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:Outdated Article

[LWATCDR]

"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:that may not be sufficient

[SEE]

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 Valve's rights under the license are terminated.

So, how does Valve get out of this? Look at: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."

So, Valve downloads a new copy of DOSBox. Upon completion of the download, under the "each time" clause, it automatically receives a new license, from the original licensor, to distribute the software under the GPL.

Now, yes, Valve can still be sued for copyright infringement on the copies it distributed in violation. And you might find a judge who won't rule "harmless oversight quickly repaired; no injury, so no damages." But further distribution is perfectly fine, since they're doing it under a new license issued by the original licensor, even though it has the same terms as the old one they breached.

Re:Avoiding The Viral GPL

[Macthorpe]

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:Avoiding The Viral GPL

[BitZtream]

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.

If they're happy with the GPL...

[serviscope_minor]

Then why not use one of the GPL'd, but heavily modified Doom engines. Some of the versions out there preserve the game play very well, but enhance it with fewer bugs, better resolution, optional accelerated resolution (for 1600x1200 DOOM goodness!), and hey even dehacked support.

And I forgot to mention, TCP/IP network play.

Is there any good reason to use the original doom engine?

Re:Transparently divisive rubbish.

[ShinmaWa]

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.)

Re:Not Fixed, more serious GPL violation

[Magnus Reftel]

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.

*sighs*

No, they are not obligated to distribute the source. They violated a copyright license. Now they can be sued by the copyright owners.

The owners might be content with Valve releasing the source for their modified version, and they might not. That's part of the negotiations, and neither you nor I know anything about the details of that.

Well spotted!

[Cheesey]

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 Defcon or one of the Popcap games. Like them, Dosbox must have been modified to include this copy protection code.

This is right at the heart of this licence discussion and I am very glad someone has spotted it. Will Valve licence Dosbox under a non-free licence? Or will they release some of the source for Steam? Or will they ignore the issue and be sued by http://gpl-violations.org/ [gpl-violations.org] ? How wonderfully ironic that copy protection code should actually cause a copyright problem :).

Re:Does this mean

[micpp]

To clarify, running a game in DOSbox doesn't violate the GPL any more than viewing a webpage in Firefox. The GPL only covers the programs, not the data that is input to them.

Re:Outdated Article

[mlk]

But where's the source?

Have you asked Value or ID for the source?

The source does not have to included, just made available (even for a nominal fee) to anyone who asks.

Re:Does this mean

[Raenex]

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.

Nevermind, I do understand

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason FOSSies won't let go is because they are pushing a hidden agenda (but not all that hidden, if you read Slashdot). FOSSies are trying to lock everyone in to FOSS: operating system, word processing and spreadsheets, web servers, etc.

Getting people to start using Lunix is really the beginning of the end for consumer choice: once you are on teh Lunix, you have no alternatives except to use FOSS: the GPL's open hostility to commercial software assures them of THAT. And then... once a company foolishly decides to go with teh Lunix, then the consultants can REALLY sink their sharp little teeth in, and drink you dry supporting your reportedly free software.

EVERYTHING in life has costs. About the most valid way of looking at it is whether your costs are front-loaded or back-loaded. A good example of a front-loaded cost would be a car: you pay the major expenses up-front, and the longer you use it the less money it works out to. But then there are other expenses which are back-loaded, like rent-to-own furniture or electronics. Yeah, it's great, you can walk out of a store with a huge plasma HDTV for no money down... but you are going to end up paying three times what that TV costs.

Teh Lunix (and teh FOSS in general) is exactly like that sucker deal on the HDTV.

And the scary thing is, the FOSSies are trying to force everyone into making that EXACT SAME sucker deal. Their goal is to destroy ALL commercial software which charges money up-front with the understanding they will support the software for free (and in many cases will even add more features and improvements, also for free). Commercial software is a great deal... but like most great deals, the numbers only work out in the long term.

Fortunately, FOSS can't really make much headway in the real world. Since they don't have an incentive to innovate and improve, they rarely do (and when they DO, it's only because they are chasing somebody's tail lights). And since a majority of enterprise businesses understand front-loaded and back-loaded expenses, they are unwilling to abide the lower quality software coupled with it's higher TCO: FOSS promises an eternity of less for more.

Re:Why are Slashdotters such hypocrites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, maybe because the RIAA is suing for damages and threatening criminal prosecution, but the FOSSies are just asking for the situation to be made compliant?