Comments: 313 +- Games: Atari Sub-Sub-Contractor Used ScummVM For Wii Game on Wednesday June 24, @10:45AM
Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday June 24, @10:45AM
from the hand-in-the-cookie-jar dept.
from the hand-in-the-cookie-jar dept.
MBCook writes "In several recent releases, it seems that Atari published games for the Wii based on ScummVM, which was released under the GPL. Atari contracted Majesco, who contracted a company named Mistic Software with offices in the Ukraine. When the fact that the GPL was being violated was brought to Atari's attention, they were kind at first until it was discovered that Nintendo doesn't allow open source software to be used with the Wii SDK, so updated documentation mentioning the GPL wasn't an available solution. So, what happens to the games? 'There is a period of time in which all current copies have to be sold. Any copies beyond this period or any reprints get fined with quite high fine for each new/remaining copy. The remaining stock has to be destoryed [sic].' Atari and Majesco seem to have been very cooperative about this whole thing, but had their hands tied by the agreement with Nintendo."
Related Stories
You should avoid hedging, at least that's what I think.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Nintendo literally hates open source. Guess I'll skip that DSi.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nintendo wants to prevent leakage of information about the Wii hardware that people can use to hack the machine. Of course, the Wii has already been throughly hacked and so it's just corporate doublethink to pretend it hasn't.
No, what they want to prevent is more serious than information about hardware. You see, to make code run, you need a signing key. They'll be required to distribute this with the source code under the GPL, because otherwise you can't compile new software.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What? You don't sign at compile-time, you sign the package after.
Sssh! Don't go letting logic get in the way of perfectly good FUD.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could Atari not avoid this whole mess by negotiating a separate non-GPL licence with the developers of scumVM. I don't know how many contributors to the code base there have been but there are normally a smallish number of main developers. It might not be feasible to make a paying contract with all the people, but these people are usually pretty reasonable. If Atari were to offer to make a contribution to a FOSS cause such as the EFF in exchange for a one time non-GPL licence for the games they've already
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
nope [blogspot.com]
# Atari could not "buy out" ScummVM from us
# There is no possibility to double license ScummVM, at least SCUMM engine
# We do not need any money as a "bribe to keep silent"
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Words posted on slashdot to not pay the bills. Nintendo is obviously concerned about the viral nature of GPL'ed code.
Far as I know, the GPL can't be applied retroactively to the external platform the application is built on. It ain't that viral ;)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
The platform, no but it could expose any libraries provided by Nintendo as part of the SDK which are statically linked against the GPL'ed code even though Nintendo was not the party violating the GPL.
As Nintendo owns the copyright on the SDK, only they can re-license it, not Atari. The GPL is quite specific, if Atari cannot distribute their code in compliance with both Nintendo's SDK license, and the GPL, then they cannot distribute their code at all. It doesn't force the Nintendo SDK into being GPL.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ever heard of beta testing? Bug reports? Performance reviews?
I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This does not, in any way, demonstrate that companies need to be careful of how they use GPL code. They do need to be careful of how they use GPL code, but this doesn't demonstrate it at all.
This entire thing would be fine if it wasn't for Nintendo's rules about what can be used on their devices. Atari would just have to make the modifications to ScummVM available somewhere, which it sounds like it was perfectly willing to do until someone realized that OSS violates the agreement with Nintendo, period.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
s/would have have to/do/
Cessation is not a remedy. The deed is done. Let's see the source.
Parent
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently, once it was realized that Atari couldn't legally distribute the game under any circumstances (Because they can't just give the source away, it has to compilable, and it can't be without the SDK, which they obviously can't give away.), Atari's lawyers then went crazy and decided to threaten ScummVM with a lawsuit for reverse engineering...something.
What, exactly, I don't know, as I don't know what stuff Atari owns that ScummVM reverse engineered.
But threaten they did, at least to the point that ScummVM gave up on the 'distribute the source' and said 'As long as you stop shipping the game, it's fine, we will not sue'.
Legally, it seems unclear if Atari could actually get the source, as the code went through at least two subcontractors, in three different countries. And going to court to get a port to the DS that required the Nintendo SDK (Rendering it illegal to actually distribute binaries of, and impossible to have people compile themselves) seemed of dubious value anyway. So any suit forcing Atari to release the code would be sorta silly anyway.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make Atari out to be angels, I was simply pointing out that, if not for Nintendo's rules about their SDK, Atari would be fine with just releasing the game OSS. (I mean, it's not as if you can play it without the copyrighted data files, which would not be under the GPL.) Once they realized they couldn't do that, the lawyers said 'Oh, crap, we can't make this legal with both ScummVM and Nintendo, and hence we're legally liable either way. So we're going to have to threaten to countersue one of those guys to make them preemptively drop a suit against us.'.
Parent
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you don't get, just how twisted those lawyers' minds are:
They thought, if their code can't be a illegal copy of ScummVM, then ScrummVM must be the illegal ones.
So they started, just like children, to say "No you are stupid and have stolen it from me!".
They seriously think they can act as if ScummVM reverse-engineered "their" oh-so-precious game so that Nintendo does not realize they broke a license with them too!
And they think that, because they are a big company, they can get trough with it.
Obviously they are stuck between a rock, and a hard place, and pretty much fucked either way. Essentially all because of Nintendo and that small sub-sub-contractor.
If I were Nintendo, I would lift the ban for open source games, and profit from it. But those managers have to much exaggerated egos, and think changing their minds would look weak. (When in fact, being so stiff, does make them look weak and stupid.)
If I were the EFF, I would sure Atari, and instantly call them up, and tell them, that this is not directed at them, but meant to be redirected to the real sourceos of this (The sub-sub-contractor and Nintendo.)
If I were Atari, I would then sue the sub-sub-contractor, to pay damages to the EFF, the ScummVM team, etc, and be out of it.
Then the EFF should lobby a bit at Nintendo, to show them, how much they can actually profit from allowing open source software on their console. (Explain to them how essential a community is for a game and a console, and quote right out of Jesse Schell's (chairman of the international game developers association) book, chapter 22.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An SDK on another platform does not count as 'libraries that are part of the operating system', as far as I can tell.
And I don't think the DS SDK works like you'd expect a normal compiler to work...I believe it builds a single binary executable that is the entire OS and game. So the 'operating system' essentially doesn't exist independent of the binary, or, to rephrase, there is no OS. There's a compiled function to, say, draw a pixel on the screen, and a header for that, and if your DS program uses that,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ScummVM is not to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, ScummVM doesn't make any rules about what platforms can run 'their games', for the simply fact that ScummVM does not, in fact, own any games.
All games that ScummVM runs are owned by someone else, and if you want to run them a platform not currently supported by ScummVM, feel free to figure out how do that. Either by porting ScummVM and following the licensing, or writing your own interpreter, or buying one. (There is a DS interpreter for LucasArt games from LucasArt.)
And don't forget to license the game itself from the owner if you wish to sell it, which you have to do regardless of whether or not you're using ScummVM.
Secondly, ScummVM has no rules at all about what platforms it can run on. It has rules against what software it can be linked against, and how it can be compiled, and what you have to do after you distribute it. But absolutely no rules about what platform it runs on.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Occasionally, they need to subcontract, and once, several years ago, one of their subcontractors subcontracted out to another company without due diligence, and this sub-sub-contractor did some Very Bad Things. They hired undocumented workers. They did not pay a fair wage. They closed up shop after the
It's only copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:
1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0
2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul
3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?
What's more likely is this response: OMG! GPL was violated! String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1! The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this. Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!
Re:It's only copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more likely is this response: OMG! GPL was violated! String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1! The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this. Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!
What's even more ironic is that those very same people probably have no qualms violating the copyright of Apple, MSFT, members of the RIAA or the MPAA. That is hypocrisy at its finest.
Parent
Re:It's only copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more likely is this response: OMG! GPL was violated! String Atari up by their balls!!11!!1! The GPL is sacred and must not be blasphemed like this. Grab your torches and pitchforks... we're going on a witch hunt!
What's even more ironic is that those very same people probably have no qualms violating the copyright of Apple, MSFT, members of the RIAA or the MPAA. That is hypocrisy at its finest.
I don't know who these hypothetical people are, who you're talking about... It seems that when you're talking about imaginary people you can apply whatever level of hypocrisy to their opinions that you like - in reality, I suspect you're seeing different groups of people who post on Slashdot and assuming they all hold the same set of opinions... More "groupthink" bullshit...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Based on what people posted for the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million settlement article, opinions will likely be divided into these different viewpoints:
1. Atari should pay 3x the retail cost of the GPL code. 3 x $0 = $0
Actually, the retail cost of GPL code is "you give us your source code changes back, including a way of building the software and making it run". I think the ScummVM authors would be more than happy with just 1x this.
2. It's only copyright which should be abolished anyways, no harm no foul
This i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the retail cost of GPL code is "you give us your source code changes back, including a way of building the software and making it run".
No it isn't. The GPL contains absolutely no requirement that you give any changes back. The only requirements relate to forward distribution. If you make changes and distribute those changes, then you have to give the code and accompanying rights to whoever receives the binary. You do not have to give them back to the original author, and neither does anyone else.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Releasing the compile or whatever to run the code isn't required - it is just the code that is required.
Otherwise I could buy a license for Redhat or Novell for zOS (or use Debian's port to the s390, etc) and "they" (RH, Novell, Debian) would need to give me an IBM mainframe since that is the only way I could run the code?
So where's my free mainframe?
Parent
Re:It's only copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to hear your opinion on it. What is the crucial difference that makes one form of copyright violation okay, and the other not okay? Is it simply the word "profit"?
Parent
If you want ScummVMs take on this (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go:
http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html [blogspot.com]
From The blog Post:
The finals
Thus, the facts were:
* There is a GPL violation (their denial has to be proven in a court, strings in executables and the bug above clearly show it)
* Atari could not release source codes because of Nintendo NDA
* Atari could not put GPL clause because of Nintendo NDA
* Atari could not "buy out" ScummVM from us
* There is no possibility to double license ScummVM, at least SCUMM engine
* We do not need any money as a "bribe to keep silent"
I'm sure I'm not alone... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm certain I'm not alone when I say "Way to go, nintendo".
I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.
Of course, Majesco made Psychonaughts, so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, Majesco made Psychonaughts, so the idea of booting their content off of a console for any reason sounds like a suicidal path.
DoubleFine made Psychonauts. Majesco was merely the publisher.
Nintendo's provision is not unusual (Score:5, Informative)
Provisions prohibiting open source software are not unusual in development and distribution agreements for closed systems. There are similar provisions for all gaming platforms, for example, and for signed drivers for Windows. On the other hand, paid licenses for third-party libraries are fine as long as there is no requirement to release source code.
Something to think about if you believe the playing field is level.
Re: (Score:3)
The platform is closed and Nintendo control the approval process, what's the downside for them?
Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the reasoning behind disallowing it? I don't understand.
The platform is closed and Nintendo control the approval process, what's the downside for them?
Their attorneys think about the GPL and the FSF the same way slashdotters think about ASCAP and the RIAA.
Parent
GPL Grey Area (Score:2, Offtopic)
Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm,
The SCUMM interpretor is the problem, not the data it is reading.
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:5, Informative)
The problem, from my readings of the story and associated stuff, seems to be that ScummVM was ported to the Wii (or at least to the official Nintendo APIs), but didn't release the changes. That's probably a GPL violation.
The really big issue from the initial complaint was not that ScummVM was being used (they seem rather happy about that), but that it was used without credit or attribution. That's a clear GPL violation.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I see. In that case, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really the point. The point is SCUMM must have been ported to the Wii platform. This process will have included adding a step to its build process that signs it with a key authorised to run on the Wii. Under the GPL te
Stable door status: open. (Score:3, Insightful)
Horse status: bolted.
Would you like me to close the stable door?
(Obviously, the reason for nintendo refusing to distribute open source software on their platform is that it may also _requires_ them to distribute a toolchain for the platform, including signing keys etc as required to get code to run. Anyone who has already purchased one of these games, or who receives a copy from someone who has, has the right to demand this now.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when?
I've never seen anything even remotely close to such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can demand it, but is an unknowing party subject to the license or simply required to cease distribution when informed? It would be difficult to legally force Nintendo to provide anything in this circumstance...
Even assuming that any of Nintendo's code would be involved (it's not obvious to me that this would be the case), you couldn't force them to do anything. If they don't comply with the terms of the GPL, then they are not licensed under the GPL, ergo they are guilty of copyright violations. It'd be their choice to comply with the GPL or accept the penalties for copyright violation, which would include having to cease distribution. You can't force a company to comply with a license agreement they never agreed to, you can only punish them for not having a license to begin with.
So yeah, you're right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
This is only true of the GPLv3. There are a large number of other Free and Open Source Software licenses which do not make this requirement. The GPLv2, for example, does not. This is generally known as the Tivo loophole, since they were among the first to notice it. A Tivo includes the Linux kernel, and they comply with the GPL by releasing all of their modifications, but their bootloader will only run signed kernels.
There is no reason for Nintendo to ban any open source licenses. Third party develo
No problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Subcontracting risks, not GPL is the story (Score:4, Insightful)
This really should be a story about the legal risks of sub contracting... if you ship the work out, then it's very difficult to make sure all your ducks are in a row.
The important point (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong Choice of License? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading TFA, I get the impression that besides the GPL violations, the choice of license for ScummVM is itself an issue. The ScummVM developers seem to have no specific interest in getting the code back, rather they just want to be credited for their work on ScummVM and are proud of the fact that it was used in a commercial title. Accordingly, it strikes me that ScummVM was wrapped in entirely the wrong license.
This seems like a textbook case for using the MIT license or some other non-copyleft license where the authors are attributed, but the code isn't forced open. You see this on other projects like LUA or the Vorbis reference decoder, where they are commonly used in commercial games with great success, including Wii games. If the ScummVM developers are as disinterested in the copyleft aspects of the GPL as they seem to be, then they should be looking at relicensing ScummVM under a more permissive license, which would avoid these kinds of snafus. If you just want attribution, it's much easier to just ask for that then to get in these boondoggles of asking for the code and tools too.
Atari pirating software is nothing new. (Score:4, Interesting)
I seem to remember a story a few months back where they distributed code taken from a PC game crack in an official update.
They obviously consider this sort of behaviour acceptable, so I expect they'll have no problem with people pirating their software en masse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Open-source isn't forbidden. Opening your source is forbidden. So BSD code, fine. GPL cannot be used because Nintendo won't allow you to republish the code.