Atari Sub-Sub-Contractor Used ScummVM For Wii Game 313
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."
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Nintendo literally hates open source. Guess I'll skip that DSi.
Re:Wow (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)
Re:Wow (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:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (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 done, then probably the developers would sign something to help Atari out. After all, most OS developers quite like to see their work being used all other issues aside. If there are any odd contributors of the odd line here or there that can't be traced / don't respond, then small parts of the code base can be coded around quite easily perhaps.
It seems the obvious solution, anyway.
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"
Re:Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
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 ;)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
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 ;)
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.
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.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Ever heard of beta testing? Bug reports? Performance reviews?
I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (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.
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.'.
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.)
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
The first thing I would do is preview my posts. So many errors because the typo made a legitimate word...
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Isn't a simple way out for Atari to purchase a non-GPL licence from the ScummVM developers. I don't know how many there are and whether you'd need to replace some minor parts of the code base where a developer couldn't be contacted / didn't respond, but maybe Atari could just say "We fucked up. You know what legal systems are like! If we donated $ to EFF (or other cause popular amongst the developers), can we get a licence for the code for use in games X and Y, please?"
The developers are probably pretty reasonable people.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Assuming you meant the first "have" to be "just", that results in:
Huh?
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue or lesson here is that companies have to be more diligent when fulfilling their contractual obligations. I Atari feels that it does not have to check on its suppliers, then the short coming lies with Atari, not Nintendo.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Isn't that like complaining to Apple about their iPhone lock-in?
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Anti-Tivoization provision in GPLv3 (Score:2)
I don't see where the GPL requires them to provide the Nintendo SDK.
The ScummVM FAQ [scummvm.org] states that ScummVM is under the GNU General Public License and links to a copy of version 3 of this license on FSF's server. GPLv3 requires almost anyone who distributes a covered binary to provide source code and Installation Information. For a platform that enforces code signatures, like Wii, such Installation Information includes suitable signing keys.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (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, it is included in the final binary.
What's more, I think you're wrong. GPL programs can link to Windows DLLs because Windows DLLs do not have restrictive licensing on them. They're commercial, yes, but they have no restrictions on who can link to them, as long as you own a legal copy of them. (Which you got with Windows.)
DS libraries, being part of and included with the SDK, also have the same restrictive licensing as the SDK.
That said, obviously this wouldn't force Nintendo to do anything. It would simply make the distribution of said binaries illegal.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Nope. From the GPLv2: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
That means that normally, you would have to provide the source code to the Windows DLLs, because they are required to execute your program. However, this clause grants a special exception to "major components of the operating system", so you are not required to provide the source code to the Windows DLLs in order to distribute the GPLv2 program.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:3, Insightful)
ScummVM is not to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
This isn't a problem specific to GPL code. If you are selling software, you have to make sure none of the code in your program is plagarised, regardless of the licence such plagarised code might be available under.
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (Score:2)
Granted, there's going to be a big problem between Atari and subcontractors. But the whole tone of the article sounds too much like"omg I found GPL code in a commercial game!"
Re:I hope the wrong lesson isn't drawn... (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 job was done and did not pay anyone for their last couple of weeks of work.
This sub-sub was terrible, in that they had apparently done the same thing several times, under different names. The owner--or at least the guy who walked away with the most money, who did not claim ownership of any of the versions of this company he had opened and folded--was very well versed in hiding his assets and covering his connection to the illegal activities.
Because the original client (my friend's company) did not do their due diligence, and did not specifically include verification steps in the subcontractor's contract, they were held equally responsible, and had to share in not only the payment of back wages, but also several hundred thousand dollars in punitive fees.
Of course, because the responsible party was a friend of mine, I feel this was a pity, but given how common the Reagan defense is, it was probably the right thing to do.
Re:Why do companies have to be careful? (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
How exactly? (Score:2)
Damn it, /. ate my comment. I'll try to recreate it.
You're confusing the purpose of the GPL with it's mechanism. The GPL uses copyright law to try and advance the goals of free software and access to source code. Just because it uses copyright law doesn't mean that everyone who supports the GPL agrees with the goals of copyright law (the two are very different).
It'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to complain about GPL violations but also be violating Apple's copyright, e.g., by working on a Hackintosh project. That's hardly hypocritical.
Re:How exactly? (Score:2, Insightful)
If there were no copyright laws there isn't any way the GPL could exist, legally speaking.
And it wouldn't be required either. The GPL is a legal hack to turn copyright law around on itself.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
Now that you little wieners are done with your little mutual admiration society
I will give you a clue: The GPL isn't about money. So talk of eggregious monetary
damages is assinine. GPL is about sharing. Any GPL suit seeks to get the "offending
party" to SHARE.
Money really doesn't have anything to do with it.
Atari either gets to SHARE or stop using the stuff in question.
There simply isn't really any opportunity for a megabuck damage award here.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
In order for the latest RIAA victory to be on par with a GPL suit,
they would have had to have caught her using Kazaa repeatedly once
they had already told her to stop.
The only hypocrites here are the corporate toadies.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
Ah, proof by using the word probably; that will stand up in any debate.
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...
Re:It's only copyright (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 is a fringe opinion on slashdot, held by maybe 1% of users. A lot of us would argue for shorter copyright terms, but few for an absolute abolition.
3. Code wants to be free, man... why is the GPL holding it back?
The code that isn't free is the modified version of ScummVM that runs on the Wii. A lot of would like to have a hold of that, for many reasons. We really want it to be free.
Re:It's only copyright (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:2)
And if you RTFA, you'd see the maintainers had a copy of the binary. So they can get the changes.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
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?
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
I don't believe in intellectual property at all and I am accepting of every consequence that goes along with that.
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"?
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
Is it simply the word "profit"?
Actually, yes. The word "profit" makes a huge difference in terms of law. In fact, before the NET Act, [wikipedia.org] copyright infringement without profit couldn't be prosecuted as criminal infringement. "Profit" vs. other motives matters in many other areas of copyright law, too.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
The mere fact that you are SELLING copies means that there is some
actual demonstrable sales loss you are inflicting on the relevant
artist. "damages" are no longer a mere fantasy but they are something
that can be easily computed by the amount of money you made SELLING
the work in question.
Yes, it's the difference between actual damages and having your sense of artistic megalomania offended.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
Yes.
Re:It's only copyright (Score:2)
In the cited music case, the avoided transaction was on the order of $1 to $5 per song transferred to a 3rd party. The actor was an individual, and evidence that the actor was actually doing it is surprisingly thin.
In the cited software case, the avoided transaction is distribution of the modified source code* and proper credit. The actor was a corporation, and evidence that they actually did the act, and are still doing it, via a work for hire arrangement and subsequent publication is ironclad.
To the extent either party is unable, for whatever reason, to come into compliance/equivalence with the avoided transaction, statutory damages then seem reasonable.
In the music case, purchasing and destroying one instance per instance transferred would be sufficient.
In the software case, releasing modification made to the software is a minimum, but to the extent that source code not actually owned/produced by the actor or on behalf of the actor would need to be released for compliance, compliance is not possible, and thus, statutory damages should come in to play.
Additionally, in the music instance, the action was not taken for economic gain, in the software instance, it was taken for clear and actualized economic gain.
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:I'm sure I'm not alone... (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:Nintendo's provision is not unusual (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.
Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual (Score:2)
Nintendo derives a great deal of revenue from payments from game developers, who are required to pay Nintendo for the privilege to develop and ship games for Wii. Allowing a GPL game would very quickly cause Nintendo problems, because the GPL requires royalty-free copying and distribution -- it is possible that the surcharge for blank Wii discs and signed games would become a problem. That alone would be enough to prohibit the GPL, but Nintendo's lawyers just want to be sure that nobody will accidentally put a Wii game in that situation.
Of course, it appears that they failed at that, since the game in question is now stuck in a licensing nightmare.
Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual (Score:2)
On the other hand, I have Yellow Dog Linux and several open source emulators running on my PS3 at home all without even voiding the warranty, and Sony isn't exactly known for their openness. Hell, if I'm being honest it's probably even costing them money, I've been playing old school games for the past few of months and haven't bought a single new game in that time. But, come next generation, having the ability to instal Linux and run whatever software I want is going to be a major selling point for me. Assuming Sony keeps it up, they'll have my business again.
Re:Nintendo's provision is not unusual (Score:2, Informative)
Sony allows Linux to run on the PS3 to allow it to be taxed as a computer, not as a video game.
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:GPL Grey Area (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm,
The SCUMM interpretor is the problem, not the data it is reading.
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
Reasonable company? (Score:2)
The measures by which people generally credit Nintendo as 'getting it' recently is on fronts such as getting the price right, first-party titles, innovating enhancement of the gaming experience through a different control paradigm rather than just polygons++ (with the controller change being far cheaper than GPUs to drive polygon count). There are fair criticisms to be leveled over these points, but by and large Nintendo hasn't changed since the Wii release date on this front.
In terms of dealing with intellectual property, Nintendo has always been consistently 'unreasonable' by this standard. Nintendo has always been very hostile toward the concept of developers creating hardware or software to work with their stuff without explicitly entering into an agreement with Nintendo. OSS represents a huge fear of exposing loopholes that could allow third parties to 'exploit' their products.
One huge example of their third-party perspective was their huge fight over Game Genie (was designed, manufactured, and sold by Galoob without consent from Nintendo, and presumably without extortionist license fees). Nintendo ultimately lost that fight, but generally have done all within their marketing, legal and technical powers to prevent anything happening on their equipment without them getting some money.
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.
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
I see. In that case, I agree.
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
The fundamental problem that seems to be at work here that prevents a cure to the GPL breach is that the Nintendo software which is neither GPL nor released under a GPL-compatible license is linked in, which means that if they continued distributing the software and stopped violating the GPL, they'd be violating the license on the Wii SDK. (From TFS, it seems that they were violating the Wii SDK simply by using "open source" software with it, regardless of the terms of the open source license at issue, which is, if accurate, a rather odd provision.)
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
The meta problem is that they are letting Atari get away with it, without actually complying with the GPL due to interference of a third party. Any code produced by Mistic either as a modification to or linked with the ScummVM should have been released to satisfy the interests of those who have already purchased the software in question. I understand that the tool chain and libraries provided by Nintendo aren't theirs to release, and that failing would still lead to an ongoing GPL violation, necessitating the cessation of sales/distribution of the software, but to the extent the source code is/was owned by Sony/Mistic, incorporates a GPLed work and is distributed, it should have been released.
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
I mean, no-one complains that Windows has to be open sourced if a c++ compiler is ported from linux to windows and software built on that tool to run on windows. I believe, even in that case that software built with the GPLed tool can be closed source (not a derivation of the GPLed software but a work made with it).
Or am I missing something?
Re:GPL Grey Area (Score:2)
Correct, output of a GPL program isn't GPL. The Affero (or whatever) GPL 3 does do this, but not the plain ol GPL. What apparently happened here is they ported the VM (which is GPL code) to a new platform, and shipped copies of it without attribution or an offer of the code.
Re:GPL Grey Area (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 terms, this _must_ be released along with the rest of the source code.
GPL 3 (Score:2)
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 terms, this _must_ be released along with the rest of the source code.
I believe this requirement is only present in GPL v3.
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:Stable door status: open. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when?
I've never seen anything even remotely close to such a thing.
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:2)
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
There is a common and dangerous misunderstanding that the GPL is a contract. It isn't. No one can be forced to comply in court. However, noncompliance makes the license invalid, which can mean copyright infringement, per the parent.
Of course, a 1.85 million dollar verdict is unlikely....
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:2)
Let me know how that goes for you.
Re:Stable door status: open. (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 developers are not able to use GPLv3 code because they are not allowed to distribute the signing key and so can't comply with the GPLv3 irrespective of whether Nintendo explicitly forbids them. Other licenses have no such problems.
Re:Stable door status: open. (Score:2)
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.
Actually this is not correct. The game was not distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, but rather was distributed illegally, by violating copyright. As shown in the blog post above, the copyright holder tried to get Atari to release the game under the GPL, but they were unwilling. The copyright holder then settled out of court for a nice contribution to the Free Software Foundation and a promise to destroy all remaining stock.
No problem! (Score:5, Funny)
They should just license the original SCUMM (Score:2)
Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then? Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!
Re:They should just license the original SCUMM (Score:2)
Can they just license the original engine from lucasarts then? Give some royalty checks to steve purcell and ron gilbert and whoever else made it as part of the deal!
That would cost money. The copyright violation is free (until you get caught).
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.
Re:Subcontracting risks, not GPL is the story (Score:2)
Risk?
If Nintendo wanted, they could sue the contractor for millions and millions and millions since they violated the contract Nintendo set forth. Also, the contractor could sue the subcontractor for the same reason.
Sure, Nintendo catches some flak for this. I don't blame the people for giving them said flak, but the real blame is on the actual contractor or subcontractor that decided to use GPL'd code without following the terms of the license. Seems like Nintendo is handling it pretty well, though, all thing's considered.
Now for a car analogy.
If I ask my local do-it-all car repair shop to install a new engine for me, they may contract it out to a more equipped shop that they use for that kind of thing. Now if the contractor misses a step in the process and my car is totaled as a result, most likely what would happen is the insurance company covering the original shop will pay up and then sue the insurance company of the contractor, who will be forced to pay that amount and then some. I personally wouldn't blame the original shop for contracting it out, sometimes its necessary. But I would expect them to be forthcoming and helpful in resolving the issue.
At least one Wii game uses opensource (Score:2)
Speedracer: The Videogame --- there's a notice for Lua scripting on the copyright screen, so Nintendo can't be said to be forbidding opensource solely for being opensource, so there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication here.
William
Re:At least one Wii game uses opensource (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.
Re:At least one Wii game uses opensource (Score:2)
Released under the MIT license, which is a pretty typical non copyleft OSS license. What the author probably meant was that Nintendo prohibits copyleft licenses, which is a small technicality.
Does GPL require the code to compile? (Score:2)
Given that you need a license to use Nintendo's API, would the GPL allow the source code to be compliant, even if there was no way to compile it without the missing API? I know there is the NDA which compounds the issue, but I am thinking of a scenario where there is no NDA.
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:Nintendo NDA/Open Source and Wii SDK? (Score:2)
That would break their monopoly on bad games.