The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL • Hacker News Board

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#21

Post by dmm » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

mooman219 wrote: post #13

dmm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the copyright-holder of the GPL'd work doesn't do anything, the consequences are... nothing. The owners of lots of GPL'd works such as the GNU project tend to take an approach of quiet negotiation. They will contact the violators and attempt to inform them about their responsibilities when distributing GPL'd software. They want software to be free for examination and modification and many violations are unintentio…

I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent pr…

> I believe your last statement is incorrect.

If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries.

Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source.

> For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works

Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#22

Post by microcolonel » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

I'm guessing nobody ever asked for the source code, so maybe it wasn't that violating, and now we know it's GPL. ;- )

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#23

Post by dmm » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

chucksmash wrote: post #18

dmm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the copyright-holder of the GPL'd work doesn't do anything, the consequences are... nothing. The owners of lots of GPL'd works such as the GNU project tend to take an approach of quiet negotiation. They will contact the violators and attempt to inform them about their responsibilities when distributing GPL'd software. They want software to be free for examination and modification and many violations are unintentio…

I'm bad at open source licenses, but wouldn't they need to make modifications to the Linux they're running on to be required to distribute their source?

Because they are distributing GPL'd software they also have to at least offer the exact source they used. If they are using an unmodified kernel, giving users a link to a git tag would satisfy this.

In practice, every embedded use of Linux I've seen has included at least some modifications.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#24

Post by microcolonel » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:09 AM UTC

dmm wrote: post #21

mooman219 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent pr…

> I believe your last statement is incorrect. If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. > For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works…

> If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries.

In this case, the kernel source could be unmodified, which could mean that they could just refer you to where they got it.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#25

Post by grawprog » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

dmm wrote: post #21

mooman219 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent pr…

> I believe your last statement is incorrect. If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. > For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works…

Surprisingly, i was happy to see both the bridge saw and the line polisher at my work both conform to the gpl and provide a link to the source code. It pops up on boot. Every time I see the 'this device is powered by free software message' when it powers up it makes me smile.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#26

Post by thrower123 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #14

mhh__ wrote: post #10

Would this mean that only their changes to the GPL would be forced to be made public or the whole piece of software using it?

The whole thing.

This is one reason I hate npm. Who really checks that sprawling byzantine dependency tree to make sure that there isn't some micropackage that has a GPL license that could get included and taint the whole thing?

I just have the horrors when I look at the package.json file after the front-end folks have been allowed to run free...

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#27

Post by mooman219 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

dmm wrote: post #21

mooman219 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your last statement is incorrect. Applications written entirely by your developers that merely happen to run on a Linux-based operating system, distributed in conjunction with those works (Linux/Busybox/etc), are separate works within the meaning of copyright law. GPL requires you to provide complete and corresponding source for the GPL’d components and your modifications thereto, but not for independent pr…

> I believe your last statement is incorrect. If you distribute binary GPL'd software such as the Linux kernel you also have to provide the exact source used to generate those binaries. Because ip cameras are shipped with binary Linux kernel images they should also provide either the exact source used or an offer of how to get the source. > For example, programs compiled by gcc (GPL) are not considered derived works…

Correct, they can provide the source for linux, or point you to where you can view the source for linux. The software running on the camera on top of linux does not have to be provided under GPL (in the majority of cases). You would have to prove the software on the camera is a derivative work of Linux to fall under GPL.

edit

> Yep you're right. We probably just misunderstood each other. I was specifically referring to GPL'd components like Linux & Busybox, not any applications that happen to be running on top of them.

Yeah misunderstanding there, my apologies! Modifications to the Linux source would require them to also release those under GPL.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#28

Post by giancarlostoro » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #9

Does this mean that any GPL project could reuse source code from this game, under the logic that it all inherently must be GPL licensed? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but I'd like to know why, it makes logical sense...

The terms of the GPL apply if you have access to the game aka you bought it. You should have access to the code. Catch being you ask for it. Nobody installs Ubuntu and is forced to have all the source.... But it is available as per the GPL.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#29

Post by BrS96bVxXBLzf5B » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #11

Part of me wants to express the irritation that people being neurotic about the GPL could cost us access to old games like this. I worry that someone overzealous would take down source for an 18 year old PS1 game over it.

Why would this cost access? It's leaked source code of something that we thought wasn't permitted to be released, which we've now learnt was supposed to be accessible.

Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

#30

Post by giancarlostoro » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #14

mhh__ wrote: post #10

Would this mean that only their changes to the GPL would be forced to be made public or the whole piece of software using it?

The whole thing.

Correct and if nobody asks they are fine in doing so. But they must comply if possible. If the code is gone then I am not sure they can be forced to give it.