31–40 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I wonder if this will impact game archival efforts. Companies may be less likely to permit release of old source (or more likely to take action against those who do release source) knowing legal issues like this may be inside. Is there a statute of limitations here? Could the owner the violated code sue? What happens it they succeed, monetary compensation?
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...
I have no idea how this would work, but it strikes me as plausible?
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...
I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes" if the violation is true and the game has been distributed. Tit for tat.
A person or company that violated the GPL would void the permission granted to them by violating the license and would be liable for having done so. But it would take a court ruling to decide what that means for the parties involved.
For example, the court might give the violating party the choice to either release source, OR to keep the source closed but to financially compensate the copyright holder(s) of the code that they violated the license for. For example. Another possible outcome could be that they could say that the violating party is given the choice between releasing the source OR recall the product and financially compensate the copyright holder(s) of the code that they violated the license for.
Like I said though, IANAL.
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...
I believe the answer would be "no". Essentially, the owners/holders of the copyright could, in theory, reach an agreement that would permit the publisher to keep publishing the game under a commercial license. That is, just because the code was licensed to you under the GPL (or available to you under that license), that doesn't mean that it had to be that way for everybody if the copyright holders struck some other deal.
Of course, here, the copyright holder is … everyone who has made changes to the kernel? Significant changes¹ to the kernel? (And see a court for the definition of "significant"?) IDK. For proprietary stuff owned by a single entity it is more straight-forward, but the very nature of FOSS makes this more interesting.
I wonder if it would only require those that worker on that file? (Can it be separated from the rest of the project? Again, IDK, ask a real lawyer!) At least that might be a shorter list of authors, and presumably you only need to involve those up to the point where the code was copied.
¹I say significant because I believe that "significant changes" is what would cause the work to become a "derivative" work, and that person to be the author of that derivative work. But in Oracle v Google, rangeCheck was sufficient for a copyright violation despite being a "trivial" function to most of us, so the bar seems pretty low?
Edit: I'm looking at it on mobile, and the only link seems to be a self referential link, not to anything of substance.
I wonder if this will impact game archival efforts. Companies may be less likely to permit release of old source (or more likely to take action against those who do release source) knowing legal issues like this may be inside. Is there a statute of limitations here? Could the owner the violated code sue? What happens it they succeed, monetary compensation?
"will"? This is why game archival efforts are difficult. Companies already know that this kind of thing goes on, and that's why so few games (or commercial software of any kind) get their sources released.
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.
> 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
The company accepts the licence by using the code (or don't accept it, in which case it's copyright infringement), so they must offer it to any one.