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...
No, release under the GPL could be (part of) a way to settle a lawsuit for infringement, but it's not automatic.
In fact, under GPLv2 you can no longer distribute the code at all (even unrelated to the original infringement) until you are forgiven by the original copyright holder. This clause was removed in GPLv3.
The author notes that they were able to find constants that the code uses in the binary, so odds are it was at least partially distributed.
The constants mentioned are the following: "01234567890abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" and "01234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" It's very possible that separate implementations of this function would use those same constants. It's not as if they're some completely arbitrary strings.
These constants should appear in most arbitrary-base-integer-to-string functions. I wouldn't say that this proves anything.
I'm less interested in the GPL violation aspect, and mot excited to get an insight into what it was like to work on that team, 20 years ago. Minutiae like how to burn a build to CD https://twitter.com/0xGradius/status/1137123492329951232?s=1... feels like a window into the past.
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.
The archivist in me loses this fight, I feel general adhering to software freedoms is more important and the greater good compared to a single game.
You talk about software freedom, but I think there's no greatest freedom than being able to use whatever software I want to create something humanity will enjoy.
I hate all this stuff, I wish Google just blocked all GPL code for me so I never had to see any of it. I have committed to many open source projects and have open soured my own projects. Of course I appreciate anyone is free to use what ever license they like but I do find is frustrating that a game (which is a complex piece of software taking lots of development time) gets picked apart because of a string formatting function, which should really have been available in the system libs, but as it wasn't a quick replacement was grabbed, with a small amount of extra time I suspect a replacement could have been found which wasn't GPL. But due to the lack of care, understanding, appreciation, someone could get their meathooks into the developer/publisher and cause harm. The software didn't sell because of this stupid function, the stupid function almost certainly existed, GPL free in many places, the GPL version had no value at all over any other version, yet where the developer cut and pasted from can have such catastrophic consequences. If it makes no difference to the end binary I feel like a dev should just be able to find or write an alternative and say you are right, that slipped through, sorry, we have now replaced it in our code tree with this version, it makes 0 difference to the end product, so building and shipping a new version would make no difference, simply making this change in our source tree effectively resolves the issue.
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...
Two wrongs don't make a right. The way the GPL works is: you are given permission to redistribute someone's copyrighted work provided you comply with particular conditions (such as providing similar permission to your end users). If you don't stay within those conditions, then you're violating that person's copyright (you're redistributing their work without permission) and they can sue you. But that doesn't mean tha…
As a note, the FSF says on their website that their primary goal in any GPL litigation is to get the company to release the source under the GPL.
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.
The archivist in me loses this fight, I feel general adhering to software freedoms is more important and the greater good compared to a single game.
I hate all this stuff, I wish Google just blocked all GPL code for me so I never had to see any of it. I have committed to many open source projects and have open soured my own projects. Of course I appreciate anyone is free to use what ever license they like but I do find is frustrating that a game (which is a complex piece of software taking lots of development time) gets picked apart because of a string formatting…
In this particular case it seems fairly unlikely that there will be any significant consequences. At worst, the game source code might now be forced into a GPL license. It's mostly worthless at this point anyway.
It is interesting to wonder how this case may have been handled if it was overall more relevant, though. I think a court might assess the actual value of that one function and say that it was something like fair use. Might be a bigger problem if there's a lot more, though.
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...
IANAL. 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…
The copyright owners here are only the people who wrote the specific function in question. Additionally, I believe you'd only need one of those people to bring a suit or other legal action.
Note that some FOSS gets around the problem of multiple owners by requiring an attribution (e.g. GNU).