Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

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

#61

Post by klodolph »

dcbadacd wrote: post #58
codetrotter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I don’t think this is true. 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 compensat…

So there's two options, either the software is released GPL or they have no right to use the source and it's in violation and has to be resolved?

Either they distribute the source code under a license compatible with the GPL (not necessarily the GPL itself), OR they are committing copyright infringement and must,

- negotiate a license,

- pay damages,

- some other remedy, OR

- nothing at all, if nobody with standing (meaning an author of decides to sue.

This last option is by far the most likely.

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

estebank wrote: post #60

I'm surprised that no comment has extrapolated that since this was a vsprintf implementation copy, the final binary would be non compliant only if the machine code generated for it was distributed, but if it was only used for debugging internal builds (as I would assume), then the original developers didn't run afoul of the license. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by crankylinuxuser »

tyingq wrote: post #52
microcolonel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most likely outcome is not a chilling one: they comply by releasing their code officially under a compatible license, and hope they don't upset anyone else by doing so.

Not sure there's a "they" anymore. THQ went chapter 11 and liquidated.

"Someone" owns the rights.

They too bought the burden of copyright violation.

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

#64

Post by dev_dull »

autoexec wrote: post #7
bendbro wrote: post #2

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?

> I wonder if this will impact game archival efforts. Just one more area where piracy has our backs.

How does piracy aid in convincing companies to release the source code for games?

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

#66

Post by monocasa »

estebank wrote: post #60

I'm surprised that no comment has extrapolated that since this was a vsprintf implementation copy, the final binary would be non compliant only if the machine code generated for it was distributed, but if it was only used for debugging internal builds (as I would assume), then the original developers didn't run afoul of the license. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

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.

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

#68

Post by Wowfunhappy »

nfriedly wrote: post #49
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's tools [0] to help check the licenses of all your dependencies. I think larger companies build up a whitelist of libraries as they're reviewed and approved. [0] https://github.com/davglass/license-checker

Yep. When I was at IBM, part of releasing something was a review every of dependency and it's license. The stuff I worked on wasn't allowed to include any GPL code. (Or WTFPL, for that matter, but I think that had more to do with curse words than actual license issues.)

Couldn't you just "relicense" WTFPL code as MIT code (or proprietary code, for that matter) and call it a day?

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

#69

Post by Wowfunhappy »

thrower123 wrote: post #26
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #14

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...

Shouldn't you be more concerned about the quality of the code? If no one has bothered to check the license, I'm sure nobody has studied it for a backdoor.
Post reply on HN