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

71–80 of 165 posts

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

#71

Post by thrower123 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #69
thrower123 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many reasons. That is another huge one.

Most of the time, nobody even is aware that including some new widget code ends up downloading half the internet, making our code size increase, our build times extend, and opening up a huge volume of attack. No one has any idea what dragons might lurk in that mess, or sometimes even that there might be dragons at all.

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

#72

Post by haecceity »

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?

Isn't it common to leave debug code in production software?

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

#73

Post by colemickens »

Love clicking on twitter links and being completely confused. They've just stopped showing threads and replies on the non-JS page anymore. This is what we see, and this does appear to be a recent change: https://imgur.com/94u95no there's nothing below this, this is the full page.

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

#74

Post by ignoranceprior »

NikkiA wrote: post #56
caf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the full thread they took the vsprintf() implementation from the Linux kernel circa year 2000.

The proof for that seems to be the existance of 0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz I guess this comment is now a) vsprintf and b) a gpl violation, too.

The leaked game source code:

https://github.com/philosophofee/SBSPSS/blob/5c41694e561de9c...

The Linux kernel code:

https://github.com/zavg/linux-0.01/blob/5839d67d5825265fc665...

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

#75

Post by tyingq »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #63
tyingq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assets do sometimes just go nowhere.

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

#76

Post by esaym »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #43

A page with other prototypes and builds from this company may be seen here: https://hiddenpalace.org/Climax_lot From the looks of it, Climax Group primarily developed licensed games and shovelware. Say what you will about the quality, but from the number of build dates for each game, they clearly had their shit together with respect to version control.

>A page with other prototypes and builds from this company may be seen here:

That is an insane amount of data! Very impressive.

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

#77

Post by simcop2387 »

dev_dull wrote: post #64
autoexec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It doesn't help in convincing them to release things, but the cracks and other things that the pirates develop help the archival purposes. Because a number of the DRM and other anti-piracy stuff that's bundled, once a company goes out of business it's nearly impossible to run some of these games if they had to call home to verify the copy of the game. People removing these checks helps preserve the game for future use once the company is no more.

For a great example of this, take a look at City Of Heroes, and MMORPG that's had a relatively recent revival after someone, somehow getting a hold of the data/code for the server and managing to get it running again. https://www.pcgamer.com/a-fully-functioning-city-of-heroes-p...

The company itself went out of business back in 2012, and otherwise the game itself was just gone.

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

#78

Post by ralph84 »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #63
tyingq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not how asset sales work. The new copyright owner wouldn't be liable for the previous copyright owner's actions. And if the new copyright owner isn't distributing binaries that include the GPL code they haven't violated the GPL.

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

#79

Post by tzs »

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…

> 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.

These kind of devices can lead to an interesting situation.

Let's say you make Linux-based IP cameras. You accompany every single one you ship with a CD-ROM containing the complete source code. This completely satisfies your GPL obligation with regard to that unit.

As a consumer, I buy one of your cameras. I have no use for the CD-ROM, check my trash collection company website to find out if CD-ROMs go in trash or recycling, and come next collection day it is gone.

A few months later I don't need the camera any more and sell it used on eBay.

The buyer eventually realizes it is a Linux-based camera and wants the source code.

Q: Who, if anyone, is obligated to provide that source code?

A: As far as I can tell, no one!

You are off the hook because you accompanied every binary copy you distributed with the source code. You would only be obligated to third parties if you had elected to distribute the binary without source and accompany it with a written offer to provide the source.

I'm off the hook because my distribution falls under the first sale doctrine, which basically says that if you own a lawfully made particular copy it is not a violation of copyright to sell that particular copy.

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

#80

Post by wltprgm »

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...

one can hope that front-end and back-end are truly separated
Post reply on HN