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.
I would bet money against this being true.
The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
81–90 of 165 posts
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#82Earlier 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?
I don't get how anything "has to be resolved". The most likely outcome from this is "nothing changes from yesterday".
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#83I'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?
Not on the PS1 with 2M of RAM.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
> 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.
Interesting, so even if the new copyright holder profited off of the asset, they wouldn't have to comply with the GPL? This is an interesting parallel to real estate, where the last person holding the bag has to perform environmental cleanup, etc.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
There must be some kind of remedy available in that event.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 uni…
> > 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.
You must also make the source available upon request under the GPL.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#87Funny, I had a feeling foone had posted this even before I clicked on it. Seemed like their sorta thing. :)
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#88I'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?
I work on AAA games and we definitely don't leave any debug code in production copies of the games. It's all #ifdef'd out in Retail builds.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#89I'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.
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.
Re: The PS1 Game Spongebob Squarepants: Supersponge Violates the GPL
#90When I was in games the moment I saw the letters GPL was the moment I closed the tab. GPL code is too dangerous to even read. Stay far far away and hope no one screws up and poisons your entire codebase.