
Atari violates the ScummVM's license - pmarin
http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html
======
shabda
> but pretty soon the lawyers found that Nintendo explicitely prohibits use of
> open source software together with their Wii SDK, and as such it was a big
> fault from Atari side.

Why?

~~~
smanek
I think it requires an encryption key to sign code (so you can actually run
it).

This is prohibited by several open source licenses, notably the GPL v3.
Nintendo lawyers probably just got a bit squeamish and decided it wasn't worth
the trouble to decide which open source licenses were alright.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization>

------
zach
Wow, it's the outsourcing version of the urban legend where you get something
of extraordinary quality at a low price from a foreign land, only to
discover...

<http://www.snopes.com/critters/lurkers/mexicanpet.asp>

<http://www.snopes.com/horrors/insects/cactus.asp>

<http://www.snopes.com/critters/snakes/coat.asp>

As for the license incompatibility, it's kinda hard to see the game console
manufacturers licensing anyone to create a derived work from their SDKs under
the GPL. That's a natural consequence of their well-known business model where
they use their intellectual property rights to require licenses to develop for
their console. As it is, Atari violated both the GPL and Nintendo's license,
so there can't necessarily be the release-the-code-and-all-is-well ending you
would want here.

------
coderdude
I've never liked the GPL and all its goddamn rules. MIT/BSD/zlib licenses,
please.

------
st3fan
Sounds like a good settlement to me. I don't understand what else he wants.

~~~
SwellJoe
As DannoHung points out, this is a crappy outcome because it means that the
software simply won't be used, rather than being used in a GPL-compliant
fashion. Folks who write Open Source software generally _want_ that software
to be used. This could have been a great opportunity for a whole new batch of
people to come in contact with a great example of the power of Open Source
software. Instead, it turned into a failed product and a situation with no
good outcome, because of the prohibition of Open Source in Nintendo games (I
was unaware of this prohibition; it makes me like Nintendo a lot less).

This is just a failed opportunity for all parties concerned, and that's sad. I
completely understand where the author is coming from. "Winning" in this case
is meaningless because the winnings are not what the developers actually
wanted. It's like you went into a restaurant and ordered apple pie and they
brought you liver, and by way of apology, they gave it to you for free. Sure,
you got the liver for free, but it sure aint apple pie.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Folks who write Open Source software generally want that software to be
used._

That's true. But the use of GPL specifically shows that they also wanted
something else: to limit the behavior of those using it.

Thus, you can't put the blame squarely on Nintendo. They seem to have been
forced to make the prohibition on open source because of the latter's
licensing terms. The article mentions that the real problem was that Atari was
stuck between GPL rules and Nintendo's agreements.

So if the open source community was less militant about restricting how its
product can be used, things like this would be less likely.

~~~
SwellJoe
I never said that was _all_ that folks who write Open Source software want. I
didn't really see any reason to argue BSD vs. GPL in this context, but if you
really want to...

When a developer chooses GPL, they have multiple motives. One of those motives
is to insure that everybody that ever uses the software have access to the
source. Another is that they want anyone that modifies and distributes the
software to be obliged to give their changes back to the community. One can
desire these two things, while still wanting people to use the software.

As the creators of the software the developers have the right to want all of
these things. They have the right to choose this license, just like you have
the right to choose a more liberal license if you don't have the same desires
for your software.

We develop software under the BSD license, and it has millions of users
worldwide, many of whom are commercial and don't contribute changes back and
don't disclose the source to their users. We're fine with that.

We also have software licensed under the GPL. We have different motivations
for the BSD vs. GPL projects...we'd like one to be a platform, used by as many
people as possible. We'd like the other to have some additional obligations
for anyone that makes changes and distributes them, because we're building a
business directly on that software.

In the ScummVM case, the developers clearly feel like part of their mission in
life is to bring Free Software to people that may not have been exposed to it.
That's a worthy mission. So, merely having a lot of users would not satisfy
the mission. The only positive outcome here would have been if the code
continued to be used by all those new people, and in a GPL compliant fashion.
If mere use would have satisfied them, they could have simply ignored the
licensing issue.

