Forum - View topic

NEWS: Leaf Forced to Release Game Source Code

If the GPL requires them to release source code, but the "source code" they release isn't really enough to compile and create the whole game, then they have not complied with the GPL, and they're setting themselves up to lose a lawsuit. The GPL is pretty specific that yes, you really do have to release the code, and all of the code.

If there are other conflicting copyrights, for instance on video and audio assets, which would forbid them from releasing those with the code, then they're really in a world of suck, because they're going to have to stop distributing the products in question entirely, and actually even if they did they'd still be in a world of suck, because they'd still be bound by the GPL for the copies they already distributed.

The GPL says: if you release binaries, then you have to release the source, the real source, and all of the real source, sufficient to re-create the binaries, no excuses.

As for linking versus inlining the code: the GPL claims to cover linking as well as inlining, because of exactly the loophole you describe. There is some debate over whether the GPL actually has the power to do that, but the GPL claims to and no court has invalidated that part of it yet.

Has anyone who has obtained this source code, placed it on the Web yet? That'd be really useful to the community.

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

mskala wrote:

If the GPL requires them to release source code, but the "source code" they release isn't really enough to compile and create the whole game, then they have not complied with the GPL, and they're setting themselves up to lose a lawsuit. The GPL is pretty specific that yes, you really do have to release the code, and all of the code.

I'm still wary about the provisions of the GPL in this case. Yes, the GPLed code has to be available. But aren't video, sound, and images usually considered data assets, not code? If someone created a forum, using GPLed software with their own mod hacks, and then skins the forum using their own graphics, one would would reasonably expect that the GPL would require the forum owners to release their modified code under the GPL, since that's clearly something covered. However, one would not expect data assets under that forum (banner graphics, etc.) to also be GPLed.

And as for inlining versus library call, the reason I bring it up is because of a clause in the GPL that reads:

Quote:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

One using a library call could easily separate out those parts from the code that is GPLed.

I have the code, it's a 6MB zip so obviously it doesn't include graphics and sound. Apparently Leaf deleted all comments, but the code seems to be compilable. Also, the tree includes XViD sources so I guess it was compiled into the engine, not linked dynamically which led to GPL violation.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.