5 ms·

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

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.

tyingq 7y ago
Not sure there's a "they" anymore. THQ went chapter 11 and liquidated.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  "Someone" owns the rights. They too bought the burden of copyright violation.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Assets do sometimes just go nowhere.
    - duskwuff 7y ago
      Especially when they're heavily encumbered assets, e.g. when they're part of a licensed game whose license expired long ago. (Like this one!)
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        Well, the license to the publisher may have, but the license from the publisher to the consumer is perpetual, and subject to the first sale doctrine.
  - ralph84 7y ago
    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.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > 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.
      - tylersmith 7y ago
        The violation is in the distribution. If the current copyright holder distributed copies then he violated the license but more than likely they simply own the copyright to the code and other IP but haven't distributed anything.
        isostatic 7y ago
        So form a company Profit from blatant copyright infringement When the court case eventually comes, wind up the company, move the assets to another company, and you’re quids in
        teddyh 7y ago
        The law does not work like technology and code. A judge would see through that in a heartbeat and go “You thought that would work? You’re kidding, right?”.
        hirsin 7y ago
        Tell that to the construction industry. This is incredibly common behavior for industries and housing construction - its what gets you out of superfund sites and repairing the subpar housing you threw up in 2010.
        teddyh 7y ago
  - unreal37 7y ago
    I would bet money against this being true.

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.

tyingq 7y ago

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

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
"Someone" owns the rights. They too bought the burden of copyright violation.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Assets do sometimes just go nowhere.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    Especially when they're heavily encumbered assets, e.g. when they're part of a licensed game whose license expired long ago. (Like this one!)
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Well, the license to the publisher may have, but the license from the publisher to the consumer is perpetual, and subject to the first sale doctrine.
- ralph84 7y ago
  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.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > 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.
    - tylersmith 7y ago
      The violation is in the distribution. If the current copyright holder distributed copies then he violated the license but more than likely they simply own the copyright to the code and other IP but haven't distributed anything.
      - isostatic 7y ago
        So form a company Profit from blatant copyright infringement When the court case eventually comes, wind up the company, move the assets to another company, and you’re quids in
        teddyh 7y ago
        The law does not work like technology and code. A judge would see through that in a heartbeat and go “You thought that would work? You’re kidding, right?”.
        hirsin 7y ago
        Tell that to the construction industry. This is incredibly common behavior for industries and housing construction - its what gets you out of superfund sites and repairing the subpar housing you threw up in 2010.
        teddyh 7y ago
- unreal37 7y ago
  I would bet money against this being true.