6 ms·

GPLv3. But given that it’s a port of the disassembly, isn’t it also a derivative work of the original PoP?

aaron695 5y ago
The sad state of GPL, zero respect for software licensing. What do we expect when GPL gets reduced to a tool to maliciously attack people politically.
gspr 5y ago
Yeah, the author's "Copyright (C) 2013-2021 Dávid Nagy" seems ridiculous and meaningless. I can see the appeal of a project like this, but the author's pretending that that copyright and the GPL licensing mean anything isn't helpful.
- rob74 5y ago
  IANAL either, but I suppose the situation here is similar as with "abandonware": as long as the original publisher/copyright holder doesn't protest, old software is made available on various download sites. Of course, with a project like this, if the copyright holder would intervene, a lot more work would go down the drain, and claiming your own copyright without explicitly mentioning the original copyright is definitely not helping...
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    > but I suppose the situation here is similar as with "abandonware" I don't know if this would hold up. Prince of Persia IP is far from dead or abandoned. I know it's not exhaustive, but a quick search on IMDB [0] shows a movie in 2010, and a video game as recently as 2008. Just because this particular game is old, doesn't mean the IP/Trademark is dead. Personally, I'd be wary of a legal battle, even though I think the project is pretty interesting. [0] https://www.imdb.com/find?q=prince+of+persia&ref_=nv_sr_sm https://www.imdb.com/find?q=prince+of+persia&ref_=nv_sr_sm
    - rob74 5y ago
      Again, IANAL, but that's not really relevant. The old Super Mario games for Game Boy and SNES can be downloaded from various abandonware sites, while the Mario franchise is still ongoing. As long as Nintendo is Ok with that, that's not a problem. The original Prince of Persia is also available as "abandonware" and can even be played in the browser (https://www.retrogames.cz/play_102-DOS.php?language=EN https://www.retrogames.cz/play_102-DOS.php?language=EN)
      - gspr 5y ago
        Even if Nintendo is OK with that (are they really?), that does not mean that someone else can grab one of those copies and claim copyright on it! That's what the author of the reverse-engineered Prince of Persia seems to be doing.
pulse7 5y ago
Microsoft would not be happy if somebody would create an "open-source port based on the Windows machine/assembly code"...
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://reactos.org https://reactos.org
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    As far as I know the ReactOS team does not disassemble Windows. "Is ReactOS legal? Yes. ReactOS is fully legal. Developers (devs) have not looked at Microsoft Windows™ source code. They have used the public documentation of Microsoft Windows OSes. They have made several tests to understand how Microsoft Windows works. In fact, ReactOS does the same things that Windows does but it does it differently as we don't have the same source code and it is all programmed by different developers. All code in ReactOS is released under the GNU GPL (General Public License). Is ReactOS based on Microsoft Windows™ original source code? No! ReactOS consists only of clean-room engineered GNU GPL (General Public License) and GPL compatible licensed source code. " https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ#Is_ReactOS_legal.3F https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ#Is_ReactOS_legal.3F
  - nathell 5y ago
    ReactOS isn’t based on disassembly of the original Windows code. It’s based on publicly available documentation of Windows APIs (and reverse engineering those that aren’t documented, but that’s a whole different beast from disassembling). In fact, ReactOS maintains a policy to prevent proprietary Windows source code (whether leaked or otherwise) from making its way to the ReactOS codebase [0]. When Windows source code leaked, in 2006, ReactOS did a complete codebase audit to ensure that it was not tainted. [0]: https://reactos.org/intellectual-property-guideline/ https://reactos.org/intellectual-property-guideline/
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    It's not based on any Windows binary code, or the project would be forever poisoned with respect to copyright. They actively prevent anyone who has seen the Windows source code from working on the project.
Liquid_Fire 5y ago
IANAL but I agree, I can't see how this doesn't violate the copyright of the original. Same with OpenRCT2, which I've heard is also based on the disassembled original, yet people seem to turn a blind eye.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Based on, but as far I remember it was rewritten rather then copied. To be honest, the should claim same with PoP and I don't see any solicitor suing them, as it would be too much hustle to prove its a code copy instead of inspired by. Wow that is really sad, we live in the world where this is even a discussion. Where a love project that will not be commercialized has to think about this bs :(
- duncanspumpkin 5y ago
  For OpenRCT2 I just used a debugger Ollydbg to be precise. As it was hand written assembly disassemblers produced nonsense output.
CannisterFlux 5y ago
It's a mess of copyright for sure. I doubt you could really exercise your rights as a 3rd party with the GPLv3 there. e.g. if Debian or Ubuntu were to include the game then they would be on shakey ground for redistributing copyrighted stuff. Presumably the original graphics are in there too, not just the "re-imagined" code. It reminds me of the old New Kind - Oolite - Elite shenanigans from years ago. Somehow Oolite powered through and stuck around, despite using most of the New Kind code originally (they translated the C game logic to Objective C if memory serves me), while New Kind was shut down by Braben for copyright infringement. The New Kind author - Christian Pinder I think was his name - did all the disassembly work originally. I don't think it was ever a big legal challenge there, more like "hey! take that down" and the author complied because he was a nice guy.
- vadfa 5y ago
  It's not "a mess of copyright", it is simply illegal, in the same way that reverse engineering Windows to reimplement stuff in Wine would be illegal.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > reverse engineering Windows to reimplement stuff in Wine would be illegal That's legal though. Stuff like that is the whole purpose of reverse engineering. You can't copy the code but you can learn how it works so you can do it yourself.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      >but you can learn how it works so you can do it yourself This part is definitely illegal. You can learn how it works but you cannot write the code yourself, you have to write the specs for someone else to do it, who hasn't done the reverse engineering.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        That's clean room reverse engineering, a rigorous method to make absolutely sure that the results are legal so it can't be questioned later. It's not a legal requirement and it does not prevent lawsuits. It just makes it more likely that the legal battle will be won.
Hamuko 5y ago
Probably. I'm not sure if this exact scenario has been tested in courts, but Take-Two is going to test it at the very least. https://torrentfreak.com/take-two-sues-enthusiasts-behind-gta-fan-projects-re3-revc-210903/ https://torrentfreak.com/take-two-sues-enthusiasts-behind-gt...
- phone8675309 5y ago
  If only the development team on the GTA remasters spent as much time and money on their work as their parent company does on suing people...
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    I doubt it costs that much time and money to sue a couple of people once in a blue moon. As far as I know, this is not exactly an every day occurance for them.

The sad state of GPL, zero respect for software licensing. What do we expect when GPL gets reduced to a tool to maliciously attack people politically.

gspr 5y ago

Yeah, the author's "Copyright (C) 2013-2021 Dávid Nagy" seems ridiculous and meaningless. I can see the appeal of a project like this, but the author's pretending that that copyright and the GPL licensing mean anything isn't helpful.

rob74 5y ago
IANAL either, but I suppose the situation here is similar as with "abandonware": as long as the original publisher/copyright holder doesn't protest, old software is made available on various download sites. Of course, with a project like this, if the copyright holder would intervene, a lot more work would go down the drain, and claiming your own copyright without explicitly mentioning the original copyright is definitely not helping...
- hermitdev 5y ago
  > but I suppose the situation here is similar as with "abandonware" I don't know if this would hold up. Prince of Persia IP is far from dead or abandoned. I know it's not exhaustive, but a quick search on IMDB [0] shows a movie in 2010, and a video game as recently as 2008. Just because this particular game is old, doesn't mean the IP/Trademark is dead. Personally, I'd be wary of a legal battle, even though I think the project is pretty interesting. [0] https://www.imdb.com/find?q=prince+of+persia&ref_=nv_sr_sm https://www.imdb.com/find?q=prince+of+persia&ref_=nv_sr_sm
  - rob74 5y ago
    Again, IANAL, but that's not really relevant. The old Super Mario games for Game Boy and SNES can be downloaded from various abandonware sites, while the Mario franchise is still ongoing. As long as Nintendo is Ok with that, that's not a problem. The original Prince of Persia is also available as "abandonware" and can even be played in the browser (https://www.retrogames.cz/play_102-DOS.php?language=EN https://www.retrogames.cz/play_102-DOS.php?language=EN)
    - gspr 5y ago
      Even if Nintendo is OK with that (are they really?), that does not mean that someone else can grab one of those copies and claim copyright on it! That's what the author of the reverse-engineered Prince of Persia seems to be doing.

pulse7 5y ago

Microsoft would not be happy if somebody would create an "open-source port based on the Windows machine/assembly code"...

fsflover 5y ago
https://reactos.org https://reactos.org
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  As far as I know the ReactOS team does not disassemble Windows. "Is ReactOS legal? Yes. ReactOS is fully legal. Developers (devs) have not looked at Microsoft Windows™ source code. They have used the public documentation of Microsoft Windows OSes. They have made several tests to understand how Microsoft Windows works. In fact, ReactOS does the same things that Windows does but it does it differently as we don't have the same source code and it is all programmed by different developers. All code in ReactOS is released under the GNU GPL (General Public License). Is ReactOS based on Microsoft Windows™ original source code? No! ReactOS consists only of clean-room engineered GNU GPL (General Public License) and GPL compatible licensed source code. " https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ#Is_ReactOS_legal.3F https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ#Is_ReactOS_legal.3F
- nathell 5y ago
  ReactOS isn’t based on disassembly of the original Windows code. It’s based on publicly available documentation of Windows APIs (and reverse engineering those that aren’t documented, but that’s a whole different beast from disassembling). In fact, ReactOS maintains a policy to prevent proprietary Windows source code (whether leaked or otherwise) from making its way to the ReactOS codebase [0]. When Windows source code leaked, in 2006, ReactOS did a complete codebase audit to ensure that it was not tainted. [0]: https://reactos.org/intellectual-property-guideline/ https://reactos.org/intellectual-property-guideline/
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  It's not based on any Windows binary code, or the project would be forever poisoned with respect to copyright. They actively prevent anyone who has seen the Windows source code from working on the project.

Liquid_Fire 5y ago

IANAL but I agree, I can't see how this doesn't violate the copyright of the original. Same with OpenRCT2, which I've heard is also based on the disassembled original, yet people seem to turn a blind eye.

me_me_me 5y ago
Based on, but as far I remember it was rewritten rather then copied. To be honest, the should claim same with PoP and I don't see any solicitor suing them, as it would be too much hustle to prove its a code copy instead of inspired by. Wow that is really sad, we live in the world where this is even a discussion. Where a love project that will not be commercialized has to think about this bs :(
duncanspumpkin 5y ago
For OpenRCT2 I just used a debugger Ollydbg to be precise. As it was hand written assembly disassemblers produced nonsense output.

CannisterFlux 5y ago

It's a mess of copyright for sure. I doubt you could really exercise your rights as a 3rd party with the GPLv3 there. e.g. if Debian or Ubuntu were to include the game then they would be on shakey ground for redistributing copyrighted stuff. Presumably the original graphics are in there too, not just the "re-imagined" code. It reminds me of the old New Kind - Oolite - Elite shenanigans from years ago. Somehow Oolite powered through and stuck around, despite using most of the New Kind code originally (they translated the C game logic to Objective C if memory serves me), while New Kind was shut down by Braben for copyright infringement. The New Kind author - Christian Pinder I think was his name - did all the disassembly work originally. I don't think it was ever a big legal challenge there, more like "hey! take that down" and the author complied because he was a nice guy.

vadfa 5y ago
It's not "a mess of copyright", it is simply illegal, in the same way that reverse engineering Windows to reimplement stuff in Wine would be illegal.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > reverse engineering Windows to reimplement stuff in Wine would be illegal That's legal though. Stuff like that is the whole purpose of reverse engineering. You can't copy the code but you can learn how it works so you can do it yourself.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    >but you can learn how it works so you can do it yourself This part is definitely illegal. You can learn how it works but you cannot write the code yourself, you have to write the specs for someone else to do it, who hasn't done the reverse engineering.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      That's clean room reverse engineering, a rigorous method to make absolutely sure that the results are legal so it can't be questioned later. It's not a legal requirement and it does not prevent lawsuits. It just makes it more likely that the legal battle will be won.

Hamuko 5y ago

Probably. I'm not sure if this exact scenario has been tested in courts, but Take-Two is going to test it at the very least. https://torrentfreak.com/take-two-sues-enthusiasts-behind-gta-fan-projects-re3-revc-210903/ https://torrentfreak.com/take-two-sues-enthusiasts-behind-gt...

phone8675309 5y ago
If only the development team on the GTA remasters spent as much time and money on their work as their parent company does on suing people...
- Hamuko 5y ago
  I doubt it costs that much time and money to sue a couple of people once in a blue moon. As far as I know, this is not exactly an every day occurance for them.