4 ms·

Removing these proprietary parts can actually be a lot of work or potentially impossible without a major refractor, especially if they're foundational to gamepl

Removing these proprietary parts can actually be a lot of work or potentially impossible without a major refractor, especially if they're foundational to gameplay, like a physics engine.

skrebbel 3y ago
It can just “ERROR file physicslib.h not found”. Nobody says open source code must compile or work.
- maccard 3y ago
  You need to remove all the calls to the SDK too.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    Why is that? Wouldn't the calling code be written (and thus copyrighted) by the company that wrote the game rather than the one that created the SDK?
    - hesdeadjim 3y ago
      Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! More realistically, a drop of source code is basically painting a big target on your company to get sued by a troll. I’ve wanted to release my game’s source but am terrified of this.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago
        Perhaps you could just rename the function names, structure fields, etc, to something different but similar? e.g. instead of ps3_fly_up(...) you'd rename to something a bit more generic like sdk_float_up(...) or something like that. It could require a bit of creativity and some work but with a sufficiently-intelligent IDE it'd just be a one-time rename per function name + structure name + field name.
        cobalt 3y ago
        A console game will have hundreds if not thousands of API calls, particularly in the io/gfx code
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        A good IDE can rename thousands of calls in a single command.
        maccard 3y ago
        And all of the parameter types, e.g. btVector3 needs to become a new non-sdk specific name. > It could require a bit of creativity and some work but <...> Honestly, you can stop there. This is why it's not done - the value is small, it requires creativity and work and... > just be a one-time rename per function name + structure name + field name. https://sgringwe.com/2019/10/10/Please-just-stop-saying-just.html https://sgringwe.com/2019/10/10/Please-just-stop-saying-just.... In this particular case "what about legal" pretty much stops the "just" dead in it's tracks.
      - alerighi 3y ago
        > Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! This is not true. API itself (function names and parameters) does not hold copyright. Otherwise you wouldn't have open-source applications on any proprietary OS, since they have the function calls of proprietary APIs inside. What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Of course without these you wouldn't be able to compile and run the software, but you can reverse engineer the API from the function names and parameters and even the binary executable (because for an EU law reverse engineering for the purpose of substituting proprietary parts, that is this case, is allowed) and build a replacement for sure.
        badsectoracula 3y ago
        > What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Note that while the exact header file is covered by copyright, the "information"/"facts" the header file describes (e.g. said function names, parameters, constants, etc) is not - at least as far as EU is concerned anyway (BTW the case you most likely have in mind wasn't for substituting proprietary parts but for interoperability between parts - i.e. it would still be valid for substituting one proprietary part with another proprietary part). This is also why different compilers for Windows have a "windows.h" (or language equivalent) with each having its own copyright but describing the exact same API. (obviously this is for unsubstitutable fact-like information a header file contains and does not apply for any code like macros or inline methods like in C++ classes/templates)
        ChoGGi 3y ago
        > you are bound by terms of the NDA > This is not true. You usually have to follow contracts you sign.
        orra 3y ago
        Not where the law says such terms are unenforceable.
  - plank 3y ago
    Surely that part of the code is AT LEAST fair use? Or one has to be at the wrong part of THAT historical argument (not necessarily pointing at parent)? (Yes, I would argue that this is exempt following the ‘functional’ argument)
    - mostthingsweb 3y ago
      "Oracle would like to know your location." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America....
  - orra 3y ago
    Absolutely untrue. It's legal to reimplement a third party API, as upheld by the highest courts in both the US and the EU. So of course you don't need to remove your lines of source code which call into an API.
    - kevincox 3y ago
      Probably true, but that is probably also against the license agreement (even if unenforcable). Most companies don't want to take this risk (and potential legal costs) just to release code that won't bring them any (direct) revenue.
    - maccard 3y ago
      That's not the same thing - one is redistributing the API (which is what we're talking about here) and the other is implementing an API.
      - orra 3y ago
        To be clear we are talking about releasing code which calls into an API. Agreed you can't redistribute somebody else's SDK without permission.
        maccard 3y ago
        To use bullet physics as a hypothetical example, if my game was the hello world example [0], I would expect that practically that entire file would be un-distributable. [0] https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3/blob/master/examples/HelloWorld/HelloWorld.cpp https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3/blob/master/example...
alerighi 3y ago
Why? You just ship the code that you wrote without the third part libraries. I don't think you did copy/paste the library code inside your own, it's probably linked to the executable in some form. Of course it would be impossible to compile the program without it, but as it's said, the component may be recreated by the open-source community, or sourced form the closed-source game in some other ways.

Removing these proprietary parts can actually be a lot of work or potentially impossible without a major refractor, especially if they're foundational to gameplay, like a physics engine.

skrebbel 3y ago

It can just “ERROR file physicslib.h not found”. Nobody says open source code must compile or work.

maccard 3y ago
You need to remove all the calls to the SDK too.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  Why is that? Wouldn't the calling code be written (and thus copyrighted) by the company that wrote the game rather than the one that created the SDK?
  - hesdeadjim 3y ago
    Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! More realistically, a drop of source code is basically painting a big target on your company to get sued by a troll. I’ve wanted to release my game’s source but am terrified of this.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      Perhaps you could just rename the function names, structure fields, etc, to something different but similar? e.g. instead of ps3_fly_up(...) you'd rename to something a bit more generic like sdk_float_up(...) or something like that. It could require a bit of creativity and some work but with a sufficiently-intelligent IDE it'd just be a one-time rename per function name + structure name + field name.
      - cobalt 3y ago
        A console game will have hundreds if not thousands of API calls, particularly in the io/gfx code
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        A good IDE can rename thousands of calls in a single command.
      - maccard 3y ago
        And all of the parameter types, e.g. btVector3 needs to become a new non-sdk specific name. > It could require a bit of creativity and some work but <...> Honestly, you can stop there. This is why it's not done - the value is small, it requires creativity and work and... > just be a one-time rename per function name + structure name + field name. https://sgringwe.com/2019/10/10/Please-just-stop-saying-just.html https://sgringwe.com/2019/10/10/Please-just-stop-saying-just.... In this particular case "what about legal" pretty much stops the "just" dead in it's tracks.
    - alerighi 3y ago
      > Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! This is not true. API itself (function names and parameters) does not hold copyright. Otherwise you wouldn't have open-source applications on any proprietary OS, since they have the function calls of proprietary APIs inside. What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Of course without these you wouldn't be able to compile and run the software, but you can reverse engineer the API from the function names and parameters and even the binary executable (because for an EU law reverse engineering for the purpose of substituting proprietary parts, that is this case, is allowed) and build a replacement for sure.
      - badsectoracula 3y ago
        > What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Note that while the exact header file is covered by copyright, the "information"/"facts" the header file describes (e.g. said function names, parameters, constants, etc) is not - at least as far as EU is concerned anyway (BTW the case you most likely have in mind wasn't for substituting proprietary parts but for interoperability between parts - i.e. it would still be valid for substituting one proprietary part with another proprietary part). This is also why different compilers for Windows have a "windows.h" (or language equivalent) with each having its own copyright but describing the exact same API. (obviously this is for unsubstitutable fact-like information a header file contains and does not apply for any code like macros or inline methods like in C++ classes/templates)
      - ChoGGi 3y ago
        > you are bound by terms of the NDA > This is not true. You usually have to follow contracts you sign.
        orra 3y ago
        Not where the law says such terms are unenforceable.
- plank 3y ago
  Surely that part of the code is AT LEAST fair use? Or one has to be at the wrong part of THAT historical argument (not necessarily pointing at parent)? (Yes, I would argue that this is exempt following the ‘functional’ argument)
  - mostthingsweb 3y ago
    "Oracle would like to know your location." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America....
- orra 3y ago
  Absolutely untrue. It's legal to reimplement a third party API, as upheld by the highest courts in both the US and the EU. So of course you don't need to remove your lines of source code which call into an API.
  - kevincox 3y ago
    Probably true, but that is probably also against the license agreement (even if unenforcable). Most companies don't want to take this risk (and potential legal costs) just to release code that won't bring them any (direct) revenue.
  - maccard 3y ago
    That's not the same thing - one is redistributing the API (which is what we're talking about here) and the other is implementing an API.
    - orra 3y ago
      To be clear we are talking about releasing code which calls into an API. Agreed you can't redistribute somebody else's SDK without permission.
      - maccard 3y ago
        To use bullet physics as a hypothetical example, if my game was the hello world example [0], I would expect that practically that entire file would be un-distributable. [0] https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3/blob/master/examples/HelloWorld/HelloWorld.cpp https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3/blob/master/example...

alerighi 3y ago

Why? You just ship the code that you wrote without the third part libraries. I don't think you did copy/paste the library code inside your own, it's probably linked to the executable in some form. Of course it would be impossible to compile the program without it, but as it's said, the component may be recreated by the open-source community, or sourced form the closed-source game in some other ways.