3 ms·

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.

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.