3 ms·

Is open sourcing it really all that bad? I presume anyone with some skill could recreate such a simple game, and there are tons of copies on the app store. Sh

Is open sourcing it really all that bad? I presume anyone with some skill could recreate such a simple game, and there are tons of copies on the app store. Showing that it's possible to create the game in html5 and showing the source is amazing and very helpful for anyone wanting to create a real game with html5. Of course, making it look exactly like Doodle Jump isn't the best of ideas, although it doesn't compete with the actual product since it doesn't work on mobile.

k-mcgrady 14y ago
I'm not sure. I guess not as the code would be very different from the original (different language/platform). "it doesn't compete with the actual product since it doesn't work on mobile" I don't think this is true. Now people have a choice - pay for the iPhone app, or play it on their computer for free. Most people will probably never know about this version but I think it is still a competitor.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  The game navigation is very different though. One uses a keyboard and the other tilting of the device. Since the game itself is not original but rather simply leverages new functionality of a device to create a new game play I would say that their market is therefore limited to those categories of devices (ie. mobile with accelerometers of giros).
jdjb 14y ago
The game itself is a clone of XJump (which has open source clones GNUJump and SDLJump).
csense 14y ago
> Is open sourcing it really all that bad? Your views on the ethics of open source don't really have any bearing on whether this application infringes a copyright. > I presume anyone with some skill could recreate such a simple game, and there are tons of copies on the app store. An independent implementation of a similar game engine would presumably be neither technically difficult nor legally problematic. The problem is that, at least according to many of the comments here, he's copying the game assets. From a copyright perspective, independent implementation of the same technology is usually OK (see the Oracle/Google lawsuit, the court ruled that Google's independent implementation of Oracle's API was OK). It's direct copying of code and data that requires permission from the copyright holder, even if it's mixed with your own original work (the case here seems to be direct copying of art mixed with original code). I'm guessing that, from a practical perspective, this whole debate doesn't matter in this particular case, since Google probably doesn't care about this one. They may even have open-sourced the doodle eventually on their own (anyone have information about whether past Google doodles have been open-sourced?) Mandatory disclaimers: 1. IANAL 2. I can only speak for the situation in the USA 3. I haven't personally seen or played the original, I'm basing my opinion of what's copied or not copied on other comments
- gizmo686 14y ago
  > From a copyright perspective, independent implementation of the same technology is usually OK (see the Oracle/Google lawsuit, the court ruled that Google's independent implementation of Oracle's API was OK). I am not a legal expert, but as I understand it, the Oracle/Google decision was based on the fact that APIs were not copyright-able. However, I believe you are that independent implementation is not a copyright violation, because patents protect technology while copyright protects specific works. If anyone actually knows about this, feel free to correct me.

k-mcgrady 14y ago

I'm not sure. I guess not as the code would be very different from the original (different language/platform). "it doesn't compete with the actual product since it doesn't work on mobile" I don't think this is true. Now people have a choice - pay for the iPhone app, or play it on their computer for free. Most people will probably never know about this version but I think it is still a competitor.

hmottestad 14y ago
The game navigation is very different though. One uses a keyboard and the other tilting of the device. Since the game itself is not original but rather simply leverages new functionality of a device to create a new game play I would say that their market is therefore limited to those categories of devices (ie. mobile with accelerometers of giros).

jdjb 14y ago

The game itself is a clone of XJump (which has open source clones GNUJump and SDLJump).

csense 14y ago

> Is open sourcing it really all that bad? Your views on the ethics of open source don't really have any bearing on whether this application infringes a copyright. > I presume anyone with some skill could recreate such a simple game, and there are tons of copies on the app store. An independent implementation of a similar game engine would presumably be neither technically difficult nor legally problematic. The problem is that, at least according to many of the comments here, he's copying the game assets. From a copyright perspective, independent implementation of the same technology is usually OK (see the Oracle/Google lawsuit, the court ruled that Google's independent implementation of Oracle's API was OK). It's direct copying of code and data that requires permission from the copyright holder, even if it's mixed with your own original work (the case here seems to be direct copying of art mixed with original code). I'm guessing that, from a practical perspective, this whole debate doesn't matter in this particular case, since Google probably doesn't care about this one. They may even have open-sourced the doodle eventually on their own (anyone have information about whether past Google doodles have been open-sourced?) Mandatory disclaimers: 1. IANAL 2. I can only speak for the situation in the USA 3. I haven't personally seen or played the original, I'm basing my opinion of what's copied or not copied on other comments

gizmo686 14y ago
> From a copyright perspective, independent implementation of the same technology is usually OK (see the Oracle/Google lawsuit, the court ruled that Google's independent implementation of Oracle's API was OK). I am not a legal expert, but as I understand it, the Oracle/Google decision was based on the fact that APIs were not copyright-able. However, I believe you are that independent implementation is not a copyright violation, because patents protect technology while copyright protects specific works. If anyone actually knows about this, feel free to correct me.