3 ms·
>Additionally, as part of the discussions we held, Atari agreed to make a contribution towards the running costs of our server infrastructure. We are also extre
by ApolloFortyNine 7mo ago
>Additionally, as part of the discussions we held, Atari agreed to make a contribution towards the running costs of our server infrastructure. We are also extremely grateful for the many donations that have come in over the past few days from users - your support will help keep our services going, and it is deeply appreciated.
That's pretty cool of them.
- charcircuit 7mo agoWithout knowing the rev share it could be exploitative. If OpenTDD is being sold commercially Atari shouldn't be taking all the money from all the hard work that people have put into the project over the years.
- singpolyma3 7mo agoIt's clearly exploitative
- Lammy 7mo agoAgreed. Effectively-nobody would be interested in buying it if it weren't for OpenTTD and all the improvements they've made over the years. It's absurd that some company can buy up and profit from thirty-year-old formerly-abandonware, and that society have been collectively browbeaten into believing in the notion of “““intellectual property””” at all.
- WarcrimeActual 7mo agoThing is, they own it. They have every right to cease and desist, I assume, and haven't. That's generous compared to most companies reactions already.
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago> Thing is, they own it. No, they don't. They own the game data, and the original game engine. They don't own the reimplemented Open Source game engine. OpenTTD did not have to do anything here. It sounds like they had a very positive interaction with Atari, in which Atari is providing them with some support and collaboration, and in exchange for that, OpenTTD agreed to formalize the requirement for "you need to own the original game data" by having people on game stores purchase the original game through them before getting OpenTTD through them. That seems like a pretty reasonable approach. It should be held up as a good model for collaboration. But it shouldn't be treated as "they have every right to [demand a] cease and desist".
- WarcrimeActual 7mo agoThey do own it. Any court would likely agree that what OpenTTD does is copy an IP they own. And they'd have the right to C&D it.
- JoshTriplett 7mo agoReverse engineering for compatibility, and implementation of a compatible system (as long as you don't copy the original) are not just legal, they're explicitly legally protected in many jurisdictions. You'll get in serious trouble if you copy the original, but there is specific case law supporting things like emulators. See, for instance, Sony v Connectix and Sega v Accolade.
- gmueckl 7mo agoBut OpenTTD is explicitly a faithful copy of the original. It replicates the original product in appearance and behavior and is open about it. If you were to dig into source code history, mailing list archives, chat logs etc. I'm certain that you could find a lot of evidence to support this position.
- JoshTriplett 7mo ago"Behavior" isn't copyrightable; it explicitly isn't, in fact. To what extent did they copy "appearance" other than supporting the use of the original assets? It is certainly possible that they didn't scrupulously maintain clean hands, but I wouldn't automatically assume that.
- gmueckl 7mo agoShow a set of random persons gameplay video clips from TTD and OpenTTD in its default settings and ask them which one of the two games they are watching. They'll be struggling. It is about the entirety of the product, not its parts.