24 ms·

Without 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 tha

Without 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 8mo ago
It's clearly exploitative
- Lammy 8mo ago
  Agreed. 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 8mo ago
Thing 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
    They 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 8mo ago
      Reverse 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 8mo ago
        But 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
        Show 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.

singpolyma3 8mo ago

It's clearly exploitative

Lammy 8mo ago
Agreed. 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 8mo ago

Thing 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
  They 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 8mo ago
    Reverse 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 8mo ago
      But 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
        Show 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.