6 ms·

Sounds like if it was mandatory to make a server release, legal would mostly shut up and it would be low cost. In other words, minimal change in risk. The ref

Sounds like if it was mandatory to make a server release, legal would mostly shut up and it would be low cost. In other words, minimal change in risk. The refund thing is just there to force action by putting a dollar value on inaction. Pretty much no company is expected to actually choose refunds. > Alternatively, it might push multiplayer games towards free-to-play if in-app-purchases are excluded. Good point, the law had better not exclude those.

summerlight 6mo ago
This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.
- buzer 6mo ago
  If this only applies to new sales then there is nothing that must be broken. The developers would need to choose technologies where license allows this. Those that don't wouldn't get new sales from game developers. It's the same as GPL and similar licenses. If you don't want to publish your source that contains trade secrets then don't incorporate GPL licensed code. There are also already various laws which compel certain types of speech. Consider things like nutrient labels or ingredient lists.
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, and fulfilling the goal of games continuing to work doesn't require releasing the other 1%. They can keep their matchmaking algorithm secret while releasing the code that lets people straightforwardly connect to each other. They can keep most of their code secret.
  - summerlight 6mo ago
    > 99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, Unfortunately, it is not you define whether it deserves. It's a court, ultimately SCOTUS.
- zarzavat 6mo ago
  As long as there is an option to give refunds then nothing is being compelled.
- unethical_ban 6mo ago
  What a fucked situation where a company that fails who took money from people on the premise of a service existing no longer offers that service, says it's against the first amendment to enable people to continue having access to the product they paid for.
tdeck 6mo ago
I'm curious how this would play out in the case that the company paid to license some software component that they can't open source.
- braiamp 6mo ago
  Simple: that contract would be illegal. It's that simple. You can't put yourself into a position where you would be violating the law. The licensor would be on the hook for violating the law. This is "you can’t outsource compliance". Either your contract makes sure that you are compliant or a judge would make you both. This case illustrates this point fully: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlement-operator-post-secondary-schools-offers-education-about-lead-generation https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlemen...
  - Dylan16807 6mo ago
    That's not a worry. You can always refund.
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  Issues like that are part of why the law is only going to apply to new releases. If you still choose to license something you can't release later, and it's critical to the game's operation, then that's a deliberate liability and you'll need to replace it.
  - tyleo 6mo ago
    That sounds like a bad incentive. Lots of games license software like Photon to run game servers. For many games, building something like that is a non-starter.
    - Dylan16807 6mo ago
      It's not like it specifically has to be open source. Photon can license their software in a way that allows for free servers that are still tied to the specific game. And then companies can buy that. And it's not expensive for Photon to do that, so I don't see why they wouldn't add that feature for a modest price or even free. (And that's assuming the license doesn't already allow it.)

summerlight 6mo ago

This is one of the reason why that law will surely be challenged and very likely invalidated by SCOTUS. Trade secret protection is a very fundamental part and if this is forced to be broken by legally compelled speech, then it needs to have very creative interpretations over judicial precedents.

buzer 6mo ago
If this only applies to new sales then there is nothing that must be broken. The developers would need to choose technologies where license allows this. Those that don't wouldn't get new sales from game developers. It's the same as GPL and similar licenses. If you don't want to publish your source that contains trade secrets then don't incorporate GPL licensed code. There are also already various laws which compel certain types of speech. Consider things like nutrient labels or ingredient lists.
Dylan16807 6mo ago
99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, and fulfilling the goal of games continuing to work doesn't require releasing the other 1%. They can keep their matchmaking algorithm secret while releasing the code that lets people straightforwardly connect to each other. They can keep most of their code secret.
- summerlight 6mo ago
  > 99% of the server code doesn't deserve trade secret protection, Unfortunately, it is not you define whether it deserves. It's a court, ultimately SCOTUS.
zarzavat 6mo ago
As long as there is an option to give refunds then nothing is being compelled.
unethical_ban 6mo ago
What a fucked situation where a company that fails who took money from people on the premise of a service existing no longer offers that service, says it's against the first amendment to enable people to continue having access to the product they paid for.

tdeck 6mo ago

I'm curious how this would play out in the case that the company paid to license some software component that they can't open source.

braiamp 6mo ago
Simple: that contract would be illegal. It's that simple. You can't put yourself into a position where you would be violating the law. The licensor would be on the hook for violating the law. This is "you can’t outsource compliance". Either your contract makes sure that you are compliant or a judge would make you both. This case illustrates this point fully: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlement-operator-post-secondary-schools-offers-education-about-lead-generation https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlemen...
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  That's not a worry. You can always refund.
Dylan16807 6mo ago
Issues like that are part of why the law is only going to apply to new releases. If you still choose to license something you can't release later, and it's critical to the game's operation, then that's a deliberate liability and you'll need to replace it.
- tyleo 6mo ago
  That sounds like a bad incentive. Lots of games license software like Photon to run game servers. For many games, building something like that is a non-starter.
  - Dylan16807 6mo ago
    It's not like it specifically has to be open source. Photon can license their software in a way that allows for free servers that are still tied to the specific game. And then companies can buy that. And it's not expensive for Photon to do that, so I don't see why they wouldn't add that feature for a modest price or even free. (And that's assuming the license doesn't already allow it.)