Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pirated App Sold On Mac App Store

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the pay-better-attention dept.

Piracy 334

iDuck writes "When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts game, Lugaru HD, on the Mac App store, they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double. A counterfeit version of the software is currently available on the app store at a much lower price point under the name Lugaru. The best bit: as yet Apple have not responded to Wolfire's emails to rectify the situation. While the source to the game was GPLed, 'the license made it very clear that the authors retained all rights to the assets, characters, and everything else aside from the code itself.'"

cancel ×

334 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (1, Insightful)

chihowa (366380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089814)

When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.

I know I must me new here... Would it kill you, Taco, to read this garbage before posting it? WTF does that sentence even mean?

Re:Huh? (2)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089838)

That they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double shortly after the release of the game. Not before, though. Before it was inexcusable ;).

It does sound awkward but factually it should be correct.

Re:Huh? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089842)

Makes sense to me. Read the following sentence in the summary. On the other hand, there is no m in "be". :)

Re:Huh? (2)

chihowa (366380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090152)

On the other hand, there is no m in "be". :)

That's awesome. Thanks! I knew that I was going to make some mistake in there...

There ought to be some law saying that every post criticizing spelling or grammar is guaranteed to have a spelling or grammar error!

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

psm321 (450181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090178)

There is. It's called Muphry's Law :)

Re:Huh? (0, Offtopic)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090278)

You maed a mistaek ther.

Re:Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089844)

from the pay-better-attention dept.

Irony.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089872)

When Wolfire Games released their game on the Mac App store, th--

Hang on, I was going to explain it to you bit-by-bit, but I've it just make really doesn't realised sense

Re:Huh? (3)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089902)

Action 1: Wolffire Games Releases Lugaru HD
Action 2: Some time passes
Action 3: Wolffire Games thinks they're seeing double
Action 4: Because of the rest of the article, Action 3 may be forgiven.

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090012)

When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.

Let's parse it:

"When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games" - this gives the epoch when the rest of the sentence happened, it was all at the same time as the game was released

"'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store," - this is a more detailed explanation that tells us what game was that and where it was released

"shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double" - this is a more detailed explanation of the time, it all happened shortly after the time when they could be forgiven

" . " - oops, this sentence no verb and no subject.

Re:Huh? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090332)

There is no spoon.

Re:Huh? (-1, Troll)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090154)

Go fuck yourself you pedantic asshole.

I will explain what this sentence means to you now. Basically, it means the sentence you quoted is perfectly understandable. However, since you're a pedantic asshole, if everything isn't written to your supposed perfect standards you go into a blind rage and mash at your keyboard, hooting and hollering and generally doing what pedantic assholes do.

So go fuck yourself you pedantic asshole.

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090298)

Go fuck yourself you pedantic asshole.

Don't you mean go and fuck yourself you pedantic asshole?

Re:Huh? (1, Offtopic)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090354)

No, no, no, he meant: "After he went and fuck in bathroom, shortly after he could be forgiven for thinking he was seeing double."

Re:Huh? (2)

nkh (750837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090454)

Thank you my good man for correcting this young fellow with such a high ID number. I'm not english at all and was very curious at your suggestion, but I knew that the internet would settle your disagreement once and for all, for it seems that "In American English go is sometimes followed directly by a bare infinitive" (source [znanje.org] ).

No, I'm not drunk.

Re:Huh? (1)

ekgringo (693136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090540)

No, I'm not drunk.

This is unforgivable and must be rectified immediately or economic sanctions will follow.

Re:Huh? (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090396)

It means what it says.

First post (-1, Offtopic)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089832)

First post! What's the bet this is pirated?

Re:First post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089850)

FAIL.

Why you even try? First post comments are so retard. Oh and.. Fuck you.

Re:First post (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089870)

Yarrr, ye'v been pushed down the page, ye scurvy dog! Yarrrr!

Re:First post (-1, Offtopic)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089912)

Ah well!

and in related news (3, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089856)

the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.

Re:and in related news (2)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089938)

I did not know Wolfire was a multi-billion dollars corporation. He sure went a long way to be able to pull that kind of stuff. Congrat to him.

Re:and in related news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090034)

I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

I guess you where overlooked for promotion, since you forgot to append the obligatory ", which employs me" to your sig.

Re:and in related news (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090176)

You work for the DRDs? The DRDs work for Moya!

Unwise GPL (1, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089878)

Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.

Re:Unwise GPL (-1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089930)

Thing is that due to the GPL

"The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms"

That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.

Re:Unwise GPL (4, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090018)

Say what? There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling your software, or software written by someone else and released under the GPL (as long as you don't change the licence and make the source available).

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090256)

I'm confused.
Is Lukaru copyrighted or not? If "yes" then how can someone else make money off YOUR copyrighted work?

Re:Unwise GPL (3, Informative)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090608)

Because you gave them permission to do so.

Re:Unwise GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090026)

That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.

You clearly don't understand the GPL. There's nothing in there preventing people from selling GPL'd programs.

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090138)

I think what was meant was that it is illegal because it is using characters that are under copyright outside of the GPL. I don't see any reason that one can release the source code but keep characters used in the story under a stricter copyright.

If you use essentially the same source code but change the characters and situations and story, then you would have a legal work.

Re:Unwise GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090056)

There's nothing in the GPL that prevents the sale of the code. The same can't be said for all of the media and other non-code assets, though, because they have not been released under the GPL.

Re:Unwise GPL (2)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090142)

That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.

Selling it under a different license or without complying with the GPL (eg: no source code, misrepresentation...) that is. Selling GPL softwares is fine. It is "pirated" because the assets (eg: model, texture and sound) are not GPL and cannot be redistribued the same way, if at all. To make a legit derived work all the game contents should be redone from scratch.

There is noting foolish about releasing source code of any commercially distributed software. OP is a troll, and a idiot.

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089952)

I'm not sure what them having released the source code has to do with it. Couldn't the pirates have just submitted a purchased version without needing the source code?

From the link "This is a kind of software fraud we've never even heard of: a pirate simply downloading the app and resubmitting it to the same distribution channel at a lower price."

In fact that's what they did. So having released their source code really doesn't even need to be mentioned by the article.

Re:Unwise GPL (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089956)

Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.

That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

enec (1922548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089968)

Foolish? How so?

Was ID foolish to release the Quake 3 engine under GPL too? You can still find Q3A being sold in many places...

The GPL does not have maps and art just game code (3, Informative)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090082)

The GPL does not have maps and art just game code. You need to buy the maps and art.

Re:The GPL does not have maps and art just game co (1)

enec (1922548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090192)

Exactly. Just as it is with Lugaru HD. Did you happen to notice the part where GP said "it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game."? I was merely reminding him that the strategy worked fine with Q3 and is far from foolish.

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090286)

Was ID foolish to release the Quake 3 engine under GPL too?

The money was made on the game, the engine was too old to have much value to any commercial but unscrupulous developer and if there was any copy protection to begin with i'm sure it was long cracked by the time the source was released. In other words they had basically nothing to lose by releasing the source.

You can still find Q3A being sold in many places.

I'm sure you can still find new old stock copies for sale and you can still buy it from steam (I was somewhat surprised that neither D2D or GOG had it, maybe ID is cosy with steam or something). It doesn't look like they are still making and selling copies through the regular channels though (for example amazon.com list it but only from third party sellers). It certainly isn't something they are pushing anymore.

Re:Unwise GPL (5, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090014)

No, it's perfectly kosher to have GPLed source code but non-GPLed game data.

See the various Quake GPL releases - it has NEVER been legal to use that GPL code to play the original game unless you legitimately owned the data.

It took quite a while before "standalone" games were created based on the Quake1/2/3 GPL release code, in these cases ALL of the game data was replaced with new (typically Creative Commons-licensed) data.

I don't think anyone would have an issue here if the Lugaru HD engine were being used with all-new artwork. The problem here is that the Lugaru HD artwork/data is being re-released by the pirates at a much lower price, and Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.

Re:Unwise GPL (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090150)

Just charge Apple 30% on all game sales and call it even!

Re:Unwise GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090092)

source code yes, assets no
same deal with IDs quake 3

GPL (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089884)

The real issue in this is how this will affect the public opinion on free software. It will not be good.

Re:GPL (5, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089992)

The real issue in this is how this will affect the public opinion on free software. It will not be good.

The public won't notice. As usual.

Re:GPL (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090648)

Why would it affect the public opinion? Apple would have to arrange refunds for those that bought the fraudulent app and they'd have their money back. Apple is after all somewhat responsible in this case. It's not like the android market where Google wouldn't be responsible until somebody notified them about it, Apple does screen apps before they enter the store.

Unfortunately. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089980)

What everyone needs today in business are good layers and not a good product or even a product, just take it from someone...

Re:Unfortunately. (1)

pcgfx805 (1750684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090078)

'Layers'? Pimp?

Re:Unfortunately. (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090094)

If we had a good layer I'd never get any work done.

GPL? (-1, Troll)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090052)

From the GPL page:

"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things."

Doesn't look pirated to me.

Re:GPL? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090080)

The engine is GPL. The assets are not. You should have been able to figure this out from the summary, let alone TFA. Go troll elsewhere.

Re:GPL? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090120)

If the guys who released the game took effort to redraw all backgrounds, remake all the textures, remodel and retexture all the 3D models, then make maps, storyline and dialogue, then added a new soundtrack and FX on top of that, then they are perfectly in their right to bind this all using the free GPL code, and sell as their own app.

The engine is GPLd, the assets are still proprietary.

Re:GPL? (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090294)

The "assets" are intellectual property, just like songs and movies. It sounds to me like you are making a case that IP is an asset and misappropriating said asset is wrong. That would make so-called file sharing wrong.

Is that your position?

Re:GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090554)

I think you're confusing "fire sharing" with "file selling".

Re:GPL? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090450)

While I agree this is probably the situation I have to wonder how the pirates managed to get the copyrighted material. Did the authors check it into the same tree as the game source? It would seem to be a tad foolhardy if they did since it gives the pirates an excuse. Oops we made a genuine mistake. It would be better to put some stub test graphics / levels in with the source and keep the actual game assets completely and totally separate. It wouldn't hurt either to pack them up in a way which cannot be read be read by the standard GPL version of the game. For example, encrypt them or change the file format in some significant way so they just don't read. This again would relieve pirates of the excuse that they did it by accident.

Re:GPL? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090548)

That you "did it by accident" is a lolclause that will get you slapped by a judge in court. I mean he will literally climb over the bench, reach out, and slap you for being such an ignorant jackass as to try.

Apple has learned arrogance from MS (-1, Flamebait)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090088)

There was a time when I was huge Apple fan. Basically because they didn't have the arrogance problem that Microsoft has had for 20 years now.

Apple doesn't seem to feel accountable to anyone any more. This is another great example where they don't even think they have to answer their email messages. Another lesser known example that I've had to deal with is with ITunes. They've had a major error in ITunes for many versions now where it calls a malformed URL. It calls out to "http://itunes.com." (with an extra dot). This kills programs like Dan's Guardian. (I work with kids, a filter is mandated on me). However, they have simply closed the case every time it is brought up. They're too arrogant to even do a search for a malformed URL in the code and correct it.

I have limited my business with Apple because of this. They have decided to fight MS by becoming them.

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090144)

it isn't a malformed URL. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver#Root_domain

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090230)

You are correct, but ... would it be too hard for the program to stick with one form or the other? Using both *is* a bug, as the program is connecting to two different servers from HTTP perspective.

Image requests without cookie (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090478)

Using both *is* a bug, as the program is connecting to two different servers from HTTP perspective.

That might be exactly what is wanted, in order to avoid passing unneeded cookies around.

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090234)

Apple doesn't seem to feel accountable to anyone any more. This is another great example where they don't even think they have to answer their email messages.

It's very simple, actually. Apple will not and should not react to just a claim in an e-mail. What the copyright holder has to do is to send a DMCA takedown notice in the correct form. They have to state that they are the copyright holder, that the other copy on the store is infringing on their copyright, and they have to give the correct contact information that allows them to be identified. This was published on slashdot many times when someone tried to suppress information through an overzealous DMCA takedown notice. There are rules that the copyright holder has to follow, and if they are not followed then the website need not and should not take down the allegedly infringing work.

Once a proper DMCA notice is sent, Apple will have to take down the infringing work in a reasonable amount of time (less than 24 hours) or be on the hook for copyright infringement itself (if there was copyright infringement in the first place). In addition, they have to send the contact information to the alleged infringer, who can either accept this, or demand that the software is put back on the store, which they would do if they think there is no copyright infringement and they are willing to go to court about it. If that happens, then Apple is off the hook, and we can be sure there will be a court case.

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (2)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090432)

According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090266)

Thats not a malformed URL, its a perfectly valid one - the trailing dot makes the domain a fully qualified one under RFC 1738. Its your filter program that is the faulty one here.

Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (5, Insightful)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090308)

You should submit this info to the makers of Dan's Guardian so they can fix their software to handle all properly formed URLs.

Did Slashdot go retarded today? (5, Informative)

MukiMuki (692124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090112)

I've seen too many stupid comments about this today and yesterday, so I'm going to clarify a few points:

1. The SOURCE CODE to the EXECUTABLE was released as GPL.
2. GPL DOES, in fact, allow you to sell your build of that executable.
3. While they did distribute the assets (textures, models, sound, etc.) with the source code, those assets WERE NOT distributed via GPL.
4. GPL is for source code, not assets. For that, you're looking at a creative commons type license for something similar.
5. The assets were distributed with a "you can do anything BUT SELL IT" license

Meaning, as they charge $2.00 for it, Lugaru (non HD) is in blatant copyright violation. Never mind, using the name is probably a blatant trademark violation.

I think a lot of games (especially indie type titles) could benefit from going open source, while keeping tight hold on their assets. Sell the textures, models, and sounds, and give the source away. If someone wants to "steal" your game, they're going to have to build the rest themselves from scratch. It would help both in keeping tiny titles like that away from falling into the abandonware pit (especially if it's incompatible with modern OS's), and helping aspiring game devs in understanding how game logic works.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (1)

munitor (1632747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090184)

Props for trying to educate trolls. If they are retarded, then props for trying to educate the uninformed. Tough work, though.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (2)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090228)

Also note that the GPL isn't compatible with the iOS store due to restrictions placed on what the user can do with the software (can't copy the binaries and send to a friend). Additionally iCoder hasn't posted/distributed/responded to requests for the code.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090438)

When you sync your phone, iPod, iPad, etc. the binary is cached on your hard drive. In theory you can copy that binary and redistribute it. It just isn't readily apparent to people.

And while Apple eventually kicked out VLC over the whole GPL debate, they have kept in apps like Wesnoth, which is also under a GPL license.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090498)

That iOS store restrictions do not make it incompatible with GPL. It merely limits the avenues to which you can use to obtain the source code.

What iCoder is doing (or not doing in this case) seems incompatible with GPL.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (0)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090392)

Meaning, as they charge $2.00 for it, Lugaru (non HD) is in blatant copyright violation. Never mind, using the name is probably a blatant trademark violation.

Yes, they're in a blatant copyright violation.
Yes, they're in a blatant trademark violation.

However releasing all your game code *and* assets and being surprised someone takes a shot at abusing the license? That's a blatant lack or foresight.

Neither side in this story gets my sympathy.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090536)

Neither side in this story gets my sympathy.

Meaning that the person who sells an illegal version of the game, undercutting the business of the actual developers, and the person who gave away [most but not all] of his work for free so that others might learn from it and do cool things, are both equally evil/good? How fair-minded of you.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090546)

The problem with this is, once people have the code, stealing the assets is easier. Sure without the source you can make 1:1 copies of the assets, but you cannot remove the 'origin' then. And you cannot steal single assets then.

I'm currently in the process of building a freeware game with someone. The game will be free, but we'll also be selling a high quality soundtrack (with bonus tracks) from the game. If people could rip the music from the game the selling of the soundtrack will be a lot tougher. I'm porting the game to a lot of different platforms myself, so I see no benefit in going open source.

Re:Did Slashdot go retarded today? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090676)

Strictly speaking, the models and thing necessary to run an app are usually included with the license for the source. In this case though the developers opted not to do that, which is their right. And personally, I think that it's a reasonable compromise given that the main interest people had was in the ability to use the engine, patch bugs in the future and port the game to other platforms.

I don't see either one (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090116)

Both games seem to have been taken down from the App Store.

Re:I don't see either one (1)

zorg50 (581726) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090290)

I assume you're looking at the iPhone App Store, as they're still in the Mac one.

Damned you Apple! (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090118)

This obviously has to do with Apple's monopolistic practices, Steve Jobs being a control freak, a horrible walled garden, non-user replaceable batteries, lack of ten USB ports on apple products, blah blah blah. This would have all been taken care of if they had published for Android instead!!

  I thought I'd post just in case the Haters were taking a nap.

Complain to the FBI (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090136)

They'll confiscate Apple.com and put an end to this nonsense.

This may require a lawyer (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090160)

I'm not sure you CAN release code under the GPL2 while at the same time using trademark and copyright-on-abstract-concepts (i.e. characters) to effectively prohibit the distribution of the GPL'd code itself.

Now, if this game has the GPL code in the executable game-engine and the game elements in a separate, proprietary data file, then the author has a good case for piracy of the data file and its elements. The pirate should write up his own game data file using his own characters and upload it under a different title. Just be sure to make the source for the GPL'd elements available as required by the license.

Interesting GPl issue (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090168)

If the license is the GPL; does the right to redistribute contain an implicit license to use any trademarked or copyrighted names and art, etc? It would seem that a blanket redistribution clause would imply you have the right to use such items but have no right to independently use them; such as in advertising or screen shoots on a web page. So simply recompiling and selling the game would be OK but creating a derivative work would not; except that allowing modifications to the code might open the door to that.

Open Source code vs. Proprietary Assets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090174)

Here is my simple ethical understanding of this situation, and my ethical understanding of similar understandings:

A game is released on the iDevice app store by someone. The game features both the code of another game whose code was open sourced by the GPL. The assets of that game were also copied. Nothing new or different was added to the content of the open sourced game, making it a 1:1 copy/port of the original work. If this someone does not have the rights to the assets, they should be found to be infringing copyright. This was the case with the iDevice app store game "The blocks cometh" as well as Lugaru in the above story.

A game is released on the iDevice app store by someone. The source code of another game whose code is open sourced was used. It also used new levels, models, textures, sounds, and even some adjustments to the game code was made to make the game quite different both in look and gameplay from the game the source code originally came from. This is not an act of piracy or infringement and is a genuine creative effort. This is acceptable and encouraged. The only caveat is that this source code must also be made open source as well (am I mistaken on this point?). I sadly lack examples, but I believe that this is the design of the GPL.

Am I mistaken at all on these ideas?

And the pirated app is from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090226)

I'm guess the pirated app is being sold by a Chinese company no doubt?

Stop saying "price point"! (1)

whatthef*ck (215929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090238)

FFS, just say "price". That's what you're talking about. That's all you need to say.

Re:Stop saying "price point"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090296)

Agreed. And in before the tards show up to try to claim it's a legitimate term. It's not. It's a price. When you use "Price Point" you just sound like an idiot marketer using buzzwords.

Re:Stop saying "price point"! (0)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090414)

Now with 0% calories!

Re:Stop saying "price point"! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090558)

You're incorrect. A price is a pure scalar; any price is as much of a price as any other. $.03, $1.95, $43.00 are all equally prices, and all different. Price points are positions in the price spectrum. $0.99 is price point, and it is a price point shared with $0.95. $0.65 is less of a price point, or you could say it was a less relevant price point.

Granted, some people use the terms incorrectly, saying price point when they should be saying price. Price point is only really relevant when talking about multiple prices or multiple products.

As long as they don't violate Apple's copyrights (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090244)

Let's face it. Apple only cares about Apple. If the game did something that Apple didn't like, or used a likeness of Steve Jobs, or the Apple logo, that app would have been off of the app store so fast that photons would say "wow, what was that?"

Apple doesn't care about anything else. They are not champions of what is right or just.

There is only one thing to do in this situation, (1)

rent (66355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090250)

it's time to use the solar Death Ray.

Apple doesn't allow GPL code anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090272)

From a discussion on the matter.

Actually, i think that Wolfire would have considerably more success if they pointed out that iCoder's version of Lugaru was distributed via GPL (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source ), and as a result iCoder's app is incompatible with App Store licensing requirements.

I initially thought this would be a problem for Wolfire too, but since it's their IP they can relicense it (well, dual-license) for distribution through the AppStore however they wish, dodging the sorts of conflicts that VLC had (over which it was rejected from the iOS app store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 ).

Source: http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=2173290

Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090310)

Now that I have your attention, let me explain that Apple (or any other retailer for that matter) can't be held responsible for unknowingly selling pirated software. With all the Apps that is in their inventory, you can't expect Apple to know intimate details for each and every one (eg. Didn't I see a similar game somewhere else?). Anyway now that the original authors have notified Apple, it's Apple responsibility to pull the questionable works off of their market until the matter is resolved.

Re:Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090476)

You're exactly right. This is why we have DMCA safe harbor protections. The game publisher in question should not have sent a simple "email" to Apple. File a proper DMCA complaint and the app comes down immediately, no questions asked. If it doesn't, then (and only then) you have a suit against Apple.

Re:Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090506)

Not answering to the pleas of the authors is also not apple's responsbility....

Apple is still getting a share of the "pirate game" why should they stop it then?

Except Apple careful selects which Apps are good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090570)

So, Apple touts their App Store as a place where you can get software without the problems regular vendors suffer, by means of their careful screening process.

I wonder how careful that screening process actually is if it fails to detect basic theft.

How long then until someone smuggles the first demonstration virus it into the App Store in order to show just how well that screening process actually works?

Re:Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090624)

Isn't this part of their whole process? Validating and approving apps for distribution via their store? What's the point to holding a two week review on an app before accepting it if they're not going to bother to do a review?

Re:Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090694)

I agree. The issue is whether or not they're responding in a timely manner to the request.

DMCA Takedown? (2)

moofbong (188566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090336)

As much as everybody hates DMCA takedown notices around here, it seems like that would be the proper avenue for this sort of thing. It's certainly not an abuse of the DMCA in this case. Apple would likely respond relatively quickly so they don't lose their safe harbor.

"Assets" == "Intellectual Property" (2, Insightful)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090340)

Every story I see on Slashdot about copyright, so-called file sharing, the .*AA, etc. people complain that Intellectual Property (IP) is not real property and no one is losing anything when IP rights and copyrights are violated. But, the "assets" everyone is talking about are IP. If it is not wrong to redistribute the IP of others, why is this wrong?

Really, this just highlights the hypocrisy of so many Slashdotters and FLOSS supporters of "file sharing".

Re:"Assets" == "Intellectual Property" (2)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090430)

Making copies of data for personal use is slightly different to claiming you created it and selling it on for profit
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>