Question to developers and contributors

[Gimi]

Code: Select all

The GPL version 3 does not prohibit selling the software. It would, however, prohibit the creation of a free (gratis) iPhone version of Oolite. This strikes me as the exact opposite of helpful in this situation (and I find the anti-Tivoization clause objectionable as it’s yet another restriction on “free” software developer freedom for ideological reasons).

Ok, GPL 3 will not have the desired effect, and will have undesirable side effects. Any other way of preventing someone from making a port and selling it.
I would be really annoyed if Oolite was stopped, and I am convinced that It would be if someone tried to sell it.

[Cmdr James]

If there is an intention to prevent people from selling a software product, then GPL is certainly a poor choice.

There is nothing preventing any of us, or someone else, from cutting a CD with oolite on and selling it (although it will still be subject to the same license). Perfectly legal. In fact this is how, last time I looked, most Linux CDs were exchanged.

I think were we stand, is that it makes little sense to try and create a port to sell, for a number of reasons:

* It is already free, and it is challenging to get a non-trivial amount of money for something which is already seen as free (Bottled water companies do manage!).
* It will be "infected" with GPL
* This community is generally against it, so help or support is likely to be limited


So I think the solution to Gimi's question about how we prevent it, is mostly, that we just keep doing what we are doing, and request that no-one screws it for us.

It may also be that Giles (or whoever else owns it) may be able to leverage copyrights (perhaps ownership of the name oolite?) to limit commercialisation.

A separate point though, is that oolite is pretty much an unsanctioned copy/derivative of a product (elite). I am not completely comfortable with the morality of trying to prevent someone from using the code to create an unsanctioned derivative -- especially if this is explicitly allowed in the current license. Hey, no stealing the IPR that I stole from someone else! Doesnt quite fit easily with me. Furthermore, oolite trying to fight a legal battle over the rights will likely draw the same kind of attention to the underlying rights that we are discussing how to prevent, so I think its all a non-starter.

[Gimi]

I agree that any sort of legal battle, or legal attention at all, would most likely spell disaster. If anything was to be done, it would have to be to prevent that kind of attention before it happens. I also see that imposing ones own licence is also potentially a problem as you would be claiming rights that may or may not be yours to claim.

It would have to be a commonly accepted freeware or open source licence that prevented the code being used for commercial gain.
I think the source needs to be open as that provides transparency. So if that is best done under GPL 2 and the other licences used by Oolite then no need to fix what is not broken.

Interesting discussion though. Think I have to have a closer look at GPL 2 and GPL 3 just because I'm curious.

[JensAyton]

It may also be that Giles (or whoever else owns it) may be able to leverage copyrights (perhaps ownership of the name oolite?) to limit commercialisation.

By releasing (some versions of) Oolite’s source code under the GPL, we have granted a non-exclusive irrevocable license to anyone who wishes to use (those versions of) the code in any way that conforms to the GPL. (It says so right there, in the GPL.) The entire point is that Giles can’t leverage copyright to stop anyone from using it under the GPL. That’s what it’s for.

Giles could claim Oolite as a trademark, but that would require him to actively defend the trademark (which means going to court, which costs money), and unregistered trademarks are pretty weak. Besides, that wouldn’t stop anyone from redistributing under another name.

[Cmdr James]

Sorry, my mistake, I did mean trademark. The advantage of preventing use of the name, could be that it would show that any commercial product is not "endorsed" by the oolite project, and may reduce any fallout from action taken over the port.

However, as I said, and I think Ahruman is also saying, this is a non-starter. If someone wants to copy, or sell, or whatever, oolite is set up more or less specifically, and intentionally to allow it.

[Cmdr Wyvern]

Note that it was after someone started selling a port of Elite TNK, that Braben intervened. And it is sort of understandable that he feels he has to intervene when someone earns money of his intellectual property. So I would suggest making sure that the licence specifically forbids it.

Next thing is that Braben holds 50% of the rights to Elite. Don't know who holds the other half, don't think it is Bell any more. So attention could be drawn form other directions.

TNK and it's spinoff ports were reverse-engineered from one of the Elite ports; CJ Pinder admitted to it on the TNK website while it was up. Braben could have raised objections to TNK at any time based on that alone.

Oolite does contain ideas from Elite, most are reproduced exactly or almost exactly in gameplay. But it's coded totally from scratch, as opposed to being a reverse-engineering project.
How much ammo that gives Braben's lawyers in an intellectual-property war, well I really can't say. Perhaps not as much as it gave them concerning TNK and Pinder, but lawyers are evil and conniving beings not to be trusted at any time.

[Gimi]

TNK and it's spinoff ports were reverse-engineered from one of the Elite ports; CJ Pinder admitted to it on the TNK website while it was up. Braben could have raised objections to TNK at any time based on that alone.

I was aware of this, but I don't think Braben wanted to get rid of TNK or wants to get rid of Oolite. However he will if somebody starts making money on these projects. Remember that Frontier has Elite IV in development, and they probably have an interest in keeping Elite and its variants in focus. Some Russian programmers have reverse engineered FFE and made a high-res version with a new graphics engine, you have JJFFE and lots of other elite-related projects. All have in common that they are fan based and non-commercial.

Oolite does contain ideas from Elite, most are reproduced exactly or almost exactly in gameplay. But it's coded totally from scratch, as opposed to being a reverse-engineering project.
How much ammo that gives Braben's lawyers in an intellectual-property war, well I really can't say. Perhaps not as much as it gave them concerning TNK and Pinder, but lawyers are evil and conniving beings not to be trusted at any time.

As I said, I don't think he wants to, but if he found it necessary, I don't think Oolite would survive. Basically, if you make an exact copy of something and sell it, even under another name, I would say that is in a rather gray zone.

[wackyman465]

If he were to make a serious effort at Elite 4, he might try to shut us down...

[Gimi]

If he were to make a serious effort at Elite 4, he might try to shut us down...

Again, don't think so. I suspect that Elite IV will be far from Oolite, and I don't think he considers Oolite competition. First of all I would suspect that leaving your ship and going walk about will be a big thing in Elite IV, as will some sort of networked play. ( I know that he Braben has indicated that initially, it will be one player and no network play, but that also indicates that there might be more than one version.) Anyway, this is all academic. I will enjoy Oolite, and then one day maybe Elite IV will be revealed. (NOT holding my breath though)

[Captain Hesperus]

If he were to make a serious effort at Elite 4, he might try to shut us down...

Where's the benefit in that? He'd have to go through the legal rigmarole of issuing letters from his solicitors, citing the reasons for wanting the Oolite project ended. Gile's source code is entirely original, there is no reverse-engineering from Elite or any of it's variants, the only similarities are the HUD, ship designs and planet names. Should a Desist order be placed, it would be a simple matter to replace the ships, HUD and planet names with something else. The best Mr. Braben would achieve would be bad publicity for himself, Frontier and Elite IV.

Captain Hesperus

[wackyman465]

If he tries to squish us, we'll just have to heavily advertise Infinity... practically the same thing, but multiplayer.

[JensAyton]

Gile's source code is entirely original, there is no reverse-engineering from Elite or any of it's variants,

You sure? I’m not familiar with the details of the early history of Oolite, but the mechanisms for setting up the galaxy, system names and planet descriptions look pretty reverse-engineered to me. That doesn’t necessarily make it a copyright infringement; there may be one or more clean room implementations along the way.

[wackyman465]

Is there an issue if you were to have this be a free app, as iOolite or something, rather than paid, or is this not something you're doing for free?

[KZ9999]

...the mechanisms for setting up the galaxy, system names and planet descriptions look pretty reverse-engineered to me. That doesn’t necessarily make it a copyright infringement; there may be one or more clean room implementations along the way.

Reverse engineering in its own right is not 'illegal', as long as the results are not used to produce a copy of the original. [see the entry on 'Clean Room Design.'] The key matter is that is that Oolite does contain the same information as Elite, planet data, ships, equipment, etc. It is also important that the source data strings used to produce all game data is taken from the original game system (That's why we start at Lave for instance.) To producing any products using this information is violating intellectual copyrights of Mr Bell & Mr Braben. Legally, any product that has a intellectual copyright that is generating income must pay a royalty to the creators regarless of the producer, unless the the creators have sold their copyright.

With a 'homage', like Oolite, which are not a commercial product, up to now the courts have only required the removal from public access on violation of intellectual copyright, ie ETNK. Should Oolite be released in any revenue generating format, then both GW and B&B must receive a percentage of the income, let alone everyone else who has contributed to the project.

Legally the only way this project could go commercial is to remove all references to Elite from the game and totally rebuild the game from the ground up. In other words, turn it into something other than Elite; which IMHO defeats the project in process.

[JensAyton]

Reverse engineering in its own right is not 'illegal', as long as the results are not used to produce a copy of the original. [see the entry on 'Clean Room Design.']

The one I just linked to? The issue is that if you recreate the code by, e.g., reading the original assembly and translating it directly, that is not a clean-room implementation; it is necessary to express what it’s doing in high-level human terms, and have it rewritten by someone not “contaminated” by the original code. I don’t know whether that has been done.

The key matter is that is that Oolite does contain the same information as Elite, planet data, ships, equipment, etc. It is also important that the source data strings used to produce all game data is taken from the original game system (That's why we start at Lave for instance.)

The real real question regarding planet data and so forth is whether the string “ABOUSEITILETSTONLONUTHNOALLEXEGEZACEBISOUSESARMAINDIREA’ERATENBERALAVETIEDORQUANTEISRION” constitutes a work or a significant portion of a work. (That’s where the planet names come from. Everything else is generated algorithmically, and the discussion above about clean-room vs. derivative applies.)

To producing any products using this information is violating intellectual copyrights of Mr Bell & Mr Braben.

As opposed to their brawny copyrights? :-)

Legally, any product that has a intellectual copyright that is generating income must pay a royalty to the creators regarless of the producer, unless the the creators have sold their copyright.

If you’re going to advise people on what is legally required, I suggest you study the relevant laws in greater detail and take care to make precise and accurate statements.

With a 'homage', like Oolite, which are not a commercial product, up to now the courts have only required the removal from public access on violation of intellectual copyright, ie ETNK.

Courts? Really?

I am not aware of any such case ever being tried by a court, anywhere. (I don’t have time to research ETNK right now, though.) Typically, such things are handled by intimidation without involving a court – no indy game developer faced with a cease and desist letter can afford to test the validity of the claims in court. This has been true on numerous occasions where the claims are blatantly false, e.g. tied entirely to abstracts like gameplay.