How open means open? Problems I see ...

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 07 Mar 2004 22:53

Heh, I'm not familiar with UK law.

I vote for "ask Chris" and hope that Chris is a nice guy who understands our situation

I agree - that would solve all questions.

Lilman424 · Post by **Lilman424** » 08 Mar 2004 02:07

Saskia wrote:It's rewritten and uses parts of the original

from what I understand, more like It's the original and and uses parts that are rewritten.....

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 08 Mar 2004 02:12

The way I see it, Chris is going to take one of two stances:

1. It's great that you're keeping this alive.

2. You don't think I did it well enough the first time? Hmph.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 02:37

CobraA1 wrote:Keep going with our fingers crossed, hoping Chris Sawyer won't mind.

Actually, Chris Sawyer's views are legally irrelevant because he owns no rights in TTD. He wrote it under contract to Microprose. The questions are, a.) who owns it and b.) do they care, both of which I personally researched, and the answer is, everybody we can think of that might possibly own it denies that they do, except Atari, and they explicitly stated that the game was so old it wasn't worth their while to do the research to find out if it actually was theirs or not. Interpret that as you will.

But as a practical matter, the worst that can happen with a derivative work like this (as opposed to pure piracy, which this isn't), is that whoever owns the original work can demand 1/2 the revenues of the derivative work. Which we will gladly pay to them. If they could prove damages that might be relevant, but since the Patch and all its ancillary pieces came into being after TTD was discontinued and not offered for sale, there cannot be any damages.

Phooey, I've argued this I don't know how many times, and the coders are tired of the argument. If you really care you can do a search on these forums and read all the various discussions. None of us are lawyers anyway.

Roman · Post by **Roman** » 08 Mar 2004 06:05

That's why I don't see any problem, although OpenTTD might break copyright law in some case. But really nobody cares!

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 08 Mar 2004 11:17

Even if there is currently no problem, Atari can change their mind if they want to create a similar Game. (Thats not the first time companys change their mind in the opposite direction)

Caldera / SCO had a Linux distri, the currently problem you know.
I don't think Linux has a copyright problem but OpenTTD in is current state...

If we get a offical Statement that they make TTD open source or allow to use derived code from it. No Problem... (I don't think they have the source but they could allow to use derived work)

Ohh, I have seen last year TT in a store. There is no "Abandoneware" legally.

DominionSpy · Post by **DominionSpy** » 08 Mar 2004 12:09

eis_os wrote:Ohh, I have seen last year TT in a store. There is no "Abandoneware" legally.

I know places you can still get TTD around here (in some major shops) as a budget game.

Saskia · Post by **Saskia** » 08 Mar 2004 12:41

Lilman424 wrote:
Saskia wrote:It's rewritten and uses parts of the original
from what I understand, more like It's the original and and uses parts that are rewritten.....

OK, I meant: It's rewritten (in C), and uses parts (the datafiles) of the original

Details:
1. Ludde has taken the disassembled code (disassembling is illegal) and rewritten it in C, with the original code in mind, as a kind of guide what to do (that's legal). But at least it doesn't use any of the orignal code, so you can forget about the problem of disassembling

2. It isn't forbidden to use orignal datafiles. That often happens in open source projects.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 08 Mar 2004 14:07

Hmm, intressting aspect. But I have to say that as far as I know that parts are exactly the same as in original TTD, the difference is only the programming language (aka asm -> c conversation).

Dakkus · Post by **Dakkus** » 08 Mar 2004 14:18

Another example of doing things this way is Samba, a linux client for SMB (SMB is the Windows file sharing protocol you use through "Network Neighborhood"). They've made Samba by reverse-engineering the MS-made SMB code and then checking what it does and then reimplemented everything.

It's not illegal. Samba is currently a very popular program.
So, I'd say this OTTD thingie shouldn't be illegal, either. (Of course this applies only if _no_ code has been directly copypasted from the reverse-engineered source. And I'd understand there's no such copypasted code in OTTD and even if there is, it can be removed).

BTW, for those who don't know: Reverse engineering is taking a normal executable file (the ones with .exe after them in windows/dos) and turning it back into source code. (Source code is what the coder writes. It's then compiled into a form computers can understand, but humans don't. Computers can't understand source code.)
Reverse engineering never creates as clear code as the original source code has been. That's because the computer doesn't need all of the info in the file a human needs to write the code.

Bjarni · Post by **Bjarni** » 08 Mar 2004 15:00

Actually, Chris Sawyer's views are legally irrelevant because he owns no rights in TTD. He wrote it under contract to Microprose. The questions are, a.) who owns it and b.) do they care, both of which I personally researched, and the answer is, everybody we can think of that might possibly own it denies that they do, except Atari, and they explicitly stated that the game was so old it wasn't worth their while to do the research to find out if it actually was theirs or not. Interpret that as you will.

I know places you can still get TTD around here (in some major shops) as a budget game.

Nobody knows who owns it, and yet they still sell it

Patchman · Post by **Patchman** » 08 Mar 2004 15:03

Dakkus wrote:Another example of doing things this way is Samba, a linux client for SMB (SMB is the Windows file sharing protocol you use through "Network Neighborhood"). They've made Samba by reverse-engineering the MS-made SMB code and then checking what it does and then reimplemented everything.

That's different. They're reverse engineered the protocol. They haven't taken MS's code and rewritten it in a different language. They wrote their own code.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 16:50

eis_os wrote:Even if there is currently no problem, Atari can change their mind if they want to create a similar Game. (Thats not the first time companys change their mind in the opposite direction)

Caldera / SCO had a Linux distri, the currently problem you know.
I don't think Linux has a copyright problem but OpenTTD in is current state....

Key words here. A very good goal would be to get OpenTTD OUT of its current state ASAP.

eis_os wrote:If we get a offical Statement that they make TTD open source or allow to use derived code from it. No Problem... (I don't think they have the source but they could allow to use derived work)

Yeah, and if I were Bill Gates I'd just buy it. Keep on wishing...

eis_os wrote:Ohh, I have seen last year TT in a store. There is no "Abandoneware" legally.

Not totally true. Many of the penalties a court would assess are based on lost profits - like, RIAA bases their lawsuits against file downloaders on their assumption that if the people hadn't downloaded the files, they would have paid $15 for the CD. But you can't pay for TTD because it isn't for sale anywhere. And TT is not TTD, they are different games.

If you found TTD for sale somewhere, that might be relevant. But the fact that you saw it in a store doesn't mean it's being distributed. It means someone ordered a ton of them 5 years ago, and a crate of them got lost in the back of the warehouse and only just found again, and they figured they might as well get something for it. I bet they say Microprose on them, and we know for a fact there's no such company anymore.

Also, offering for free something for a commercial game, where you say clearly "You need to own the game!" (which the Patch does) is in something of a legal gray area, but it's certainly defensible. This doesn't apply to OpenTTD at the moment.

Prof. Frink · Post by **Prof. Frink** » 08 Mar 2004 16:58

krtaylor wrote:Also, offering for free something for a commercial game, where you say clearly "You need to own the game!" (which the Patch does) is in something of a legal gray area, but it's certainly defensible. This doesn't apply to OpenTTD at the moment.

What about the GRFs and Sample.cat? You need the game to get those files...

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 17:09

Actually I think the most recent version has those included in it, which would technically be illegal. But like I say, it's not a completely fireproof defense. We would be much better off just replacing the graphics and sound (and renaming it, of course). Then if someone wants to use the original TTD graphics as an alternate environment (OpenTTD will support alternate environments, of course), they can do that and we can't stop them, nor are we responsible for their doing so; but we aren't encouraging it by making that the only way to use OpenTTD at all.

Oracle · Post by **Oracle** » 08 Mar 2004 17:52

This is my input to this discussion (although it will be US based): http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1 ... #secVI.D.2.

Interestingly (from http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk ... titles.htm; UK based):

Can names and titles be protected by copyright?
No. There is no copyright in a name, title, slogan or phrase. But these may be eligible for registration as a trade mark. However, logos may be protected under copyright as artistic works and many trade marks may therefore also be copyright works.

So the name would seem to be OK actually, at least in the UK.

But (from the same government web site):

Computer programs are protected on the same basis as literary works.
Conversion of a program into or between computer languages and codes corresponds to "adapting" a work. Storing any work in a computer amounts to "copying" the work. Also, running a computer program or displaying work on a VDU will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner.

So I would guess that OpenTTD is illegal in both the UK and US if Ludde has just directly translated a substantial part of the TTD disassembly.

Darkvater · Post by **Darkvater** » 08 Mar 2004 17:59

As far as I can see OpenTTD has no assembly code in it. As we know C. Sawyer wrote TTD in assembly. So Ludde didn't copy any code from TTD, ust looked at it very carefully and implemented it himself in C.

Now, if only the patch would work on OTTD

I see only 1 problem (aside from a possible, argueable copyright bit): pure TTDPatch developers that have put so much work into assembly programming the patches, may be out of work soon or will have to switch to a higher language

...at least, if we agree on the legality of OTTD

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 18:11

Let me put it this way:

The more work we put into developing OpenTTD in the direction WE want the game to be, which would include new graphics, all the Patch stuff, all the impossible Patch stuff, and doubtless more beside, then the more unequivocally legal it will be.

So... get started, C coders!

DominionSpy · Post by **DominionSpy** » 08 Mar 2004 18:13

Darkvater wrote:As far as I can see OpenTTD has no assembly code in it. As we know C. Sawyer wrote TTD in assembly. So Ludde didn't copy any code from TTD, ust looked at it very carefully and implemented it himself in C.

Yes, but think about what Oracle said.
If you took a book written in English and "looked at it very carefully" and re-wrote (or "implemented") it in German - that would be illegal, therefore so is this (if that was how it was done).

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 08 Mar 2004 18:17

I don't come to the conclusion it's legal, sorry.

a) You can buy TTD in some countries.
b) As far as I know the code that was posted looks very similar to TTD, to similar as it can be ok.

c) even if you wouldn't use code derived via disassembling it can be a copyright problem (not at all countries) because it's a true clone.

To repeat it again, It's a great work but I simple can't contribute to such a app if I can say to >95% it can be legal.

If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.
For me personally the risk to work on is simple to big.

To get to the point:
If I would get a law problem would you help? No.
The most people who cry aren't there if they are needed...

Conclusion, big risk, no fun

Transport Tycoon Forums

How open means open? Problems I see ...

Who is online