Would a FOSS (free and open source) game engine replacement be in any way illegal (in EU and USA)?
The code would be written from scratch and would replace almost every functionality of the original engine. It would require the original game assets to run, but none of them would be distributed with the engine. Only the new code would be distributed. I think OpenTTD does something similar.
I've searched the forum, but couldn't find a similar case (with an answer).
Thanks in advance.
[Edited by - sir_wojciech on September 17, 2010 12:30:08 PM]
FOSS Game Engine Replacement Legality
I am not a lawyer, but that's how FIFE (originally a Fallout 1 & 2 engine, IIRC) started, I guess as long as you do not use the original code you're OK, reverse engineering being sort of a gray area there.
ScummVM is another example of such an opensource engine. Of course, none of these examples actually prove the legality of such projects.
Since you would reverse engineer any code and not distribute any original game assets, copyright might not be a problem. Other things such things as patents conceivably could be though. E.g. if the any of the data used in the game needs to be decoded by algorithms that are patented, you would [at least] need to acquire the rights to those in order to be able to legally create an engine for that game.
And of course, IANAL.
Since you would reverse engineer any code and not distribute any original game assets, copyright might not be a problem. Other things such things as patents conceivably could be though. E.g. if the any of the data used in the game needs to be decoded by algorithms that are patented, you would [at least] need to acquire the rights to those in order to be able to legally create an engine for that game.
And of course, IANAL.
Quote:Original post by sir_wojciech
Would a FOSS (free and open source) game engine replacement be in any way illegal (in EU and USA)?
...
I've searched the forum, but couldn't find a similar case (with an answer).
It would be more of a modification, than a clone I guess.
Legality has little do do with it.
Before legality is determined, it must go through the courts.
In other words, you could be sued over it and would need to fight through the legal system before getting the satisfaction of being right. Their case would be protection of IP; you would need an affirmative defense to say that you did it but you believe it was legal. That means you can't recover your legal costs.
Can you afford a lawsuit that may take several months?
If you cannot afford a lawsuit, then discuss it with a lawyer and understand the risks and potential costs.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, don't do it.
If you don't use their code/assets in your project then you're not infringing their IP.
You can make use of their assets locally (assuming you have legal copies of them), but obvioulsy you can't distribute these assets - they'd have to be kept seperate from your project. You'll have to distribute your engine in a non-working state, and let people hook it up to assets themselves.
As for reverse engineering, it may be prohibited by the EULA of the original game -- if so, you'll be in breach of the EULA by making your project and may be pursued in a civil court. You could do the project without accepting the EULA, but then you'd have to have an unlicensed copy of the game, meaning you'd now be breaching IP by possessing the original.
In some countries, reverse engineering may also be a criminal matter, so look into that.
You can make use of their assets locally (assuming you have legal copies of them), but obvioulsy you can't distribute these assets - they'd have to be kept seperate from your project. You'll have to distribute your engine in a non-working state, and let people hook it up to assets themselves.
As for reverse engineering, it may be prohibited by the EULA of the original game -- if so, you'll be in breach of the EULA by making your project and may be pursued in a civil court. You could do the project without accepting the EULA, but then you'd have to have an unlicensed copy of the game, meaning you'd now be breaching IP by possessing the original.
In some countries, reverse engineering may also be a criminal matter, so look into that.
Quote:Original post by frobBefore the legality of your post is determined, it must go through the courts. In other words, you could be sued over this post you just made and would need to fight through the legal system before getting the satisfaction of being right. Can you afford a lawsuit that may take several months? If you cannot afford a lawsuit, then discuss any future posts with a lawyer and understand the risks and potential costs. If you cannot afford a lawyer, don't post.
...
Quote:Original post by Hodgman
Before the legality of your post is determined, it must go through the courts....
What exactly are you trying to say Hodgeman? Are you suggesting that the idea of an IP owner taking action is as unlikely/silly as someone taking action over a forum post?
Unless you were to post a message that was clearly targeting a company/person and was defamatory the chance of anyone taking any action for a forum post are close to zero. The same can not be said of the use of someone else's IP, especially in regard to games, because of the often commercial nature of the IP. Many companies actively seek to protect their IP and there have been many cases of companies taking action over what they perceive as the infringement of their IP rights.
That action almost certainly wont start with legal action. Most likely it would be a Cease and Desist letter. However ignoring such a letter isn't an option (that may well lead on to legal action being taken) and responding/mounting a defense will require hiring an expensive IP lawyer.
[Edited by - Obscure on September 17, 2010 7:05:43 PM]
Author
Thank you for your posts.
It's a hard case, but could this engine go under "interoperability" with the original game/engine/assets (in some sense):
Source:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/businesses/intellectual_property/mi0016_en.htm
Interesting quote from the source:
Thanks in advance.
[Edited by - sir_wojciech on September 17, 2010 12:24:06 PM]
It's a hard case, but could this engine go under "interoperability" with the original game/engine/assets (in some sense):
Source:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/businesses/intellectual_property/mi0016_en.htm
Interesting quote from the source:
Quote:
Decompilation
The authorisation of the rightholder is not required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
- those acts are performed by the licensee or another person having a right to use a copy of a program;
- the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available;
- those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.
Thanks in advance.
[Edited by - sir_wojciech on September 17, 2010 12:24:06 PM]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Takes a bit of extra effort though and still doesn't protect you from lawsuits, it just increases your chances of winning in court. (There still is no guarantee that you'll win since it is a gray area and the specification might infringe aswell)
Takes a bit of extra effort though and still doesn't protect you from lawsuits, it just increases your chances of winning in court. (There still is no guarantee that you'll win since it is a gray area and the specification might infringe aswell)
Author
I guess some answers to this problem can be found in:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:01:EN:HTML
but it all depends on interpretation of the law/directive/paragraphs written there.
Articles 4, 5 and 6 are the most interesting I think (it's a bit long, sorry):
Would this situation fall under "error correction" (i.e. porting the game engine to GNU/Linux), interoperability or maybe something else?
Thanks in advance.
[Edited by - sir_wojciech on September 17, 2010 12:59:20 PM]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:01:EN:HTML
but it all depends on interpretation of the law/directive/paragraphs written there.
Articles 4, 5 and 6 are the most interesting I think (it's a bit long, sorry):
Quote:
Article 4
Restricted acts
1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6, the exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2 shall include the right to do or to authorise:
(a) the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole; in so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder;
(b) the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof, without prejudice to the rights of the person who alters the program;
(c) any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof.
2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.
Article 5
Exceptions to the restricted acts
1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
2. The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use.
3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
Article 6
Decompilation
1. The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and
(c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application:
(a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program;
(b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or
(c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.
3. In accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the provisions of this Article may not be interpreted in such a way as to allow its application to be used in a manner which unreasonably prejudices the rightholder's legitimate interests or conflicts with a normal exploitation of the computer program.
Would this situation fall under "error correction" (i.e. porting the game engine to GNU/Linux), interoperability or maybe something else?
Thanks in advance.
[Edited by - sir_wojciech on September 17, 2010 12:59:20 PM]
Quote:Original post by frob
Before legality is determined, it must go through the courts.
Its pretty unlikely that it will go directly to court. More likely is that they would get a Cease and Desist letter and then get taken to court if they ignore it. This is what happens to the majority of fan and emulation projects. The likeliest risk is that they'd have to drop all the work you've done on their project.
More on-topic, the FreeCraft project sought to re-implement the Warcraft II engine and got the notice of Blizzard. They're still around, because Blizzard centered their legal complaint around the "-craft" suffix. They avoided issues by changing their name to Stratagus. Make of that what you will.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
