Re: [mpg123-devel] LGPL license violation on mobile versions of GTA San Andreas and more

[Thomas O. <tho...@or...>]

Am Sun, 9 Jul 2023 06:01:57 +0200
schrieb Alfredo Cajá <caj...@gm...>: 

> I wanted to let you know that there's ports of Grand Theft Auto games that
> are violating the LGPL license 

Damn. Why don't they just adhere to the terms? I thought they got
laywers who can read.

> It's very easy to evidentiate the usage of mpg123 on the binaries I
> verified:

Indeed.

> Considering that, I think it can be unequivocally stated that all of these
> titles are in violation of the LGPL license for multiple reasons:
> - No notice regarding LGPL code being in use anywhere in the game, stores
> or etc..
> - mpg123 source code, or instructions where to find it, nowhere to be found.
> - The GTA games were never released under LGPL, and no object code has been
> released that allows us as users to link GTA with our own version of mpg123.

That's annoying because it wouldn't be that hard to comply and still do
business with the closed-source parts. Although: In the case of an
Android/iOS app, it not so trivial for a user to replace the mpg123
build in it (compared to switching a .dll file in Windows), but it's
technically possible.

> That said, I strongly encourage developers who have copyright under mpg123
> to acquire a copy of these games, so you have the chance to enforce LGPL,
> since only the copyright owners who have received the offending software
> can complain about license violations, and not 3rd parties.

This is a serious point. There is an earlier case of this from another
popular game years ago, where a user reported the issue and I hoped
that user has time to go forward with this. My understanding is that
you as user who aquired the software have rights under LGPL and could
claim violation. But the LGPL is not law itself, so the copyright
holder has to do any litigation once users are denied their rights?

I am thinking about the recent developments with Red Hat and the
rebuilds. Technically, they don't have to make GPL/LPGL source code
available to the public, but only to the customers of the binary
software …

(Aside: I also had private discussion with a game studio exec one time
about their lawyers having detected LGPL code in their game, wanting to
negotiate a special license before release, which I am not comfortable
granting, as I am not the exclusive copyright holder … just complying
with the LGPL seems hard:-/)

> I cannot imagine what reaction you would have, but probably not a positive
> one considering these games have basically made millions while profiting
> off LGPL source code without respecting the license at all.

I'm not against them making money, even with my code (among others') as
part of that … but they should play by the rules.

> which is why I strongly suggested getting a copy
> of the games ASAP

… by which you mean do a legal purchase via Android/XBox/Windows/…
stores? Depends on your juristidiction, I suppose, if just getting hold
of the binaries some way counts.


> I encourage you to try to ask for help  […]
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
> https://sfconservancy.org/

> Please contact me in case you need more information

I'll have to ponder what to do. Any way forward probably would be
through the SFC or similar.


Alrighty then,

Thomas

PS:

> PS: My email didn't go through when I sent the screenshots as attachments,

I wasn't quick enough moderating it. But I got a copy in my inbox.