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

[Alfredo C. <caj...@gm...>]

El dom, 9 jul 2023 a la(s) 08:32, Thomas Orgis (tho...@or...)
escribió:

> 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.
>
Yeah, thought about expanding about the platform specific stuff just a bit
more:

On Android, the game itself is a shared library (basic ELF file, with .so
extension) which gets loaded by Java code, and then that code calls a
native function that works like main, which kinda just takes control from
there on and just goes back to Java to interface with eg. input and etc.
This library, the one with all the game specific code, has mpg123
statically linked into it.

This is pretty much the standard way to load native code on Android.
The developers of the port clearly already have dealt with using other
shared libraries, as they already use a separate shared library that
takes care of cloud saves.

One amusing fact: on some versions, they even ship a "OpenAL64.so"
file, but it doesn't get used because openal-soft was also statically linked
inside the main shared library. openal-soft is also an LGPL program! I'll
send a similar email later to the developers of openal-soft too.

iOS on the other hand is just a Mach-O executable. I don't know about
the specifics of loading shared libraries on Apple, but I trust Apple to
make it complicated somehow :P

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 …
>
Yeah, I heard about that case too, that case specifically had me thinking
about that.


> I'm not against them making money, even with my code (among others') as
> part of that … but they should play by the rules.
>
I'm glad to hear that you don't feel too let down by it as long as it's by
the
rules.

… 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.


Well, Rockstar/Take-Two likes to put a lot of legal speak on their EULA
for just being able to play the game. Stuff about not being allowed to
"decompile" the game (even though, at this point, with all the leftover
logging, you can just prove mpg123 by opening the library/executable on
a text editor and searching for mpg123!), and a bunch of legalese and
EULA stuff that may or may not be relevant to that. That, of course,
can also be a bunch of words that have the potential of not meaning
anything depending on your jurisdiction.

This also leads me to my other point:

I've verified that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for the PS3 also contains
mpg123 on it! Which means you should be able to grab a copy of it at any
time by simply getting the PS3 disk from ebay or etc. The other 2 games
(GTA 3 and GTA Vice City) weren't ported to consoles though (they might
be present on those, but they are emulated from their original PS2
versions).

This is of particular concern, since console APIs are under various NDAs
and whatnot. Usually LGPL/GPL compliance is thought impossible for
said platforms, since it would mean releasing sources or object files
related
to NDA-riddles sources/binaries. This is a very big blunder from everyone
involved in the process of making those versions!

In any case, in case it's needed at any point in time, I do have a Google
Play account with the games which I could provide if it's ever needed,
but I do strongly recommend that you get a hold of the games if possible.
Google Play Store and iOS is the most accessible version for the time
being, as well as PS3 physical media which is available for as long as
the disks work. The "Windows 8" UWP version was taken down long
ago at this point.

I'll have to ponder what to do. Any way forward probably would be
> through the SFC or similar.
>
Right, that sounds good. In any case:

I'm a user that's highly interested in either having access to the source
of the program which was linked against LGPL, or the necessary object files
to relink it with another version of mpg123. While it's possible that they
could correct the mobile versions, the files of the older versions were
already distributed, and PS3 in particular is impossible to correct because
Sony doesn't let you push updates anymore AFAIK, so I want to use the LGPL
rights in these versions.

I want to contact Rockstar and request them to deliver either of these, in
compliance with the LGPL license they have to comply with due to their use
of this LGPL library. I just wanted to make sure that if I did so, and they
just pulled the rug from under users wanting to use their LGPL rights by
taking digital versions down, the copyright holder of mpg123 also had the
game distributed to them (or at least have the opportunity of having the
game distributed even after a take down, which at this point should be
doable because of PS3 physical media), in case there's a breach of the
license, so that they may act upon it if they ever wanted to.

I just wanted to check with you, in case you are interested in acquiring
copies now or later in the future (at this point, they can take down the
digital versions, but the PS3 discs are physical media, they can't take
that away), and wanted to know if you were gonna acquire the games on
Google Play Store or acquire the PS3 disc now, or if you preferred to do
such a thing later and wouldn't mind users trying to use their LGPL users
now. In a perfect world I shouldn't be asking for such a thing, but given
the bad faith legal activity of Take-Two in recent times, I just want to be
extra sure.

Though, I think I'll just go ahead anyway, because the PS3 disc is there
forever (I had written the previous paragraphs before making the PS3
discovery...).
I'll let you know how it goes.

I wasn't quick enough moderating it. But I got a copy in my inbox.
>
Yeah, I did saw, but I just kinda wanted to make it less uncomplicated by
just making it a smaller email haha.

Anyways, I do hope the publisher does comply with LGPL by abiding to the
terms of it and doing what they're supposed to do with the current
versions, which is either source or object files for linking.
Thank you again for taking the time to reply.

Regards,
C.

El dom, 9 jul 2023 a la(s) 08:32, Thomas Orgis (tho...@or...)
escribió:

> 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.
>
>