Discussion
paxys: I'm sure I'm missing some context here but what is Atari's role here exactly? Isn't OpenTTD an independent and fully legal project? What is Atari's basis for asking for a "compromise"?
Closi: Atari own all the IP and copyright.While OpenTTD is open source, it's basis is really that the original game was reverse-engineered, originally using the original assets, and then rebuilt.Also all the map data etc is owned by Atari, so you need to have a 'genuine' copy to access all the levels etc.
paxys: What copyright? OpenTTD doesn't copy any code or assets from the original game. It is a ground-up rewrite. There is no copyright violation.
sylos: I read somewhere that it's not a clean room rewrite but rather it started off as a reverse engineering.
ApolloFortyNine: >Additionally, as part of the discussions we held, Atari agreed to make a contribution towards the running costs of our server infrastructure. We are also extremely grateful for the many donations that have come in over the past few days from users - your support will help keep our services going, and it is deeply appreciated.That's pretty cool of them.
999900000999: This is beyond reasonable.You can still download it for free outside of Steam.If I make a Sonic fan game and Sega is like, you can keep it online, but just not on Steam, that’s nice.In this situation you still have the option of playing it on Steam for a modest priceThe alternative is the Nintendo route…
legitster: As a sidenote, this whole situation implies just how important platforms are.Nothing about OpenTTD has changed. You can literally just go download it off their website for free - same as it was 20 years ago. And you can add it to your Steam library just fine. It's only been on the Steam store for 5 of those years.But the open internet is dead now and just being "de-merchandised" from a platform feels like being relegated to the dark web (maybe something the open source community doesn't quite fully appreciate).
LoganDark: Atari probably threatened to take it down if there wouldn't be a compromise. So a compromise was worked out that wouldn't require a takedown.
lstodd: What levels? OpenTDD has no levels, only a map generator, and you seriously don't want to try the reimplementation of the original one.
jorl17: Note that, while it is a rewrite, it was done so through disassembling the original game, not via a clean room implementation. I find this particularly relevant given that the original was written (mostly) in assembly too.
Closi: Also even if it is a ground up rewrite, the look and feel still matters.Try creating a 1:1 dupe of a Hermes bag and see how their legal team reacts.
yellowapple: In situations like this it's odd to me that the rightsholder wouldn't just sell an official build of the FOSS reimplementation with the assets (legally) included. If some of the proceeds end up going toward the FOSS reimplementation's donations then it seems like an easy win-win.
lstodd: Open internet is dead only to those that don't take the effort to discover. Otherwise it's still as open as it always was.Since there was an internet to speak of, there always were and still are vast amounts of people unaware of stuff that exists, limited by no "platforms" but only by their own lack of desire.
Macha: There's two issues:1. OpenTTD is not a clean room rewrite. It started by disassembling the original game and manually converting to C++ on a piecemeal basis.2. As the game was updated, sure lots of this code has been rewritten. Almost certainly the majority. But has all of it been legally rewritten? Ehh... much less clear.This sort of process has generally been held to produce a derived work of whatever you're cloning, even if the final result no longer contains original code, hence why clean room reverse engineering even became a thing in the first place.It's probably fuzzy enough at this stage that you could have a long expensive drawn out legal battle about it (and I suspect we'll see at least one for some other project in the coming years with the recent trend of "I had AI rewrite this GPL project to my MIT licensed clone"). Would OpenTTD win? Who knows. Could OpenTTD afford it? Certainly not.
beardsciences: I'm glad that Atari was willing to compromise at all. I'm happy with the updated response, and hope that it helps others understand the nuance of the situation. Anyone can still go download the main release from the official site.
paxys: How are people supposed to understand the "nuance of the situation" when they aren't even sharing it? What is the problem to begin with? Why can't both projects continue to exist independently?
benoau: The problem is copyright won't expire on the 1995 game until some time next century, while a French company that acquired Atari's name and copyrights 20 years ago is now asserting their exclusive rights over the IP.
nemomarx: OpenTTD started from the ip they now own, and it's possible Atari could try and prove that in court. I don't know if they would win, but why spend the legal fees here?
throwaway0q5347: > limited by no "platforms" but only by their own lack of desire.Or Google's low ranking of their content
lstodd: I don't even.Relying on third-party ranking of whatever is a clear indicator of lack of effort.
Ekaros: It might be improved and changed in many ways. But I have zero doubt it would not lose in court any argument over copyrights. Most reasonable people would tell that it looks way too close to original. And that would probably be enough.
Lammy: > a compromise would be needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests (which of course they are entitled to pursue as the rights holder)No, fuck 'em. They had nothing to do with developing the game, and in a sane copyright structure a thirty-year-old work would be public domain by now.
maybewhenthesun: > in a sane copyright structureYou are not wrong. But alas we don't have that. ANd in the reality we live in this collaboration is way better than the alternative.
designerarvid: Reproducing someone’s intellectual property and publishing it is exactly what constitutes a copyright violation.You can retype someone’s book with your keyboard, it’s still not yours.
orphea: Reproducing is absolutely not a copyright violation. Otherwise emulators would have no legal option to exist.
kabdib: I really wonder who "Atari" is these days . . .
dryarzeg: That is true to some extent. However, let me ask you one simple question: how would you try to search for something if you are not aware of it's existence? In other words, how people that are not aware of existence of open-source projects (such as OpenTTD) are supposed to discover them if they're not searching for them on purpose (which is impossible given that they have no clue about their existence)?Of course there will be some ways like social media or something else. But that question is what seems to worry many people in our case, in my humble opinion. Remember that most of the planet's population is not even aware of existence of open-source projects and open-source concept itself. So how are they supposed to discover it if they don't know about it? When it's present on platforms like Steam and GOG, it helps to spread the word, but when it's not... Well, I guess that seems to be a problem for some people.
zer00eyz: > In other words, how people that are not aware of existence of open-source projects (such as OpenTTD) are supposed to discover them if they're not searching for them on purpose (which is impossible given that they have no clue about their existence)?This question tickles me. In the before time, something would be so good you were compelled to tell someone about it.Sriracha, Costco are brands you likely know that dont advertise, and somehow got popular. In the 90's there were bands that were massively popular with little to no air play, and less promotion (Fugazi is a great example).
starkparker: probably a little telling that you don't seem to know the name of the sriracha brand you're referring to that does zero-dollar advertising
junaru: Atari is releasing an inferior product and needs the superior community one delisted. The remaster cannot compete, simple as.
ethanrutherford: it is neither being delisted, nor was it requested to be. As far as rights holders exercising their rights, this is about the most collaborative way it could have gone. Not every rights holder is a John Carmack.
StableAlkyne: Short of developing psychic abilities, how would you then address the discoverability problem without relying on a third party?Forums, search engines, social media, and link aggregators are all third parties with their own ranking. Nobody outside of a handful of small-web hobbyists have put a "cool links" section into a website since 1997.
skydhash: There’s always a relationship to discoverability. Unless the set is small, there will always be intermediary nodes in that graph that will connect consumers and producers. But there’s no need for it to be a mega tech company. Radio DJs help with discovering musics. Books club can help with recommending books.
anthk: False. Look at https://osgameclones.com and projects like FreeDoom. You must be young and it shows how disconnected are the new generations on libre reimplementations.
bjt: The fact that these exist does not mean that they're immune from legal challenge. If the original creators wanted to sue, there are all kinds of claims that would have a decent shot in court (e.g. trademark, trade dress, design patents) besides "you copied our copyrighted source code." The clones exist more because people are being cool about it, and because there's not a strong economic incentive to challenge them. Those things can change at any time.
anthk: Sony vs Bleem. They already lost this case in court.
anthk: Learn something new, dear GenZers:https://osgameclones.com/Maybe you all realize how much brainwashed from corporations yall actually are.
iso1631: Look and Feel in computers and how it interacts with copyright is hardly something newhttps://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v03/03HarvJL...
anthk: - OpenArena- Chip's Challange and custom levels pack- Freedoom+Blasmepher for Doom/Heretic- LibreQuake- Supertux2- Oolite- Kgoldminner/XScavenger with level sets- Frozen Bubble- Any X11/console/9front sokoban clone. Everyone reuses the same level set over and over.
whstl: Does it matter? People just look for the bottle with a rooster anyway.
RGamma: [delayed]
nimih: > So how are they supposed to discover it if they don't know about it?Presumably, through social interaction with others in the communities they are a part of. That's how I heard about OpenTTD in the early 00s, at least.
shevy-java: Right. This is a chicken-egg problem. We also need a replacement for google search; Google ruined it, on purpose. We are being made blind (not totally blind, but dumber, and then blind).
charcircuit: Without knowing the rev share it could be exploitative. If OpenTDD is being sold commercially Atari shouldn't be taking all the money from all the hard work that people have put into the project over the years.
WarcrimeActual: Thing is, they own it. They have every right to cease and desist, I assume, and haven't. That's generous compared to most companies reactions already.
Aurornis: > They had nothing to do with developing the gameOpenTTD started as an effort to translate the original game’s assembly into higher level code.It was not a clean room implementation. The original code was used as a base.
shevy-java: Would be nice to see OpenTTD on Steam/GOG, for a younger audience.Some games have a good replayfactor. Transport Tycoon Deluxe was nice in this regard; the spirit should be retained so younger folks can play it.
autoexec: > Sriracha, Costco are brands you likely know that dont advertiseI'm pretty sure this was a Costco ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i5CQVfmx-0
iso1631: I don't remember how I first heard about slashdot, but I know I discovered debian and enlightenment through it, and I would assume I discovered openttd through it.Perhaps some comment on a forum or usenet somwhere. Or perhaps on a compuserve group. Or maybe someone else at school.
imp0cat: And what did you discover on hn? Let me show you https://www.oldunreal.com/ ;)
jwitthuhn: So they were not "pressured" but Atari contacted them and they proceeded to make this decision based because they "needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests".That sound indistinguishable from being pressured.
IshKebab: I think they're saying Atari didn't threaten them but they both understood that they could have. Honestly it sounds like Atari were trying to be nice. Like "you technically aren't allowed to do that, and we could just set our lawyers on you, but we'd like to not do that while also making money on our re-release".This seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise to me.
singpolyma3: How is "I haven't talked to my lawyer yet but you know I could" not a threat/pressure?
JoshTriplett: > Thing is, they own it.No, they don't. They own the game data, and the original game engine. They don't own the reimplemented Open Source game engine.OpenTTD did not have to do anything here. It sounds like they had a very positive interaction with Atari, in which Atari is providing them with some support and collaboration, and in exchange for that, OpenTTD agreed to formalize the requirement for "you need to own the original game data" by having people on game stores purchase the original game through them before getting OpenTTD through them.That seems like a pretty reasonable approach. It should be held up as a good model for collaboration. But it shouldn't be treated as "they have every right to [demand a] cease and desist".
WarcrimeActual: They do own it. Any court would likely agree that what OpenTTD does is copy an IP they own. And they'd have the right to C&D it.
JoshTriplett: Reverse engineering for compatibility, and implementation of a compatible system (as long as you don't copy the original) are not just legal, they're explicitly legally protected in many jurisdictions. You'll get in serious trouble if you copy the original, but there is specific case law supporting things like emulators. See, for instance, Sony v Connectix and Sega v Accolade.
ApolloFortyNine: Though it's no longer a clone, it literally was a clone when it first started (you were even supposed to supply your own totally legitimately acquired asset packs).So it'd be pretty much impossible to claim the engine came about as a clean room implementation. And of course, even if maybe they could win a court case (honestly don't think they could) the mere threat of one would likely make openttd quit.
