Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Open Source Games

Licensing an Abandonware Game? 148

Posted by Soulskill
from the rolling-the-dice dept.
WolverineOfLove writes "I'm recreating a 1980s abandonware game with copyrights that have been seemingly unused for the past 18 years. The situation is detailed further in a Slashdot journal entry I just wrote, but in short: Is it worth dealing with all the copyrights and paying money if I want to recreate an abandonware title as an open source game? I know there are legal implications to certain decisions I might make, but there is a real possibility that this game's copyright holder will do nothing with the rights, and I'd much prefer preserving it for others than letting it fade away."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Licensing an Abandonware Game?

Comments Filter:
  • by jonwil (467024) on Saturday March 13 2010, @03:57AM (#31462394)

    UQM is different in that it was an actual open-sourcing of the code to Star Control 2.

    The code is open source, the assets are free-as-in-beer (as in free to distribute with the game but not free to modify)

    Only things they cant use are some music tracks and cinematics they dont own the rights to plus the actual "Star Control" name (which the publisher owns)

  • Re:Patents (Score:3, Informative)

    by Threni (635302) on Saturday March 13 2010, @04:48AM (#31462580)

    What about copyright? You might rapidly discover that `abandonware` is a meaningless term legally; not only that, but that a company owns the rights to the game and will come after you for a lot of money should your game before profitable for them to do so.

  • Re:Patents (Score:5, Informative)

    by bbqsrc (1441981) on Saturday March 13 2010, @04:53AM (#31462590) Homepage
    Abandonware can mean that the company that owned the copyrights no longer exists, and the ownership of the copyright is in limbo. Look at Transport Tycoon for example. The copyright was transferred to a company from a company that no longer exists to a company that no longer exists, and thus nobody can defend the copyright to the game. This is the epitome of abandonware and it's what allowed OpenTTD to exist.
  • Re:Patents (Score:3, Informative)

    by mysidia (191772) on Saturday March 13 2010, @05:09AM (#31462636)

    Not necessarily. It depends on the issue date of the patent.

    In particular, if issuance of the patent was delayed, it may be issued for longer than 20 years.

    For instance, if the patent was filed for in 1994 and issued in 2000, it could be 7 more years before it will expire, PLUS a number of additional years, according to the issuance delay.

    Also, some special types of patents (as in gov' patents) can get terms much longer than 20 years.

    Assuming is not good here, unless you have looked up the patents in question, you cannot really be sure they would have expired by now.

  • Re:SDINAL (Score:5, Informative)

    by TechForensics (944258) on Saturday March 13 2010, @06:30AM (#31462880) Homepage Journal

    I know there are legal implications to certain decisions I might make, but...

    But nothing. You're asking a legal question, you need to go to a legal expert. Slashdotters are not legal experts, they just think they are, and their advice is worse than useless.

    As a supposed legal expert (yes, IAAL), I can advise that if it cannot be positively determined that copyright is not in force (and after only 18 years it seems impossible that it would not be) then yes, without permission you could be sued, very likely successfully-- but then, the copyright holder may not wish to sue, and as another post noted, even be supportive. Be sure to get that expression of support in writing. (And be sure the author and copyright holder are one and the same.)

  • Re:SDINAL (Score:2, Informative)

    by dogsolitude_uk (1403267) on Saturday March 13 2010, @07:08AM (#31463000)
    Seeking bona fide legal advice would definitely be worthwhile, but airing the idea in the community and talking to others who have remade games is also a sound policy, since other advice and issues may be raised. I think this is a case of 'and' rather than 'exclusive or'!
  • by Pharmboy (216950) on Saturday March 13 2010, @07:51AM (#31463104) Journal

    As someone pointed out, Quake opensourced the engine, not the content. More importantly, if the new game relied on the old game to load textures, etc., then you would have to be distributing the OLD game. This would likely violate the copyright, and open you up for even more lawsuits. Direct distribution of copyright content is worse than making your own version of it (which is often perfectly legal).

  • by gdshaw (1015745) on Saturday March 13 2010, @09:21AM (#31463448) Homepage

    IANAL, but this is a subject I've looked into. Limited liability can help greatly when you have acted in good faith, but it is unlikely to shield you if you have shown malice or willful blindness. This is especially true for very small companies that are effectively a vehicle for the acts of one person.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13 2010, @01:00PM (#31464678)

    And if you haven't bought the game, it is considered piracy. If you are sending it with your new game, it is considered copyright infringement. Not a good idea for a method of distributing your new game.

    You don't get it. The people who make games based on the Quake engine don't distribute the pak files with their release. Getting the pak file is left entirely up to the user, if they want to pirate it, buy it or whatever. The person distributing the game is not responsible for the choice of the end user, and is not liable.

  • by DrStoooopid (1116519) on Sunday March 14 2010, @12:10AM (#31469660)

    It's really annoying when they moderate something as insightful, when really it's informative. I really question Slashdot mods these days.

A shapely CATHOLIC SCHOOLGIRL is FIDGETING inside my costume..

Working...