artphotodude wrote:The issue (I speak on with knowledge because I've OFFICIALLY registered HUNDREDS of items with the US Copyright office) is that you don't actually have copyrights in OpenSource settings because you are building on someone else' design to begin with. If those people who made the emulators used even one line of code from someone else, they don't have any rights to control the code from that point. Case and Point - Half Life was built on the Quake 1 engine after id software made it open-source, but for Valve to close that source-code they had to pay id for the right to do so. You can actually sell products based on OpenSource agreements without giving anything back to the original creator (who made it OpenSource), but it is with the understanding that your modified version of their code remains modifiable by the next person and so forth, since your interest in it is already at the suffrage of the first, original creator of the code.
Here's the thing, registering a copyright doesn't actually require much knowledge about it, but as I am a librarian and have specifically studied copyright, open source, and open access, I do have a pretty big pool of knowledge. So here's the lowdown: unless you've simply mis-stated your case or explained it badly (or I have badly misread), you're mistaken. Open source software (much like Creative Commons works) is dependent upon copyright in order to enforce the license. The MIT license, the BSD license, the GPL 2 and 3 and the LGPL, and so on, all require copyright to function. If someone violates the license, they violate copyright. Without that underlying threat of copyright infringement the license is legally meaningless. GPL requires anyone who uses GPL-licensed code to provide their source modifications either publicly or on-demand. But people don't sign contracts to use GPL code. Contract law thus doesn't bind people. They just use it, without having to make arrangements in advance. What binds them to the GPL is the underlying copyright on the code. Someone who violates the GPL can be sued for copyright violation.
So, who owns those copyrights? It depends on the project. Some projects allow all contributors to retain copyright to their code contributions, but they must also license the code they contribute under the applicable license. For many projects this works fine, but it limits the ability of the project involved to ever change the terms of the license, because approval would have to be granted by every single contributor with code currently wrapped up in the project. So for projects which anticipate a stable license, that's fine. Some projects require transferral of copyright on contributions to a central organization or individual as well as being placed under the applicable license. This arrangement is best for projects with singular or strong leadership and makes it easier for a project to change licenses or license terms. And some projects are dual-licensed, commercially on one side and open source under a compatible license (like Affero GPL) on the other.
Because copyright underlies these OS licenses, folks who use that code are often themselves bound by the terms or are in violation of copyright. GPL, for example, is a self-replicating license. In order to be able to use GPL code and not be in violation of copyright, one must license one's own code modifications under the same GPL license and make that changed code available. Those who do not risk being found in violation of copyright, which could in extreme cases result in the copyright on their own derived works being forfeited. It should be noted that the GPL has been tested in court several times now and has held up, reinforcing that open source licensing is indeed legally valid. What does this mean for our discussion here?
Because Hyperkin used open source emulator code and didn't follow the terms of the licenses involved, they are in violation of copyright. But maybe you've noticed Hyperkin is getting away with it. Well, yeah. Because enforcing copyright in court is troublesome. It requires money and time, and open source authors and contributors don't always have a lot of either. But this isn't unique. Large companies have a habit of running roughshod over copyrights belonging to those with comparatively little power, open source or otherwise. That doesn't make it ethical or right, however. So it's not as simple as Hyperkin not being "nice". The company has acted unethically, using code they know they don't have a legal right to use, but they are pushing the buck because they have correctly assumed that the emulator authors whose copyrights they violated would not have the resources to challenge them. So Hyperkin is an unethical corporate bully. I do not want to give them my money. It also speaks ill of their products. If they are willing to cut corners there, where else will they cut corners?
Your example is also wrong. The Quake 1 source code wasn't open-sourced until late 1999, over a year after Half Life's 1998 release. Valve properly commercially licensed the relevant ID code underpinning their game. And since Quake wasn't open sourced until after, Half Life's use of Quake's code was not bound up in that in any way. The previous license took precedence.
You correctly noted that Bleem! was litigated out of existence, winning in court on every count but then running out of money and folding. Connectix also won in court and did not go out of business as a result. Sony simply bought Virtual Game Station from Connectix and killed off the product. Apple switching to Intel chips is what ultimately killed Connectix.
