This seems quite positive to me: Clearly the rightsholders are not being total jerks since they're happy to allow an OpenTTD bundle, and the original game is available with modern fixes as well.
No he's not. This is internet gossip.
I’m not sure how to interpret this other than Atari not wanting to compete with OpenTTD on Steam.
A lot of the fan-driven reimplementations of classic games are trivially derived works, because people seem to think that the copyright only covers the pixels in the originals and if you replace them you're fine.
On game engines, reimplementations are not derivations at all but tools for interoperability, totally legal to create. From Wine to most of the stuff of https://osgameclones.com, to GNUStep against NeXT/OpenStep API (and Cocoa from early OSX) and so on.
If you could sell Cedega back in the day you can totally sell OpenTTD with free assets, period.
The entire PC industry exists today because of cheap IBM BIOS clones from Taiwan.
What I'm contending is if the assets are actually free. And just because they were all created by volunteers and contain no data from the originals doesn't mean that they are actually free. The rules around derived works are complicated, and too close homages have been found to be derived works, even if there is no actual copying.
If this were to go into court, things that would matter would include both "how visually similar do they look" (the answer is "very"), and "was the artist aware of and did they refer to the originals while doing their work", (given it was done by volunteers who are enthusiasts of the original game, the answers are almost certainly "yes" and "they can't prove they didn't").
And on those facts, the new art is a derived work of the original and falls under its copyright.
Artistically speaking FreeDoom it's closer to Half Life and the like than Doom but here's the catch: playing Strain for instance won't look like a mess, but different, a bit like a demaked Half Life (or a game from its era with the Unreal engine) but not a copy.
I sincerely doubt that. Unlike the FreeDoom assets, it is too visually similar to the originals, and visual cohesiveness with existing materials (which were created to fit the style of the originals) is a point in favor of it being a derived work, not against.
Forgot to reply to this part: And the reason those clones exist is because multiple companies reimplemented the BIOS in a clean way, where they had one team produce a clean spec of all the interfaces, and then sequestered a different team, who could attest in court that they had never worked with, seen or in other way come in contact with materials related to the IBM PC, to produce a replacement BIOS based on only the given spec. The clone makers that didn't go to all this effort were sued out of existence.
Do you believe that the free assets produced for games generally meet this standard?
I’m usually sentimentally open to IP rights being overly constrictive in the current regime, but faced with a company that owns TTD™ saying “hey, instead of going full lawyer nastygram to avoid confusion, let’s work this out so people get your stuff when they download ours”…seems pretty nice. Like I can’t imagine Microsoft allowing alt-universe OpenWindows™ on the Windows Store.
I personally think it is the copyright that is the most uncertain. Firstly, there are probably quite a few venues around the world where Atari might be able to take this up, and quite a diversity of precedent between them. Historically Atari litigated in the US - in 1981 they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_v._Amusement_World on a case someone infringed by copying their look and feel without copying any assets. Other precedents in that jurisdiction have found it's not infringing if similarities are inherent to the subject matter of the game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_East_USA,_Inc._v._Epyx,_I.... but similarity of art style is copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_Holding,_LLC_v._Xio_Int....
Not to mention it’s a reverse engineered version of the base game.
Sure there is. The concept of "copyleft" is literally about using copyright to be nice.
An outcome like this more than likely means the folks working on the rerelease are fans of OpenTTD and worked internally to protect it.
If Atari was really out to copyright the project into oblivion, they're likely to succeed in a legal sense*.
Within the confines of the current laws and known history of the game, and being a fan of both works, I think this compromise is fair.
*NotALawyerClause
This part gets a little confusing in software, because we have a proud history of both cultural norms and actual caselaw allowing unauthorized reimplementation of other people's copyright-bearing APIs. Applying copyright to software basically created a mutant form of patent law that lasts forever, so the courts had to spend decades paring it back by defining boundaries between the two. Reimplementation precedent is part of that boundary.
But all of that precedent relies upon software compatibility - the argument being that if you lawfully use someone else's software library to write software, you are not surrendering ownership over your own program to your library vendor, and someone else with a compatible replacement is not infringing the original library.
Legal arguments relying on reimplementation work well when the APIs in question are minimally creative and there is a large amount of third-party software that used them. The closest example would be something like Ruffle, which reimplements a Flash Player runtime that was used for a countless number of games. OpenTTD exists to reimplement precisely one game, specifically to enable a bunch of unauthorized derivative works that would be facially illegal if they had been applied directly to the TTD source code. This wouldn't fly in court.
In court, OpenTTD would be judged based on substantial similarity between its code and Transport Tycoon's code. While copyright does not apply to game rules, and cloning a game is legal[1], I am not aware of any effort in OpenTTD to ensure their implementation of those rules is creatively distinct from Transport Tycoon's. In fact, OpenTTD was forked from a disassembly of the latter, which is highly likely[2] to produce substantial similarity.
tl;dr I'm genuinely surprised Atari didn't sue them off Steam!
[0] Translation for pedants: "have a monopoly on selling". In the creative biz, two people generally don't make money selling the same thing.
[1] Trade dress and trademark lawsuits notwithstanding - The Tetris Company has done an awful lot of litigation on that front.
[2] The standard way to avoid this is clean-room reverse engineering. It's not a legal requirement, of course, but it helps a lot.
This part of the announcement was nice, too. It would suck if existing users had it deleted from their libraries.
And if you push an update that deletes the files, Valve can, will, and has rolled back the update.
Of course, there's also situations where Valve has assisted in removing titles at developers request, but it was a situation Valve was involved in - Specifically, a game called "The Ship" had a Multiplayer version, and it was built on Source, but they could never quite get it to work correctly, even with Valve's help. Wouldn't sync.
Valve helped them remove the Multiplayer version. (but you still kept the single player.)