The archive does include a directory with disassembled ASM of the original NES ROM (with some added comments) but disassembly falls into a different legal realm than GPL/actual source code/open source remakes. Between that and The Internet Archive being excepted from DCMA, being excepted from copyright protection removal law, and having a long legal history of preserving copyrighted works I'd wager there is nothing to be worried about for that archive.
Also cool work on the original port and particularly Micropolis. I remember having a lot of fun with the code when it first released.
Open source does not have a "very specific legal definition". Many different people use that term to mean many different things, the chief commonality tending to be "can you read the source code". Yes, OSI has a specific definition that goes beyond that, but OSI is not a legislative or judicial body, nor do they have authority from any such body to be involved in regulatory activities (contrasted with, say, the Amateur Relay Radio League, or Civilian Marksmanship Program). And personally I hew more towards the FSF's views on the matter than OSI's.
Anyway, it's pretty common in the open source world for a specific name to be trademarked, or assets to be copyrighted, while still making the source itself open. Some examples include SimCity vs Micropolis, Chrome vs Chromium, and Firefox vs IceCat. I'd argue that such projects still count as open source, because the source itself is open, even if you can't use the name or non-code assets. Non-code assets like names, graphics, audio, and documentation are commonly available under different terms or licenses anyway, e.g.: https://wiki.wesnoth.org/Wesnoth:Copyrights Pretty much everyone (OSI, FSF, etc.) agree that code-specific licenses like GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache don't make so much sense when talking about things that aren't software, hence the existence of things like GFDL, CC, etc.
They're open source because of the specific licenses they use, not because "you can read the source code". And the NES SimCity code definitely isn't licensed under anything resembling an "open source" license, even in the most vague least technical sense of the term, "you can read it". It was never sold as a product or meant to be distributed.
My question was whether "The SimCity Open Source Project" is an actual "thing" with a specific open source compatible license, or if it was just vague hand waving like "the source is open because somebody disassembled and commented it" that the article author meant as a metaphor.
Is there an actual project calling itself that, or is that just a figure of speech that the writer of the article used (inaccurately)? Because abandonware, unpublished or reverse engineered software is not automatically open source, which has a very specific legal definition.
And SimCity is a trademark that is very much still in use and aggressively protected.
https://www.konitono.com/ea-kills-open-source-version-of-sim...
The original SimCity source code, based on the Mac version that I ported to Unix using TCL/Tk, was relicensed by Electronic Arts under GPLv3 for the OLPC project, and EA had some very specific conditions for using their trademark "SimCity" (for example, it had to be reviewed and approved by EA's QA department to protect their brand name "SimCity", or else released under another name like "Micropolis").
https://medium.com/@donhopkins/open-sourcing-simcity-58470a2...
https://medium.com/@donhopkins/har-2009-lightning-talk-trans...
Also the GPLv3 license itself has some very specific conditions about the use of the code. (For example, the Anti-Tivoization clause forbids publishing an app based on the code on the Apple app store.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
The full license and a simpler explanation is shown here:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/SimCity
>In case this confuses you, here is a simpler explanation. The code is free software. But the code as released by EA uses EA trademarks. You cannot modify the code and distribute it unless you (1) make it clear to the player that you have modified it, and (2) remove all the EA trademarks from the game. (You also have to follow all the other rules in the GPLv3, the EA additional terms, and the copyrights of other contributors. This was just a very brief summary.)
The "Micropolis" project is based on that original code, which has been cleaned up, documented, and translated to other languages, but it uses the name "Micropolis" (SimCity's original working title) instead of "SimCity" because of that trademark restriction.
There was one official version of GPLv3 "SimCity" released for the OLPC, based on the TCL/Tk version I developed for DUX Software, which went through EA's QA process and was approved for release by EA to be shipped with the OLPC. But all subsequent versions and derivatives were called "Micropolis", to avoid the need to go through that complicated approval process again.
https://donhopkins.com/home/olpc-ea-contract.pdf
EXHIBIT B
EA TRADEMARK AND LEGAL NOTICE:
“SIMCITY TM & (c) 1989 - 2007 Electronic Arts Inc. All rights reserved. EA does not support this software. For technical support visit: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/SimCity or email [email protected].
RESTRICTIONS ON USE:
OLPC shall not reproduce or use (or authorize the reproduction or use of) the EA Trademark, or any other trademark, service mark, service name, trade name, designation or logo of EA, in any manner whatsoever other than as expressly authorized by this Agreement. Furthermore, except as authorized hereunder, OLPC shall not reproduce or use any service mark, service name, trade name, trademark, designation or logo confusingly similar to the EA Trademark or any other trademark, service mark, service name, trade name, designation or logo of EA.
OLPC shall mark each use of the EA Trademark with either the superscript ® symbol or the superscript ™ symbol as set forth above adjacent to such EA Trademark. EA may at any time, and from time to time, amend this Exhibit B.
OLPC shall also take such other steps as may reasonably be requested by EA to evidence EA’s ownership and license to OLPC of any of the EA Trademark, including, without limitation, execution of registered user agreements if required by applicable law.