this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
291 points (99.0% liked)
RetroGaming
19127 readers
183 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I remember this one. I don't know why they haven't been DMCA-ed yet because you can't make open-source programs based on the disassembly of proprietary projects (unless they have acquired the rights somehow which I doubt).
So it's not quite as clear cut as this. This is why even nintendo disassembly projects survive. There are allowances for this kind of thing.
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=hastings_science_technology_law_journal is a good representation of the legalities around disassemblies
You cannot change the license of a derivative work. That part is clear cut.
I cannot take a Harry Potter book, use Google Translate to translate it into another language, polish up the result by hand, and then claim it as my work at slap whatever license I like on it.
If you read the linked document, it outlines how reverse engineering may fall under a certain level of fair use, e.g. for reasearch and/or backup/archival purposes.
It really isn't as clear-cut as it seems at first.
Yes, fair use and such. But slapping the GPL on the result is not fair use and archival. That you cannot do.
Your changes can be gpl licensed, similar to how a rom hack can be licensed however you want.
Read the GPL and what it has to say about derivative works which this undeniably is.
I've been in the open source software world for multiple decades. I am well aware of the gpl and what it has to say about derivative works.
You seem a little confused however, though I feel like you are just desperately trying to wrangle an angle where you can totes win and you were never wrong. It's really annoying to get into a conversation online like that.
Anyway, incase anyone else gets here, this guy is just endlessly wrong. Ignore.
I'm not wrong. You cannot just slap the GPL on disassembled proprietary software. That's a fact. Ask your lawyer.
THE CHANGES oh lawd.
This is not a separately distributed patch set as LAME was in the beginning. That's GPL slapped on the combined work. Not really that hard to understand.
Pity you haven't made an effort to prove what you're saying and seem to be just desperately trying to wrangle an angle where you can totes win.
I'm the original guy, I provided the link to the legal opinion pdf.
Is the original version even in print anymore? It’s really hard to believe that the “juice” of getting this taken down would be worth the squeeze.
It reminds of those stupid calculations that the music industry did back in the old days of Napster and other P2P sharing about how much money they lose.
When in actuality, I suspect that an actuary or accountant can estimate that this open sourcing of a 20+ year old game probably brings in new revenue in terms of consumers being interested in the franchise.
Oh boy, I remember they once claimed losses that were equivalent to 3 times the global GNP.
The copyright mafia has absolutely no shame.
Once upon a time, you had to show an actual financial loss, to make a claim for damages. At least where I live (Denmark).
Maybe they've made copyright offense serious enough to not require that anymore. But without financial damages I would hope a copyright case would be frivolous. Apart from being a form of treason in the eyes of many lawmakers. Except when it's Trump, then it's just an honest mistake.
they should put it on a dmca proof place