Comment by bri3d
10 hours ago
Most of these projects carefully distribute only the source code representation of the binaries, for this reason, relying on the consumer to acquire / own the art assets and copyrighted material (logos, trademarks, etc.).
The code assets are just as copyright encumbered as the art assets.
None of the original source code exists in these projects. It’s all created from scratch.
Copyright for this new code is owned by the person doing decompilation. No one knows how similar to the original it is or not, just that it compiles to the same output.
Edit to clarify: by not exist, I mean it is not publicly available.
It's not an obvious legal argument that it is not a derivative work of the compiled code or the original source code that produced that. Clean room reverse engineering is meant to give you a strong argument for that, and while it's not necessarily required to prevail against a copyright case (or actually sufficient) it's gonna make things harder if you don't. (All of this is made more murky because copyright is meant to only cover expressions of human creativity, and code is kind of a mix of creativity and mechanical details: the clean room approach is meant to separate out the mechanical details)
Also, If it is an unauthorized derivative work, as I understand it then it might not even qualify for copyright protection itself.
A decompilation is not clean room, nor is it "created from scratch". If that was the case, you could just compile a program to remove the copyright, because the machine code doesn't resemble the source code at all either.
A reimplementation or a behavior-based clone is an entirely different legal world from decompilation.
2 replies →
Yes, I agree with you (see my sibling post), but it's not what the post I replied to was saying.