| Author |
Message |
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Jun 02, 2008 02:05 Post subject: So I was reminded of something... |
    |
|
Remember when LucasArts tried to sue the SCUMMVM team?
I'm hoping that the same scenario doesn't take place here.
_________________
I don't think outside the box... I customize it. |
|
sheepandshepherd
Trandoshan
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 02:11 Post subject: |
|
|
 I sure hope not . . . but maybe they won't find out. That's one of the few advantages of having such an isolated, hidden little site 
|
|
sweatervest
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
|
|
sheepandshepherd
Trandoshan
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 02:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Technically, lucius isn't even doing any reverse-engineering, is he? He built the engine from scratch.
|
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 02:44 Post subject: |
|
|
That's a good point.
_________________
I don't think outside the box... I customize it. |
|
sheepandshepherd
Trandoshan
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 02:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm . . . but can Lucasarts sue lucius for using copyrighted Dark Forces assets in his engine?
|
|
klasodeth
Trandoshan
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
|
|
sweatervest
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 05:38 Post subject: |
|
|
sheepandshepherd wrote:
Hmmm . . . but can Lucasarts sue lucius for using copyrighted Dark Forces assets in his engine?
If you think about it, copyrights don't apply there because the only thing being copied is the new engine, whose copyright belongs to lucius because he wrote it from scratch. The DF engine is copyrighted but isn't even being used here, and the game content, while also copyrighted, isn't being copied. It's simply being used by another program.
What I am thinking is that if LucusArts didn't sue the people that wrote the level editing programs, which would be much more of an asset to copyright infringment than an updated engine, then they're not gonna sue anyone over this now.
Of course big software companies (think Nintendo) like to say that copyrights mean they can tell their customers they can't dump a rom onto their computer for personal backup. I would at least like to hope though that no judge would allow an individual to be sued for something as trivial and in no way economically damaging as backing up roms or, in this case, writing an updated engine since it requires the original DF data.
Plus if they sue anyone here they can just countersue and demand they release the source code (on the grounds that they are totally being dicks about this)!!
|
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 06:58 Post subject: |
|
|
That's one of the problems I had with that for a while too was "is what I'm doing even legal?" But then again, if people had been doing it for years before me, then I'm sure something would have been done about it long ago. Plus, seeing as Jedi Academy actually has a MOD loader (at least in the mac version), they do endorse MODs to a certain degree.
I'm not trying to be a fear-mongerer here, but I was just thinking about it. I would hate to see Lucius in that kind of position is all.
_________________
I don't think outside the box... I customize it. |
|
lucius
DarkXL Developer
Joined: 17 Feb 2008
|
|
Burning Gundam
Kell Dragon
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
|
klasodeth
Trandoshan
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
|
|
Pumpkinetics
Ree-Yees
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 10:37 Post subject: |
|
|
FOR GREAT JUSTICE, TAKE OFF EVERY STORMTROOPER.
_________________
"So, how goes (X) ?"
"WORKIN' ON IT! I SWEAR!" |
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 13:22 Post subject: |
|
|
I think there's only legality problems if he decompiled Dark Forces in order to help him build DarkXL. That might be illegal, IANAL. Just using the data files to figure out what makes DF tick isn't illegal at all though.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
sweatervest
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 02, 2008 17:05 Post subject: |
|
|
The_Mega_ZZTer wrote:
I think there's only legality problems if he decompiled Dark Forces in order to help him build DarkXL. That might be illegal, IANAL. Just using the data files to figure out what makes DF tick isn't illegal at all though.
That's actually not illegal I'm pretty sure, and I am quite shocked by that (everything is illegal these days). Reverse engineering is protected, even for hardware. For example if I could rip apart an Intel microproccesor, learn how it functions and build my own using the same design, and I would not be breaking the law, as long as AMD didn't patent the design. If they did, I wouldn't be able to use their design even if I came up with it myself having never looked at their processors.
From what I have heard (there are many conflicting opinions about this actually) LucasArts is guilty of their share of reverse engineering, since they obviously didn't come up with the one-dimensional ray-trace sector engine themselves.
Of course it is pretty irrelevant what the "laws" say. What matters is whether or not LucasArts would try to sue anyone, and who the judge would rule for in the resulting case. Like I said before, if a level editor that gives users access to all of the art in the game (textures, geometry, sprites, etc.) didn't spark legal interest from LucasArts ten years ago when it might have mattered, they shouldn't even think twice about this.
On the other hand, people other than George Lucas are changing Lucas' creations. Maybe in DarkXL the weapons should be replaced with walkie talkies, Kyle Katarn's character should be softened (for example trigger a crying sound everytime he kills someone... with his walkie talkie), random CGI imperial walkers should always be superimposed on the background, and Hans Christensen should be edited into the cutscenes in place of Darth Vader.
|
|
Gez
Gamorrean
Joined: 05 May 2008
|
|
sweatervest
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Jun 04, 2008 13:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'd note that reverse-engineering software, in and of itself, is *NOT* considered illegal in the United States, in spite of how much as any software maker would love to tell you. That was made pretty clear in Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc..
HOWEVER, you should take care to note that it doesn't permit reverse-engineering across the board. In that case, it was specifically applied for a case where the reverse-engineering was done with the express purpose to secure elements that were not protected under IP law, (i.e, not patented, copyrighted, or trademarked) with which to make compatible software. This was ruled as a case of "fair use."
If the code that was acquired through reverse engineering happens to be protected as a form of intellectual property, such as a patented piece of code, then using it is still just as illegal.
Also note that at least as far as the reverse-engineering goes, it appears that the EULA does not have any say there. Likewise, as the ruling in Vernor v. AutoDesk goes, the concept of an EULA itself may not remain valid for much longer.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Jun 04, 2008 18:47 Post subject: |
|
|
About EULAs... IANAL but I read an article that talked about how it's illegal to put conditions on a transaction after the transaction has taken place. An EULA could be seen as falling under that since most EULAs aren't shown to the user to read until they've already bought the software (and most places don't take back opened software). So if the breaking of an EULA is taken to court there's a strong argument that the EULA was null and void.
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
sweatervest
Ree-Yees
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Jun 04, 2008 23:32 Post subject: |
|
|
I think maybe reverse engineering cases would suffer the same problem that libel cases suffer... it's just too hard to define exactly what counts as reverse engineering.
For example, if I used a decompiler on a program, and then actually used the decompiled code to make my own program, most people would probably call that reverse engineering, if not straight up copyright infringement.
But what if I decompiled a program and wrote my own code with the decompiled code as a guide? A lot of people would still call that reverse engineering, but it is a little less clear cut than if I had actually used the decompiled code.
Now what if I don't decompile the code at all, but instead study very closely how the program behaves as it runs, and from that deduce how it works and write my own program based on that information. Is that reverse engineering?
It is pretty hard, especially with software, to draw lines between reverse engineering, using something as an influence, and coincidentally developing another person's idea yourself (like Newton and Liebniz). Patents, on the other hand, are quite definite. If something is patented, you can't use it, whether you copied it or thought of it all on your own.
What's the solution to all of this? Release the damn source code!!
|
|
|
This is precisely why I've taken efforts to avoid copyright issues and the like. If I do something that seems legally questionable, just let me know and we'll talk about changing it if necessary. 
*beats head against desk for not proofreading his posts!!*