this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
582 points (99.2% liked)
Games
38883 readers
937 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
Video games
Generic
- Gaming: Our sister community, focused on POC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- Cozy games: Because not everything has to explode to make a good game
- Photo Mode@feddit.uk
Help and suggestions
- TipOfMyJoystick@retrolemmy.com : You are searching for a game, but can't remember the name? Someone will find it for you here.
- Video Game Suggestions@lemmy.zip : Can't find a game to play in among the hundred you already own? Find another one to add to your library here.
- Patient Gamers@sh.itjust.works: Gaming isn't only about having the latest great games. Good old games are there too.
Platform specific
- Linux gaming : For everything related to gaming on Linux platform, be it on Steam Deck or Desktop Linux.
- Steam Deck : A Steam Deck specific community
Game specific
Language specific
Others
PM a mod to add your own
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The code itself is also copyrighted. Decompiled code is a derivative work.
Decompiling doesn't give you the code like you'd expect.
It gives you the instructions the code generates.
There's a Lego island decomp documentary on YouTube that is recomend for more details.
But the actual source code used doesn't get piped out. Instead you get the machine instructions and you make code that generates the same instructions.
Meaning your still writing the game yourself, meaning you own the copyright
No one says that the actual source code (C or whatever) is "piped out". The machine instructions (in form of a binary) you have before decompiling is the code that is executed by the machine/emulator is copyrighted like any other data on the disc/cartridge. You are not writing the game yourself if you are decompiling it. And it's logically a derivative work. The fact that the resulting "instructions" is not the source code that developers wrote is as expected. It won't create it from thin air.
I don't understand what kind of mental gymnastics you need to do to think that you are doing something original here.
I'm wrong about why,
But it's been ruled as fair use
That says reverse engineering is ok -- not sharing RE'd code.
AFAIK fair use means you can redistribute.
Fair use means legally using a copyrighted material without requiring permission of the copyright holder. It does not mean you can redistribute in general, though some forms of redistribution are fair use, such as using an excerpt from a book in your essay.
Reverse engineering code is also fair use, but that doesn't mean it's fair use to share the code you've reversed.
Yeah, that's why all the IBM clones had to write their BIOS firmware in clean room implementations of new software that implemented the same functionality as IBM's own documentation described.
Functionality can't be copyrighted, but code can be. So the easiest way to prove that you made something without the copyrighted code is to mimic the functionality through your own implementation, not by transforming the existing copyrighted code, through decompilation or anything like that.
Exactly. But somehow I got downvoted heavily for saying the obvious.
Some people struggle with the difference between arguing about descriptive statements, about what things are, and arguing about normative statements, about what things should be. And these topics are nuanced.
Decompiling to learn functionality is fair use (because like I said in my previous comment, functionality can't be copyrighted), but actually using and redistributing code (whether the original source code, the compiled binary derived from the source code, or decompiled code derived from the binary) is pretty risky from a legal standpoint. I'd advise against trying to build a business around the practice.