search

b-casey / OpenSMACX

A project to decompile SMAC/X to C++ with the long term goal of creating a full open source clone.
GNU General Public License v3.0
52 stars 4 forks source link

Incorrect copyright / license information #40

Open depp opened 3 years ago

depp commented 3 years ago

The copyright information in this project is incomplete.

Copyright (C) 2013-2021 Brendan Casey

It appears that this project is based on a decompilation of Alpha Centauri. If that's the case, Firaxis games is still a rightsholder, and should be included in the copyright information. This project couldn't be licensed under the GPL without Firaxis's permission.

induktio commented 3 years ago

On the other hand, we can consider projects such as OpenTTD/OpenRA/OpenRCT and how they are licensed as open source. So it seems those projects are based on an entirely different interpretation of copyright law.

depp commented 3 years ago

I'm not familiar with those projects... but based on reading the source code in this repository, it's absolutely clear to me that this isn't a reimplementation of Alpha Centauri--it's a decompilation. Decompiling a program doesn't strip away the rights of the original copyright holder.

I think it's only reasonable to mention this to people visiting the repository.

depp commented 3 years ago

I took a look at OpenRA, and it looks like OpenRA is not based on a decompilation. It looks like the authors painstakingly made a new engine.

tsunamistate commented 3 years ago

@depp OpenRA is a wrong example. Projects like OpenTTD (Transport Tycoon Deluxe), OpenRCT2 (Rollercoaster Tycoon 2), DevilutionX (Diablo) did start from decompilation of original games (OpenRCT2 still has original game .exe in its repo), but after multiple rewrites, refactors and new features I doubt there's an ounce of original code left.

This is still a grey area, and I guess it will depend on how Firaxis (or whoever has the rights to Alpha Centauri IP) will act. After all, projects above still stand (guess Chris Sawyer is fine with it), while decompilation of Grand Theft Auto 3 was DMCA'd.

Update: RE3 is back online. According to TorrentFreak article, it's because of counter-DMCA that claims that the code is similar, but not identical to the original

My stance in this, decompilation should be legal provided you change the code, but I'm not a multi-billion corporation, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter ¯\(ツ)/¯

depp commented 3 years ago

@tsunamistate

This is still a grey area, ...

With due respect, this is absolutely not a gray area. Decompilation creates a copy of the original program, translated into a different language. The fair use arguments are limited and don't apply here.

...and I guess it will depend on how Firaxis (or whoever has the rights to Alpha Centauri IP) will act.

Sure, the rightsholders could choose not to enforce their rights. That's not really problem. The problem is that the copyright notices and license in this repository appear to be incorrect.

Update: RE3 is back online. According to TorrentFreak article, it's because of counter-DMCA that claims that the code is similar, but not identical to the original

This is just how the DMCA process and counter-notices work. I don't think it makes sense to focus on whether other people are infringing copyright or whether they are getting away with it. Here are some other examples of repositories containing reverse-engineered or decompiled code, notice that they are all inaccessible:

My stance in this, decompilation should be legal provided you change the code, ...

I'm not really trying to spark a discussion about what should or should not be legal. Decompilation and reverse engineering are generally legal, assuming you have a legal copy of the original program and assuming you are not otherwise prohibited from reverse engineering by the EULA. This leaves two problems:

  1. Even if it is permitted to decompile a program, you cannot distribute the decompiled sources.
  2. The Alpha Centauri EULA explicitly prohibits decompilation.

Except to the extent permitted under applicable law, you may not decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer the Software, or any component thereof, by any means whatsoever.

I'm not a rightsholder and I'm not trying to get this repository taken down. However, I think that it is wrong to mislead people about the legality of using this code, and that it is wrong to give people false information about the copyrights for a work.

Again, just to be clear, all I'm saying is that the incorrect licensing information should be fixed.

kaithar commented 3 years ago

This is still a grey area, ...

With due respect, this is absolutely not a gray area. Decompilation creates a copy of the original program, translated into a different language. The fair use arguments are limited and don't apply here.

Even under GPL in general this stands. Both decompilation and patch strategies are classified as derivative works, and GPL gets really ugly when you try to combine it with a binary artefact under a different licence. The example to look at for this kind of derivative mixed licencing is the proprietary kernel drivers from nvidia... they took an approach of an open source shim that can be GPL'd and a binary component that was sufficiently agnostic to not be considered a derivative work, and we know how that worked out.

I'd say the gold standard for this kind of work is basically minecraft... mod support as a decomp and patch exercise, active owner company releasing new versions.

uralets commented 2 years ago

"this is absolutely not a gray area" lol has Darl sold his (other) kidney yet? to entertain us with a fresh season of the best zombie media franchise this side of Alpha C...