3 ms·

Is there any difference legally between the user applying the patch file themselves and them being provided a script to automatically patch it for them?

• AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
  Well, so far it's how Fan Translations of videogames have largely avoided legal scrutiny: they distribute the translation as a ROM patch, but it's up to the end-user to track down the actual ROM / game dump.
  • PeterisP 5y ago
    That seems shady from a legal perspective - unlike a patch, a translation is obviously a derived work (being one of the explicitly listed examples in law of what is defined as a derived work), and you need permission from the author to distribute or even make a translation.
    • Hamuko 5y ago
      It's probably not legal but it's in the "no one really cares territory" since to actually enjoy the translation, you need to either buy a copy of the game or pirate it. In the former case, great, a sale made to a person that would've never otherwise bought the game and in the latter it makes no real difference since you were never marketing to that person anyways. The English release of Steins;Gate is actually an edited version of the fan translation, so the property owners couldn't have been that upset with the fan translators.
• chillfox 5y ago
  I would argue that the user running a script to apply the patch is them applying it themselves. I believe the important part here is that the patch does not include the copyrighted software, only the modifications.
• bagacrap 5y ago
  I can't see a difference between these two things. I would think the `patch` command and a (bash?) "script" are legally equivalent.