4 ms·

I am unsure about the exact legal details about decompilation, but in regards to the SM64 decompile the fact it produces a rom that is byte for byte exact I dou

• tadfisher 5y ago
  There are infinite possible compiler inputs that would produce an exact copy of the ROM, or a superset of it. Pi is likely to be one of them. Would all such inputs infringe on Nintendo's copyright?
  • klodolph 5y ago
    This is such a nonsequitur. I can take something copyrighted, and generate an unlimited number of different things that infringe copyright. I could take Harry Potter and change where the line breaks are—countless variations. Or I could add commentary to the margins. I could put different pictures on the cover. I could translate the book into different languages. I could write new chapters and stick them in the middle.
  • charcircuit 5y ago
    The question is if the compiler input was made (in part) by copying something from Nintendo.
• derefr 5y ago
  From the SM64 decompilation (https://github.com/n64decomp/sm64 https://github.com/n64decomp/sm64) 's README: > This repo does not include all assets necessary for compiling the ROMs. A prior copy of the game is required to extract the assets. In other words, the repo only contains the reverse-engineered source code, not any reproductions of Nintendo's copyrighted or trademarked materials. You have to produce those infringing assets yourself—using tools they supply, yes; but also, crucially, by feeding in a copy of the game you already—presumably—have a private-use license for.
  • tambourine_man 5y ago
    Thanks, yeah, I was thinking along those lines: of course Mario 3D models, textures, audio, etc, are Nintendo’s copyright, but what about the decompiled code itself? That seems a much harder line to draw
    • derefr 5y ago
      IIRC there have been court rulings that using someone else's data but in your own structure (e.g. someone else's geo-referenced place named but structured into your own map; or someone else's database of phone numbers but structured into your own phonebook) is perfectly legal, and not a copyright violation. The decompilation process didn't result in C source code that exactly matches the C source code that Nintendo wrote. (For one thing, the identifier names are different. Probably they use different-but-equivalent control structures in places. Intermediate variables might be introduced that didn't exist in the original.) And as such, that code isn't something Nintendo owns. This is why the Oracle vs. Google Java lawsuit had to be about header files that were copied verbatim — because Oracle had no grounds to stand on for suing for infringement for the reverse-engineered-and-rewritten implementation code. (Note that Nintendo could in theory have patented some of the high-level process stuff going on in their code; but that's rare and unlikely enough in litigious America, let alone in Japan.)
    • charcircuit 5y ago
      The decompiled code is a derivative work of the ROM which is a derivative work of the original code.
      • tambourine_man 5y ago
        Meaning, illegal from your point of view?