5 ms·

Which you can absolutely not base yourself if you want to ensure it's considered a clean-room reverse engineering and not have Nintendo's armies of lawyers swee

by m-p-3 4y ago

Which you can absolutely not base yourself if you want to ensure it's considered a clean-room reverse engineering and not have Nintendo's armies of lawyers sweeping down on you.

stefan_ 4y ago
They are going through and mechanically translating functions 1:1 from the original binary, so there aren't exactly any concerns with "clean-room reverse engineering" here.
- m-p-3 4y ago
  You can still achieve that without having access to the original source code, so the implementation would be considered clean from copyright claims as long as it doesn't contain any copyrighted assets (which are necessary to achieve a perfect clone), but those can be injected during compilation from the original ROM that the end-user must acquire themselves.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    In which country is this interpretation of copyright law valid ? Soon: Freedows 12. "Your Honor, I just looked at the compiled code, so it must be considered clean from copyright claims!".
    - m-p-3 4y ago
      Copyright laws mostly covers the assets (images, texts, etc) and the actual implementation. If you happen to make your own implementation that leads to the same output when compiled, that would be considered fair use in most situations. As long as you didn't copy from the original source code as long as you're not distributing the assets or the compiled version, the copyright holder can't stop you from distributing your own work. ReactOS and Wine exists and are reimplementations of copyrighted code.
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > If you happen to make your own implementation that leads to the same output when compiled, that would be considered fair use in most situations as long as you didn't copy from the original source code as long as you're not distributing the assets or the compiled version. Good luck trying to prove to any judge in the world that you came up with an implementation that happens to be exactly the same as the original game code, down to the same checksum, by pure chance. What is this, "the ChatGPT defense"? Do you really think that code has intrinsically less right to copyright than art, or what? >ReactOS and Wine exists and are reimplementations of copyrighted code. Clean room reimplementations that don't even dare to look at the copyrighted code.
        m-p-3 4y ago
        Copyright, specifically code will only let you protect the IMPLEMENTATION, the code the copyright owner specifically made, not the IDEA of the code. > Good luck trying to prove to any judge in the world that you came up with an implementation that happens to be exactly the same as the original game code, down to the same checksum, by pure chance. Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time. A reimplementation of code that leads to the same binary output isn't covered by the copyright, as long as you don't share copyrighted assets or the actual binaries. What people do with the alternative source code is their business, you can't hold responsible that person for others' action.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time. We are not talking about a program that "produces the same binary output" when executed. We are talking about a program that _is exactly the same_ as the original one, bit-by-bit. It is ridiculously impossible to "independently" discover a program that is _exactly the same machine code_ as the original program by just looking at the inputs and outputs of the original program. (Barring trivial programs, of course.) This is not reverse engineering. This is just dissasembling and decompiling.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      Allow me to introduce you to ReactOS. https://reactos.org/ https://reactos.org/
dtx1 4y ago
And Nintendo is well-known to be hyper litigious fucks that will try to destroy their fans in court, even when they are within the legal bounds of copyright.

by m-p-3 4y ago

Which you can absolutely not base yourself if you want to ensure it's considered a clean-room reverse engineering and not have Nintendo's armies of lawyers sweeping down on you.

stefan_ 4y ago

They are going through and mechanically translating functions 1:1 from the original binary, so there aren't exactly any concerns with "clean-room reverse engineering" here.

m-p-3 4y ago
You can still achieve that without having access to the original source code, so the implementation would be considered clean from copyright claims as long as it doesn't contain any copyrighted assets (which are necessary to achieve a perfect clone), but those can be injected during compilation from the original ROM that the end-user must acquire themselves.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  In which country is this interpretation of copyright law valid ? Soon: Freedows 12. "Your Honor, I just looked at the compiled code, so it must be considered clean from copyright claims!".
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    Copyright laws mostly covers the assets (images, texts, etc) and the actual implementation. If you happen to make your own implementation that leads to the same output when compiled, that would be considered fair use in most situations. As long as you didn't copy from the original source code as long as you're not distributing the assets or the compiled version, the copyright holder can't stop you from distributing your own work. ReactOS and Wine exists and are reimplementations of copyrighted code.
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      > If you happen to make your own implementation that leads to the same output when compiled, that would be considered fair use in most situations as long as you didn't copy from the original source code as long as you're not distributing the assets or the compiled version. Good luck trying to prove to any judge in the world that you came up with an implementation that happens to be exactly the same as the original game code, down to the same checksum, by pure chance. What is this, "the ChatGPT defense"? Do you really think that code has intrinsically less right to copyright than art, or what? >ReactOS and Wine exists and are reimplementations of copyrighted code. Clean room reimplementations that don't even dare to look at the copyrighted code.
      - m-p-3 4y ago
        Copyright, specifically code will only let you protect the IMPLEMENTATION, the code the copyright owner specifically made, not the IDEA of the code. > Good luck trying to prove to any judge in the world that you came up with an implementation that happens to be exactly the same as the original game code, down to the same checksum, by pure chance. Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time. A reimplementation of code that leads to the same binary output isn't covered by the copyright, as long as you don't share copyrighted assets or the actual binaries. What people do with the alternative source code is their business, you can't hold responsible that person for others' action.
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        > Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time. We are not talking about a program that "produces the same binary output" when executed. We are talking about a program that _is exactly the same_ as the original one, bit-by-bit. It is ridiculously impossible to "independently" discover a program that is _exactly the same machine code_ as the original program by just looking at the inputs and outputs of the original program. (Barring trivial programs, of course.) This is not reverse engineering. This is just dissasembling and decompiling.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Allow me to introduce you to ReactOS. https://reactos.org/ https://reactos.org/

dtx1 4y ago

And Nintendo is well-known to be hyper litigious fucks that will try to destroy their fans in court, even when they are within the legal bounds of copyright.