3 ms·

If the patch is distributed on its own, without the original binary, is it still a derivative work? Is the unique, creative work of writing "perform XYZ instruc

by bri3d 3y ago

If the patch is distributed on its own, without the original binary, is it still a derivative work? Is the unique, creative work of writing "perform XYZ instruction at XYZ address," in lieu of the original executable, still derivative? This is actually an unanswered/unproven question that comes up quite a bit in automotive tuning, where individuals and tuning companies modify OEM calibrations and create application software patches which, while they are unique and perform stand-alone functions, run on top of OEM ECU software.

EvanAnderson 3y ago
The history of General Computer Corporation's[0] arcade enhancement boards is an interesting example of this kind of "derivative" work. GCC made an enhancement board for Missile Command and later for Pac Man ("Crazy Otto", which became "Ms. Pac Man"). Rather than employing simple "ROM hacks" as other enhancement board manufacturers did, GCC specifically built their enhancement hardware not to contain any code copied from the original game ROM. Their hardware patched the existing ROM only by overlaying their code onto the original ROMs, not by copying any of the original code[1]. There's some neat detail in the background slides here[2]. I'd love to hear that talk but I'm not immediately a recording of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Computer_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Computer_Corporation [1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/sts145/Notes/3_game_business/html/legal_issues_notes.htm https://web.stanford.edu/class/sts145/Notes/3_game_business/... [2] https://trilobyte.com/pdf/golson_ReplayFX_2015.pdf https://trilobyte.com/pdf/golson_ReplayFX_2015.pdf
lmm 3y ago
> If the patch is distributed on its own, without the original binary, is it still a derivative work? Yes, just as annotations are recognised as being a derivative work even without the original. > Is the unique, creative work of writing "perform XYZ instruction at XYZ address," in lieu of the original executable, still derivative? If you can convince a judge that, on the balance of probabilities, you were divinely inspired to write it with no connection to the original executable, then it's not derivative. But good luck with that.

by bri3d 3y ago

EvanAnderson 3y ago

The history of General Computer Corporation's[0] arcade enhancement boards is an interesting example of this kind of "derivative" work. GCC made an enhancement board for Missile Command and later for Pac Man ("Crazy Otto", which became "Ms. Pac Man"). Rather than employing simple "ROM hacks" as other enhancement board manufacturers did, GCC specifically built their enhancement hardware not to contain any code copied from the original game ROM. Their hardware patched the existing ROM only by overlaying their code onto the original ROMs, not by copying any of the original code[1]. There's some neat detail in the background slides here[2]. I'd love to hear that talk but I'm not immediately a recording of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Computer_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Computer_Corporation [1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/sts145/Notes/3_game_business/html/legal_issues_notes.htm https://web.stanford.edu/class/sts145/Notes/3_game_business/... [2] https://trilobyte.com/pdf/golson_ReplayFX_2015.pdf https://trilobyte.com/pdf/golson_ReplayFX_2015.pdf

lmm 3y ago

> If the patch is distributed on its own, without the original binary, is it still a derivative work? Yes, just as annotations are recognised as being a derivative work even without the original. > Is the unique, creative work of writing "perform XYZ instruction at XYZ address," in lieu of the original executable, still derivative? If you can convince a judge that, on the balance of probabilities, you were divinely inspired to write it with no connection to the original executable, then it's not derivative. But good luck with that.