Is the original version even in print anymore? It’s really hard to believe that the “juice” of getting this taken down would be worth the squeeze.
Comment on TIL there is an open source port of Prince of Persia
glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I remember this one. I don’t know why they haven’t been DMCA-ed yet because you can’t make open-source programs based on the disassembly of proprietary projects (unless they have acquired the rights somehow which I doubt).
MisterMoo@kbin.social 1 year ago
ghariksforge@lemmy.world 1 year ago
they should put it on a dmca proof place
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So it’s not quite as clear cut as this. This is why even nintendo disassembly projects survive. There are allowances for this kind of thing.
repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl… is a good representation of the legalities around disassemblies
woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You cannot change the license of a derivative work. That part is clear cut.
I cannot take a Harry Potter book, use Google Translate to translate it into another language, polish up the result by hand, and then claim it as my work at slap whatever license I like on it.
lambdabeta@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
If you read the linked document, it outlines how reverse engineering may fall under a certain level of fair use, e.g. for reasearch and/or backup/archival purposes.
It really isn’t as clear-cut as it seems at first.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes, fair use and such. But slapping the GPL on the result is not fair use and archival. That you cannot do.