101–110 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's "Open ReWrite". That's what the description of the Github repository says.
Yeah but that’s clearly a backronym.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://git.robbyzambito.me/mirror/re3.git/log/?h=miami
Seems to be down. Here is my mirror, it should have all the commits: https://git.dawidpotocki.com/mirror/re3/
Edit: I see, it's just some CSS. New question: Is it FOSS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when re3 was sued The day reverse-engineering legal protections failed.
re3 is a very dubious legal case. They decompiled the game with debug symbols and then did a (aiui) non-clean room reimplementation of the code, based on the decompilation. It is protected legal activity to decompile a binary and study the source. It is protected legal activity to study some source code, describe it, and have someone who never saw the source reimplement the code described. It is straightforwardly ill…
But it is not straightforwardly illegal (according to Microsoft et al) to decompile source code, train an LLM on it, generate the source code, recompile it, and then distribute the recompiled binary.
One easy 947 quadrillion tensor-operations lifehack
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be down. Here is my mirror, it should have all the commits: https://git.dawidpotocki.com/mirror/re3/
Is this a fork of cgit? Do you have the source? It's lovely :) Edit: I see, it's just some CSS. New question: Is it FOSS?
I have not cleaned it up for release or anything, so it's a bit messy, but feel free to use it under the licence terms of cgit (GPLv2.0-only) and if you don't mind, put an attribution somewhere, like at least at the top of the CSS file.
EDIT: You will also need this in your , otherwise you won't have a mobile-friendly layout:
class BiualStyle(Style):
background_color = "#000000"
highlight_color = "#222222"
default_style = "#cccccc"
styles = {
Token: "var(--code-cyan)",
Whitespace: "",
Comment: "var(--code-blue)",
Comment.Preproc: "",
Comment.Special: "var(--code-red)",
Comment.Hashbang: "var(--code-magenta)",
Keyword: "var(--code-yellow)",
Keyword.Declaration: "var(--code-green)",
Keyword.Namespace: "var(--code-magenta)",
Keyword.Pseudo: "",
Keyword.Type: "var(--code-magenta)",
Operator: "var(--code-yellow)",
Operator.Word: "var(--code-yellow)",
Name: "",
Name.Class: "var(--code-cyan)",
Name.Builtin: "var(--magenta)",
Name.Exception: "var(--code-green)",
Name.Variable: "var(--code-cyan)",
String: "var(--code-red)",
Number: "var(--code-magenta)",
Generic.Heading: "var(--code-green)",
Generic.Subheading: "var(--code-magenta)",
Generic.Deleted: "var(--code-red)",
Generic.Inserted: "var(--code-green)",
Generic.Error: "var(--code-red)",
Generic.Emph: "italic",
Generic.Strong: "bold",
Generic.Prompt: "bold var(--code-blue)",
Generic.Output: "var(--code-gray)",
Generic.Traceback: "var(--code-blue)",
Error: "border:var(--code-red)"
}Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one gem from the project, a partial reimplementation of RenderWare: https://github.com/aap/librw
I would love to see the first few Burnout games given the modern re-implementation treatment, but EA would probably behave the same way as Take2.
Looking into it, I found one instance of a reimplementation attempt[0], but it isn't clear to me how far along it is. There's some discussion of it here [1].
[0]: https://github.com/reburndev/reburn3
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/REGames/comments/15ymbtq/an_open_so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Openmw is a clean room implementation. Bethesda could throw a legal fit regardless but it would be indefensible for them to do so.
Clean rooms protect from patent issues, but do little to protect against copyright or trademark actions. The fact that one creates totally new code from scratch means nothing if the end product is too similar to the existing copyrighted work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
re3 is a very dubious legal case. They decompiled the game with debug symbols and then did a (aiui) non-clean room reimplementation of the code, based on the decompilation. It is protected legal activity to decompile a binary and study the source. It is protected legal activity to study some source code, describe it, and have someone who never saw the source reimplement the code described. It is straightforwardly ill…
"It is straightforwardly illegal to decompile source code, recompile it, and the distribute the recompiled binary." According to what? If the rules are so poorly defined that way then maybe it's not a bad thing to disregard them. Because simply decompiling source code and then recompiling it isn't a simple one-step thing in the way you suggest, not even close.
If you wrote a bash script which decompiled and recompiled the original binary, that would be your property to distribute as you like
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when re3 was sued The day reverse-engineering legal protections failed.
Not really. No legal protection is able to stop an overzealous litigant from suing you. The real test is whether they win the case, not whether they can file one. Unfortunately, most people don't have the means to defend such a lawsuit, so they get bullied out of their legal rights.
These companies know very well these independent groups, even if it's on their legal bounds, can't afford a legal defense team and actively exploit that to abuse them away.