Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

openrw.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#121

Post by immibis »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #108
hd4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's the distribution step that's illegal, since you don't own the original binary. If you can't distribute the original binary, why can you distribute a modified version of it? If you wrote a bash script which decompiled and recompiled the original binary, that would be your property to distribute as you like

Decompilation is also illegal in broken countries (which is most of them)

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#122

Post by tiahura »

sandworm101 wrote: post #87
kevinmchugh wrote: post #51

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.

You’re 180 degrees backwards.

Copyright infringement requires copying.

Patent infringement does not require copying.

There's a famous case on this exact issue.

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc. 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

"Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari made literal copies of the NES program. Alternatively, Nintendo can show copying by proving that Atari had access to the NES program and that Atari's work — the Rabbit program — is substantially similar to Nintendo's work in ideas and the expression of those ideas."

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#123

Post by hd4 »

throwaway290 wrote: post #83
hd4 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Next you will suggest that stealing original artwork and laundering copyright through generative art ML systems is not illegal...

false equivalence

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#124

Post by qingcharles »

MBCook wrote: post #46
moosedev wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GTA 3 family of GTA games did, yes. They were PlayStation 2 games first, and RenderWare was relatively common for PS2 games. Source: worked in game dev using RenderWare on PS2 back then

Since you were in the industry, was RW the first big 3rd party engine? I know it’s common now, and seems to have really taken off in the Wii/PS3/360 era. My understanding is it wasn’t in the PSX generation (at least early?).

It was everywhere in the 90s that I remember when I was a game dev. I don't know if you would call it a game engine? We just called it a 3D engine back then. Back then at least I only remember it doing the graphics, no physics, animation, sound, etc?

It must have started off as a purely software renderer as I can remember trying to compete with their published stats on tris/sec.

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#125

Post by qingcharles »

powersurge360 wrote: post #10
colechristensen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t for a while, they released a “definitive edition” which is available. They took the old versions down somewhat prematurely before releasing the remasters. A small number of people got some attention being disproportionally upset about this.

This minimizes things a bit. The definitive editions got torn apart for being ugly and poorly developed. It was a better experience to use the originals and mod them in many cases. This original version is still not available and people are still upset about it. Looks like the DE version of GTAIII currently has a 6 out of 10 on steam so it probably hasn’t been improved since release.

I know they took out this reference, probably because they didn't know what it was for:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/3ylmm4/comment/cyet...

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#126

Post by xcdzvyn »

dawidpotocki wrote: post #105
xcdzvyn wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yep, just some CSS. 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: And also a custom pygments config so it uses the correct variables for c…

Thanks a lot!

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#127

Post by ungamedplayer »

immibis wrote: post #121
kevinmchugh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the distribution step that's illegal, since you don't own the original binary. If you can't distribute the original binary, why can you distribute a modified version of it? If you wrote a bash script which decompiled and recompiled the original binary, that would be your property to distribute as you like

Decompilation is also illegal in broken countries (which is most of them)

I find this hard to believe..

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#128

Post by sandworm101 »

marcinzm wrote: post #112
sandworm101 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's literally the exact opposite of reality: > Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

In code, not end product. You can reverse engineer code all day, but your end product better not end up looking identical to the protected work. I could set a thousand AI machines in a clean room generating new song lyrics. Eventually one of them will randomly come up with identical lyrics to a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I now own those lyrics free and clear. "Technically, I didn't copy" isn't a defense when you try to sell an identical product. It can be a defense in patent areas where one wants to argue prior art or obviousness.

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#129

Post by marcinzm »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
marcinzm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally the exact opposite of reality: > Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

In code, not end product. You can reverse engineer code all day, but your end product better not end up looking identical to the protected work. I could set a thousand AI machines in a clean room generating new song lyrics. Eventually one of them will randomly come up with identical lyrics to a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I now own those lyrics free and clear. "Technically, I didn't copy " isn't a defense wh…

I'm just pointing out that your statement was 100% incorrect in every single possible setting.

A clean room is NEVER a possible defense for patents and it is sometimes a possible defense for copyright.

Re: A Grand Theft Auto III Re-Implementation

#130

Post by kevinmchugh »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
marcinzm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally the exact opposite of reality: > Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

In code, not end product. You can reverse engineer code all day, but your end product better not end up looking identical to the protected work. I could set a thousand AI machines in a clean room generating new song lyrics. Eventually one of them will randomly come up with identical lyrics to a Taylor Swift song. That doesn't mean I now own those lyrics free and clear. "Technically, I didn't copy " isn't a defense wh…

You can't copyright the functionality of a software program. Copyright is a fixed expression. You can't copyright a song about heartbreak and you can't copyright the idea of a four function calculator implemented in a GUI.

You may be able to patent the functionality of a piece of software.

The point of the clean room practice is to avoid a literal line for line copy of the original software. It would be entirely legal to say, write a song from the perspective of Taylor Swift about her feeling sad and betrayed after a breakup.

But analogies are dicey because the law treats functional software differently from literary expression.

Precedent here is vTech reimplementing the Apple II BIOS and Phoenix reimplementing the IBM BIOS and Connectix selling a PlayStation emulator for a fraction of the price of a PlayStation.

Post reply on HN