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

LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#71

Post by conradev »

LocalH wrote: post #32
conradev wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Emulators often require handling copyrighted materials like games or firmware, whereas APIs are not copyrightab…

The NES itself contains no code. Any NES emulator that ships with no software, or software under proper license (such as homebrew) is unambiguously legal. Does your PC, and the OS that drives it, suddenly become inherently illegal if you, as a user, installed pirated software? No, of course not.

Absolutely! It’s completely, unambiguously legal, which is why Google allows emulators on the Play Store.

Apple, beholden to copyright interests, is wary of software that allows even the possibility of copyright infringement. They just recently allowed video game emulators on their store.

It’s not a legal distinction, sure, but it’s also not apples to apples.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#72

Post by burgerrito »

glitchc wrote: post #4

Yeah but can I spend Robux on it? If not, pass. The whole problem is Robux isn't it? It's not like the engine is anything special.

Maybe this can be used as a way to archive a Roblox game?

I'm not really a Roblox player so I'm not sure.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#73

Post by kragen »

DANmode wrote: post #51
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, no society has ever overcome “might makes right.” Or, arguably, ever will. The good news though; it’s lawyers shutting down your project. Yesterday, it was hiring someone to break your knees.

The Pirate Bay, SciHub. The Internet interprets censorship (legal, moral, or otherwise) as damage, and routes around it.

No, that isn't how routing works on the internet. John was talking about Usenet. Usenet's routing does work that way.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#74

Post by kragen »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #35
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. I'm not saying Roblox won't try, but this project strikes me as very obviously legal. If legality was a spectrum, I'd rank this higher than VLC Media Player (patents) and way above an NES emulator. I suppose it'd be below Android, and Oracle did sue over Android. (Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.)

The supreme court ruled against oracle that an API cannot be copyrighted, but Roblox can still ban you for using an unofficial client (like discord does)

No, they ruled that the copyright on the API was valid, but that Google's infringement of it fell within the bounds of fair use. This was an enormous setback for free software potentially opening the doors for things like lawsuits against WINE for having too much of an impact on the Microsoft Windows market.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

kragen wrote: post #74
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court ruled against oracle that an API cannot be copyrighted, but Roblox can still ban you for using an unofficial client (like discord does)

No, they ruled that the copyright on the API was valid, but that Google's infringement of it fell within the bounds of fair use. This was an enormous setback for free software potentially opening the doors for things like lawsuits against WINE for having too much of an impact on the Microsoft Windows market.

> No, they ruled that the copyright on the API was valid

No, they didn't. They very specifically did not rule on whether the API was protected by Oracle's copyright on Java.

> but that Google's infringement of it fell within the bounds of fair use.

They found that, even if the API was protected, Google's use would be within the scope of fair use, and therefore it was not necessary to decide the question of the underlying copyright.

Here is, in full, the opening paragraph of the decision:

Oracle America, Inc., is the current owner of a copyright in Java SE, a computer program that uses the popular Java computer programming language. Google, without permission, has copied a portion of that program, a portion that enables a programmer to call up prewritten software that, together with the computer’s hardware, will carry out a large number of specific tasks. The lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the portion that Google copied, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying nonetheless constituted a “fair use” of that material, thereby freeing Google from copyright liability. The Federal Circuit held in Oracle’s favor (i.e., that the portion is copyrightable and Google’s copying did not constitute a “fair use”). In reviewing that decision, we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #35
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope it won't get slaughtered by Roblox's legal team. I'm not saying Roblox won't try, but this project strikes me as very obviously legal. If legality was a spectrum, I'd rank this higher than VLC Media Player (patents) and way above an NES emulator. I suppose it'd be below Android, and Oracle did sue over Android. (Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, etc.)

The supreme court ruled against oracle that an API cannot be copyrighted, but Roblox can still ban you for using an unofficial client (like discord does)

No, it didn't. It also didn't rule in favor of Oracle that the Java was protected by the copyright on Java. It just ruled that Google's use of the parts of the API in reimplementing it would be Fair Use even if it was protected, and therefore there was no need to answer the question of whether it was protected.

(This may seem backwards because it is skipping over a more basic question to a question that should only matter after that has been answered, but the Supreme Court can answer questions in any order it chooses, and will often answer the question that is easiest [and least disruptive/impactful] to answer first even when it seems logically backwards, if that lets it not answer other questions.)

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#78

Post by DANmode »

kragen wrote: post #73
DANmode wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pirate Bay, SciHub. The Internet interprets censorship (legal, moral, or otherwise) as damage, and routes around it.

No, that isn't how routing works on the internet. John was talking about Usenet. Usenet's routing does work that way.

That's how users work on the Internet.

and anyway, I heard Usenet is dead ;]

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#79

Post by whizzter »

kragen wrote: post #75

Are the majority of programmers currently Roblox programmers? I think they might be.

No, but there's an ridiculous amount of programmers whose first language will have been Lua and have grown up with using first class functions and composition over inheritance from day one.

Re: LunarEngine: An open source, Roblox-compatible game engine

#80

Post by kragen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #76
kragen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they ruled that the copyright on the API was valid, but that Google's infringement of it fell within the bounds of fair use. This was an enormous setback for free software potentially opening the doors for things like lawsuits against WINE for having too much of an impact on the Microsoft Windows market.

> No, they ruled that the copyright on the API was valid No, they didn't. They very specifically did not rule on whether the API was protected by Oracle's copyright on Java. > but that Google's infringement of it fell within the bounds of fair use. They found that, even if the API was protected, Google's use would be within the scope of fair use, and therefore it was not necessary to decide the question of the underl…

Thank you for the correction. I clearly misremembered. It was the Federal Circuit that ruled that the API was copyrightable, not the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Post reply on HN