Bytecode MS Decompiler

[Duh]

We were advocating exactly that. The decompiler is fine, but if you want to use somebodies code, you still need their permission and obviously credit them (if im misinterpreting people here change that We to an I) Oh and we came to that conclusion without caring about legal reasons... its just the right thing to do.

 

[MadocComadrin]

So, does all this stuff means that everything that is between #rigale_start and #rigale_end brackets, that I actually coded, belong to ikisoft and me, and that as long as I don't make anybody pay for the mod, I can express the will to share those bits of code or not ? And, as it is also considered an ikisoft propriety, it shouldn't be altered, copied, reversed engineered stuff..., without the express permission of the owner, that is, ikisoft or me for this itsy bitsy part of code ?

Well, if so, that's perfectly fine for me...

Well, de jure, you're violating the EULA by modding it in the first place, and no, since TW turns a blind eye to allow modding to happen, you're certainly not going to be able to enforce that language yourself. Likewise, since you can't own an algorithm, you really only can claim a fraction of the ownership of the bells and whistles, code layout, comments, variable names, and how the code is put together to form the mod. Reverse engineering for the sake of discovering an algorithm is perfectly legal.

We were advocating exactly that. The decompiler is fine, but if you want to use somebodies code, you still need their permission [in most cases] and obviously credit them (if im misinterpreting people here change that We to an I) Oh and we came to that conclusion without caring about legal reasons... its just the right thing to do.

Yes, whether or not you support the decompiler, this is the right attitude to have.

 

[Caba`drin]

We were advocating exactly that. The decompiler is fine, but if you want to use somebodies code, you still need their permission and obviously credit them (if im misinterpreting people here change that We to an I) Oh and we came to that conclusion without caring about legal reasons... its just the right thing to do.

This. It is what is standard practice already with other mod resources.

And the EULA, in speaking to "the Program" is almost assuredly referring to reverse engineering the engine/.exe, not the freely released Module System that Taleworlds has provided.

 

[Swyter]

Apart from that I'm trying to protect our works and put a conciliatory mood in between. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
It's somehow paradoxic you're trying to defend Taleworlds after all, being a modder yourself.

They HAVE allowed us to mod, this is out of discussion. Offering us official documentation, modulable structure, and support.

I have a module in DesuraNet, they had to agree to the platform's EULA and, myself also. So that's enough counterpart for your fuzzy needs.
The only limitation in license they give to me (expressly) is the lack of direct profit.

Other companies even allow a charge for your work. At least in this distribution platform.


About the rest, is easy. You own what you do. The rest is part of the original product. Already covered by the general EULA.
And everything that reverse engineers every-single-part of the game is purely illegal.

And sorry, but you are already bound to it because everyone of you have installed the game, and therefore, agreed the license.

 

[themendios]

Second. You can be legally owner of the code.

These are legal facts, not opinions.

Where are you getting this from?  The code isn't yours.  The rest is irrelevant because it relies on this being true.

Unless Talesworld has some special EULA for modding the general modding legality is that everything you do with the provided mod tool, and all files you create in any mod-specific file format, is the property of Talesworld and can be used for anything at their discretion.  By creating a mod you are expressly going against the EULA (with their implied permission) and they can revoke that permission at any time for any reason whatsoever.

Legally other users can do whatever they want with your submissions provided Talesworld doesn't specify otherwise. 

Repeat: you never own it.  You cannot own it.

Nobody is suggesting that you should forcibly rip code from somebody's mod without their permission and I would hope that nobody does that and the community enforces it.  But nothing is stopping you from looking at it or how it works and you cannot be denied that right by anyone other than Talesworld.

About the rest, is easy. You own what you do. The rest is part of the original product. Already covered by the general EULA.
And everything that reverse engineers every-single-part of the game is purely illegal.

Not if it is in their official module system or built with the intent to create such a mod.  It's like coding something at work, most places have an explicit clause that if you code something on their time/machines then it's theirs if they want it even if it's not part of your work.

 

[Swyter]

Second. You can be legally owner of the code.

Where are you getting this from?  The code isn't yours.  The rest is irrelevant because it relies on this being true.

MY code is mine. MY code parts are MINE. Every discernible byte non included in the original implementation belongs to me. That doesn't applies to modified parts/ reimplementations of the native code. Of course.

And you, my friend. By creating the decompiler have broken the End User License Agreement.

 

[Caba`drin]

Swyter, you talk about being disappointed about people not reading the commentary of other members and engaging in a discussion and then proceed to go on this one-sided, acidic tirade. I cannot say I understand.

By creating the decompiler have broken the End User License Agreement.

In almost every way the .txt files are the Module System .py files, which are the .txt files. Taleworlds provides us with the materials to move .py->.txt and the process files by which one can easily go the other direction. Never in that process does one decompile "the Program".

 

[themendios]

MY
mine.
MY
MINE
me

A good summary of the counter-argument I think. 

You're just ignoring what I said and repeating the same thing, which is incorrect.  You can't own it as long as you're using the official mod system.  If you had a program like mine that created it you could own that program, not the end result.

My program doesn't use the official modding system nor does it have anything to do with the Program so it doesn't fall under the EULA in any way.

 

[Cernunos]

What themendios says is that he doesn't care about your work, your feeling, your commitment to the community, all he cares is about offering others a tool to "share" what you did. And the more the thread grows, the more obvious it becomes.

This is pointless. Swyter, please, take a deep breath, don't be as stupid as me. The only thing that can sort things out off this mess is an official move from Taleworlds.

 

[Swyter]

Swyter, you talk about being disappointed about people not reading the commentary of other members and engaging in a discussion and then proceed to go on this one-sided, acidic tirade. I cannot say I understand.

By creating the decompiler have broken the End User License Agreement.

In almost every way the .txt files are the Module System .py files, which are the .txt files. Taleworlds provides us with the materials to move .py->.txt and the process files by which one can easily go the other direction. Never in that process does one decompile "the Program".

Sorry but bytecode reconstruction is today called that.
As you can see you give away a cyphered/ obfuscated operation codes ordered in conditional conforming a determinative logical chain.
By decrypting the operation code array you're exactly and solely reconstructing the readability of the same.

It's the same in Assembler, ARM, X86, or proprietary implementations.

 

[themendios]

Sorry but bytecode reconstruction is today called that.
As you can see you give away a cyphered/ obfuscated operation codes ordered in conditional conforming a determinative logical chain.
By decrypting the operation code array you're exactly and solely reconstructing the readability of the same.

It's the same in Assembler, ARM, X86, or proprietary implementations.

Bytecode reconstruction?  'Assembler, ARM, X86, or proprietary implementations'?  Are you serious?  It sounds like you're just throwing out terms to try to sound smart.

There is a plaintext file with numbers in it.  Those numbers correspond to other numbers in other plaintext files.  The entire system is explained by the company itself.

There's no cypher because it's not encrypted.  There's no obfuscation because the translation is laid out plain as day for anyone to see, indeed even with comments as to what it's doing.

 

[Shik]

Awesome work! Now I'll borrow code from all the big mods and make the best mod ever, you guys will love it!

 

[chadz]

Awesome work! Now I'll borrow code from all the big mods and make the best mod ever, you guys will love it!

I'd play it.

 

[xenoargh]

You guys have got to be kidding us.

You do not have copyright.  Taleworlds does.  You are building a derivative work and the EULA does not entitle you to jack or squat.

Do we need to say that more slowly?

 

[Cernunos]

Aww, crap, I made a mistake, I said the mercantilism mod
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,165325.0.html
was computica's, while it is keinPlan86m 's.

I am really sorry about that.

 

[JatuWrangler]

Sorry but bytecode reconstruction is today called that.
As you can see you give away a cyphered/ obfuscated operation codes ordered in conditional conforming a determinative logical chain.
By decrypting the operation code array you're exactly and solely reconstructing the readability of the same.

It's the same in Assembler, ARM, X86, or proprietary implementations.

I can't say that I feel confident that you know what you're talking about.  First of all, to reverse something in assembler you do not need to disassemble or 'decrypt' (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context).  You already see what you need just by debugging it.  Also you appear to be using terms in correlation that makes no sense.

"Assembler", "x86",  and " proprietary implementations" used together in that way?  It is strange and does not inspire confidence.

 

[The Shadow]

Second. You can be legally owner of the code.

Where are you getting this from?  The code isn't yours.  The rest is irrelevant because it relies on this being true.

MY code is mine. MY code parts are MINE. Every discernible byte non included in the original implementation belongs to me. That doesn't applies to modified parts/ reimplementations of the native code. Of course.

And you, my friend. By creating the decompiler have broken the End User License Agreement.

This is true.  While the language could be called TaleWorld's, any code that I write with it is mine.  If TaleWorlds copies and pastes it, there is potential for a lawsuit there. 

 

[JatuWrangler]

This is true.  While the language could be called TaleWorld's, any code that I write with it is mine.  If TaleWorlds copies and pastes it, there is potential for a lawsuit there.

This is only true if you provide your own deployment system.  The module system is a fully functioning piece of software (a python application) that was written by TaleWorlds.  By modifying this application, and without a license that entitles you to anything, you are donating your code to TaleWorlds.

This is important and keeps being overlooked in this discussion:  The module system is not an SDK, it is an application that gets executed when you use their build batch.

Now, given that you write your own application that can output those plain text files that the engine needs to execute your scripts then yes, that would be your own.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Second. You can be legally owner of the code.

Where are you getting this from?  The code isn't yours.  The rest is irrelevant because it relies on this being true.

MY code is mine. MY code parts are MINE. Every discernible byte non included in the original implementation belongs to me. That doesn't applies to modified parts/ reimplementations of the native code. Of course.

And you, my friend. By creating the decompiler have broken the End User License Agreement.

No, how can I rephrase "you can't own an algorithm?" Essentially, the only parts of the code you own are the creative parts-how it fits together to form the mod, displayed strings, variable names, comments, etc. He hasn't broken the EULA (or at least, not anymore than a normal modder has), and even if he has, didn't Thorgrim break the EULA with his map editor? That surely reverse engineered map.txt. Or what about OpenBRF and BRFedit? Their creators reverse engineered the brf format.

And what of WSE? If anyone broke the EULA, it's cmpxchg8b, yet Taleworlds has yet to shut him down. So, considering how lax TW is with enforcing that part of their EULA, I'd say a judge would consider that section of the EULA void in respect to modding.

Sorry but bytecode reconstruction is today called that.
As you can see you give away a cyphered/ obfuscated operation codes ordered in conditional conforming a determinative logical chain.
By decrypting the operation code array you're exactly and solely reconstructing the readability of the same.

It's the same in Assembler, ARM, X86, or proprietary implementations.

First, this is hardly the same as using a low-level language, but I'll bite. Ciphering and obfuscation have two teeth-the software tooth and the legality tooth. The software teeth is the function of the obfuscation/cipher: in this regard, a better cipher/obfuscator is paramount; however, for the legal tooth, the quality doesn't matter, it's solely the presence: it allows you to say to a judge, "Hey, I obfuscated this with the purpose of preventing reverse engineering (which I reserve the right to deny) and he went and cracked it anyway!". It doesn't matter if you used a cipher that would have taken 15 minutes to brute-force decode or the most effective obfuscator ever, a judge will recognize that you tried to prevent reverse engineering in that regard and rule with you.

However, what we have here isn't even a direct translation--it's a declaration of variables for convenience. I could change all the opcode identifiers to foo#, but that doesn't do jack to the text file or even what the process_*.py files see when run. There is no cipher, nor is there an obfuscator (no, dropping most of the variable names doesn't count as obfuscating), so neither tooth is present.

Now, given that you write your own application that can output those plain text files that the engine needs to execute your scripts then yes, that would be your own.

A good point raised, and a good point for me to keep in mind later. 

 

[Cernunos]

Hmmmm, so , if I understand you well, MadocComadrin, technically
Brytenwalda is not Ibidil's and his team anymore ?
1755 is not Gabrilduro and his team anymore ?
Sword of Damocles is not computica and his team anymore ?
Hundred years war is not Gandalf the Grey and his team anymore ?
Floris mod pack is not monnikje and his team anymore ?
And so on ?
And actually, it never was ?

So, its a little bit like saying I don't own the car I bought, because I didn't build it in the first place ? And that if I add a new radio, the new radio belongs to the car maker ? And that a guy can create some sort of universal car unlocker, distribute it freely for everybody to use, on behalf that we don't own our cars ? So that the fact that I worked pretty damn hard to get a nice car doesn't count in your world, and that the next lazy guy can just come and pick it up ?

Or am I wrong ?