Dirty Reverse Engineering and Relicensing, where do we stand

[Fel]

Let's first make one thing clear, when you license a mod you are licensing all components of that mod regardless of whether those components are critical to the mod or not. Taking a component verbatim from one mod and using it in your own, so long as it is "significant source that constitutes a unique algorithm" falls under the protections of the license. Only if you generate the same output but use different algorithms to do so, are you not forced under the original license.

But copyright law also has clauses dealing with Dirty Reverse Engineering. Even if you generate a unique algorithm, by personally examining the source code yourself you become "tainted" and hence force to adhere to the original license. The main case law I know of dealing with this would be AMD vs Intel, where AMD had a team using dirty reverse engineering to document how Intel's CPU worked and fed "rough descriptions" to another team to construct an equivalent; only by creating this barrier between the two teams was AMD's actions ruled not a violation of copyright.

I would like to note that while the Open Source Community DOES occasionally practice dirty reverse engineering techniques, the lack of lawsuit against them is not indicative of their being in the right. Often this is a risk benefit analysis, knowing that the FSF will likely appoint someone to defend a wrongdoer and cost a company more in the end. Similarly cases do exist in the reverse, where companies are being sued for use of Open Source code or derivatives in commercial products without adhering to the licensing of said code.

So the question is, given how many mods use the source of other mods as "influence", can we actually change the license without truthfully being in violation?

[SAI Peregrinus]

This will depend upon the license.

EG WTFPL licensed mods (there are some) can be freely relicensed. GPL mods can't.

[m4v]

I will worry about this when some modder sues another in a real court room. Until then is just something for forum moderators to arbitrate when the issue arises.

[rhoark]

A patent protects an idea; a copyright only protects the particular expression of an idea. This boundary has not been fully mapped in court.

[RoverDude]

I'm Curious which mod started this thought experiment

[Fel]

I'm Curious which mod started this thought experiment

In truth, I was trying to explain to someone that when you license something you license all parts of it and that until the code was changed it still falls under the same license... but then I realized that by changing code you have seen to form new code is covered under dirty reverse engineering. Most of the time we ignore licenses but if someone wanted to, they could bring a court case up over one

[RoverDude]

Actually, most of the time we respect licenses

[sarbian]

I would say that I am a bit liberal about the uses of GPL code in "less" open license (MIT/BSD).