So let’s just pretend that the leak was intentional, a rewrite of the source falls under fair use and the whole thing is abandonware anyway:
I really hope that you spoke to a lawyer before saying that. It might be true in some jurisdictions but in others a rewrite by someone who has had access to the source code of the original is tainted. This is why ReactOS, for example, does not accept contributions from people who have had access to the Windows source code and the Windows team requires a long cooling-off period for people who have worked on Linux before they are allowed to touch the NT kernel: if your new project is a derived work of the thing you copied then you may not have the rights to distribute it (or even run it).
You can reimplement things, you just can’t read stolen (‘leaked’) code and then reimplement it. In some jurisdictions, it’s completely fine to write tests and run them against the original and yours to ensure that you have a faithful reimplementation. Similarly, I can’t read the source of a GPL’d program and then go and write an MIT licensed version that works the same way and expect it not to be treated as a derived work of the GPL’d program.
If you’re doing any reverse engineering, it’s a good idea to check the law carefully first. GNUstep had to ban someone from the mailing lists because he kept disassembling Apple binaries and posting about how they worked for reimplementation. He was in China, so that’s probably fine for him, but it opened other contributors to significant liability if our implementations ended up matching the Apple one that he’d posted about.
Some reverse engineering efforts do a full clean room where one team has access to the original, write a load of tests to understand its behaviour, writes documentation, and then the other team implements based on the documentation. The reverse engineered IBM PC BIOS used this model. In most cases, that’s overkill.
I’m aware that looking at the original source code (or even disassembly) could get you in legal trouble, but thanks for the more thorough explanation (neat for people that may not be as familiar with this subject!)
My comment was mostly meant as an expression of disappointment in that we can’t do cool things with old (and not so old) pieces of software (and other media) because you risk that some company’s lawyers come knocking at your door one day. Doesn’t prevent game modders or soundtrack remixers from doing their thing, but knowing that one day the original developers may Thanos snap your labor of love into oblivion is pretty scary and really quite sad.
Well if you like keeping your creations for yourself then I guess you’ll be fine, but unfortunately I’m not that kind of person. I really like sharing my love for games with other people. I want other people to be able to hack on their favorite game more easily, to be able to fix bugs, improve the graphics, anything really, but copyright law makes it extremely difficult for me to create such tools and not get in trouble.
Mods are a sign of the fanbase’s love for a game. They’re not always made for internet karma. So bringing it down to “gathering e-peen points” is a very shallow view of the modding world in my opinion.
You’re right. I think the author already knows it. But it seems like they don’t care about that.
Sony has demonstrated a lack of interest in the original WipeOut in the past, so my money is on their continuing absence, If anyone at Sony is reading this, please consider that you have (in my opinion) two equally good options: either let it be, or shut this thing down and get a real remaster going. I’d love to help!
Not every activity has to be perfectly legal under each jurisdiction. And with the press the author got for this port, now also in PR-space, not just law-space.
If anyone at Sony is reading this, please consider that you have (in my opinion) two equally good options: either let it be, or shut this thing down and get a real remaster going
Right, because Sony has such a great reputation for sensible and proportional use of IP law and for avoiding bad publicity in its use.
It’s not a rewrite like that. The author started with the original source code and has cleaned it up and reimplemented several components, but much of the original remains.
In the repo he also asserts that, the game is currently not purchasable in any shape or form, which isn’t actually the case, although it is more challenging than it used to be. A functioning PS3 may be used to buy the game from PSN with a gift card.
I really hope that you spoke to a lawyer before saying that. It might be true in some jurisdictions but in others a rewrite by someone who has had access to the source code of the original is tainted. This is why ReactOS, for example, does not accept contributions from people who have had access to the Windows source code and the Windows team requires a long cooling-off period for people who have worked on Linux before they are allowed to touch the NT kernel: if your new project is a derived work of the thing you copied then you may not have the rights to distribute it (or even run it).
Can’t even have fun and hack on old games without getting your ass kicked.
I love copyright law.
You can reimplement things, you just can’t read stolen (‘leaked’) code and then reimplement it. In some jurisdictions, it’s completely fine to write tests and run them against the original and yours to ensure that you have a faithful reimplementation. Similarly, I can’t read the source of a GPL’d program and then go and write an MIT licensed version that works the same way and expect it not to be treated as a derived work of the GPL’d program.
If you’re doing any reverse engineering, it’s a good idea to check the law carefully first. GNUstep had to ban someone from the mailing lists because he kept disassembling Apple binaries and posting about how they worked for reimplementation. He was in China, so that’s probably fine for him, but it opened other contributors to significant liability if our implementations ended up matching the Apple one that he’d posted about.
Some reverse engineering efforts do a full clean room where one team has access to the original, write a load of tests to understand its behaviour, writes documentation, and then the other team implements based on the documentation. The reverse engineered IBM PC BIOS used this model. In most cases, that’s overkill.
I’m aware that looking at the original source code (or even disassembly) could get you in legal trouble, but thanks for the more thorough explanation (neat for people that may not be as familiar with this subject!)
My comment was mostly meant as an expression of disappointment in that we can’t do cool things with old (and not so old) pieces of software (and other media) because you risk that some company’s lawyers come knocking at your door one day. Doesn’t prevent game modders or soundtrack remixers from doing their thing, but knowing that one day the original developers may Thanos snap your labor of love into oblivion is pretty scary and really quite sad.
You’d be surprised how much cool stuff you can do without lawyers if you’re not also trying to gather e-peen points by bragging about it.
Well if you like keeping your creations for yourself then I guess you’ll be fine, but unfortunately I’m not that kind of person. I really like sharing my love for games with other people. I want other people to be able to hack on their favorite game more easily, to be able to fix bugs, improve the graphics, anything really, but copyright law makes it extremely difficult for me to create such tools and not get in trouble.
Mods are a sign of the fanbase’s love for a game. They’re not always made for internet karma. So bringing it down to “gathering e-peen points” is a very shallow view of the modding world in my opinion.
You’re right. I think the author already knows it. But it seems like they don’t care about that.
Not every activity has to be perfectly legal under each jurisdiction. And with the press the author got for this port, now also in PR-space, not just law-space.
Right, because Sony has such a great reputation for sensible and proportional use of IP law and for avoiding bad publicity in its use.
It’s not a rewrite like that. The author started with the original source code and has cleaned it up and reimplemented several components, but much of the original remains.
In the repo he also asserts that, the game is currently not purchasable in any shape or form, which isn’t actually the case, although it is more challenging than it used to be. A functioning PS3 may be used to buy the game from PSN with a gift card.
What an absolutely rock star game developer thing to do. Rewrite wipEout single-handed! I hope he gets the opportunity to do a proper remaster.
I see the QOA audio format he has used is something he devised himself, there was a link posted about it ~4 months ago.
I wish there was a yearly “recognition of developers” each year, by some open vote. This guy would be up there for sure.
I wish I could understand how the physics of that game works, that floating effect is pretty nice
Any time Dominic comes up in the news it’s always something good. Been following him since the initial Impact release!
for others who are not familiar, Impact is his HTML game engine https://github.com/phoboslab/impact