papermario

ven the first line of it may be different depending on whether you use DW or DB and still compile to the same machine code. > There are no "technological measures" used to protect IP rights (i.e. DRM) in these older works; This is also wrong, because _there are_. We literally discussed 10NES which is one such method for a console two generations older, and you can see the ones from Paper Mario 64 right in the decompiled source: https://github.com/pmret/papermario/blob/main/src/general_he... > Re: ReactOS, and Re: 10NES... [incredibly-long-wall-of-text-that-you-keep-editing-and-moving-from-topic-to-topic-so-that-no-one-has-a-chance-to-interrupt-it-is-really-quite-hypnotic] No one is claiming that reverse engineering is illegal. What is claimed is that decompiling a protected work in full and then distributing that decompilation is definitely illegal. You can definitely decompile for reverse engineering. I have done it as part of my RL work, at least in the EU (which definitely clarifies that you have a right to decompile and _even copy_ the parts that are strictly required for interoperability. Not the entire game). But it is ridiculous to think (and I emphasize: ridiculous) that just because I apply a simple transformation to a protected work I can end up with a non-protected work that is legal for me to distribute without authorization. It would mean the end of copyright for computer programs as we know it. In fact, it is so ridiculous, that even since the act of _compilation_ is also a non-revertible transformation (or in your terms, non-bijective), the actual object code would NOT be subject to copyright ! (Because, despite what you're saying, what is copyrighted is the actual source code, with the object code being a derivate work).