Bermuda. I offer you another lost ROM

[HermChase]

And that's precisely one of the reasons that "IPS patches" are made for some more "neoclassic" systems (NES, SNES, GameBoys of All Kinds, Genesis, etc.). Those patches do not contain any code from the original game in them, but merely your changes to said code. This way, you are not distributing their code, and your code is all your own, without the original creator taking it. Best of both worlds, ne?

Maybe, if the situation reaches that point, Atari hacks may have to use something similar.

 

Also, upon reflection, I find the way this thread progressed from a series of observations to a serious debate on hack ethics to be slightly comical.

 

-------

Chase Hermsen

[Godzilla]

No. i say that is pretty much bullsht. (etc...)

 

Well, I can SAY it's bullshit too, so can the pope. But the fact remains that it is NOT bullshit.

 

Indeed it doesn't. Like i said, i can only distribute (or whatever else) my code. Not yours. By 'hacking' it i don't get rights to *YOUR* code, but only to the new code i added (or significally changed). Ofcourse it also works the other way around. You do not magically get any legal rights to my changes just because i might have based them on your work.

 

Example: I break into your house and steal some of your furniture. I use those to decorate my house. I get busted and you see that i based the decoration of my house on your furniture. Does that mean that you suddenly own all the stuff i used to decorate my house with? (hint: the answer is no)

 

Cheers,

Raymond

 

Your example is hugely flawed. Allow me to provide a correct analogy for you. What you would mean to say is 'I steal your house, and then I build another floor on top of it' Which of course means that the floor you built is entirely illegal, and within the legal realm of the owner of the house who you illegally built on. You just don't get that your 'code' or 'floor' or whatever CAN'T exist, CAN'T work and CAN'T do anything without the original house/code that you are using illegally.

 

2600 games are not GPL, people.

 

Don't take this to mean I'm against hacks or anything. I just don't want Raymond to keep unhealthy delusions, or propogate them. Realize that you enjoy illegal, black market, 2600 product, just like I do.

 

At least I KNOW what I'm dealing with. Leave Da Nile, raymond and come to Giza.

[Godzilla]

And that's precisely one of the reasons that "IPS patches" are made for some more "neoclassic" systems (NES, SNES, GameBoys of All Kinds, Genesis, etc.). Those patches do not contain any code from the original game in them, but merely your changes to said code. This way, you are not distributing their code, and your code is all your own, without the original creator taking it. Best of both worlds, ne?

Maybe, if the situation reaches that point, Atari hacks may have to use something similar.  

 

Also, upon reflection, I find the way this thread progressed from a series of observations to a serious debate on hack ethics to be slightly comical.      

 

-------

Chase Hermsen

 

That's exactly why .ips patches are done that way, yup. Do you think for one second if someone illegally hacked a gba's games graphics and resold it illegally as their own title that they would get to keep their stuff? hahaha :-)

[YOK-dfa]

Don't take this to mean I'm against hacks or anything. I just don't want Raymond to keep unhealthy delusions, or propogate them.

 

You are always free to disagree, but so am I. Anyway let me give you another example. I take a game (let's say Adventure) and I replace all the graphics of the characters with Star Wars figures. Does that mean Atari suddenly has the right to distribute Adventure with those changes and exploit it commercially? Can they take the graphics from Adventure (to which they now have the legal rights according to you) and add them to other games?

 

Cheers,

Raymond

[YOK-dfa]

I was hoping for a reply of some kind, especially from Ken Love since he apparently talked to some lawyers about this...