I remember this one. I don’t know why they haven’t been DMCA-ed yet because you can’t make open-source programs based on the disassembly of proprietary projects (unless they have acquired the rights somehow which I doubt).

So it’s not quite as clear cut as this. This is why even nintendo disassembly projects survive. There are allowances for this kind of thing.

repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl… is a good representation of the legalities around disassemblies

So it’s not quite as clear cut as this.

You cannot change the license of a derivative work. That part is clear cut.

I cannot take a Harry Potter book, use Google Translate to translate it into another language, polish up the result by hand, and then claim it as my work at slap whatever license I like on it.

If you read the linked document, it outlines how reverse engineering may fall under a certain level of fair use, e.g. for reasearch and/or backup/archival purposes.

It really isn’t as clear-cut as it seems at first.

Yes, fair use and such. But slapping the GPL on the result is not fair use and archival. That you cannot do.

Your changes can be gpl licensed, similar to how a rom hack can be licensed however you want.

Your changes can be gpl licensed, similar to how a rom hack can be licensed however you want.

Read the GPL and what it has to say about derivative works which this undeniably is.

I’ve been in the open source software world for multiple decades. I am well aware of the gpl and what it has to say about derivative works.

You seem a little confused however, though I feel like you are just desperately trying to wrangle an angle where you can totes win and you were never wrong. It’s really annoying to get into a conversation online like that.

Anyway, incase anyone else gets here, this guy is just endlessly wrong. Ignore.

I’m not wrong. You cannot just slap the GPL on disassembled proprietary software. That’s a fact. Ask your lawyer.