Is This Legal ??

[??????]

Yea i get what your saying there... Obviously at some point someone must have had a means of 'collecting' data being produced from the dll or whatever in order to obtain data such as the functions to call...

Now though, that data is available at numerous sources online, so one no longer has to do the stuff that is frowned upon, one can simply google how to do [x] and google will generally provide some kinda answer.

Also if thats the case and my exe is against the TOS, that is also fine. I just kinda want to get some proper clarification as there is huge potential from findings such as this.. Would be nice to know if I can legally put them into practice

Edit:

@BigEd - You said dll, do you mean exe? or do you mean both the exe and dll that use code such as:

Spoiler

    typedef BOOL (*RGSSSetupRTP)      (const wchar_t* pIniPath, wchar_t* pErrorMsgBuffer, int iBufferLength);    typedef void (*RGSSSetupFonts)    ();    typedef void (*RGSSInitialize3)   (HMODULE hRgssDll);    typedef int  (*RGSSEval)          (const char* pScripts);    typedef void (*RGSSGameMain)      (HWND hWnd, const wchar_t* pScriptNames, wchar_t** pRgssadName);    RGSSSetupRTP     pRGSSSetupRTP     = NULL;    RGSSSetupFonts   pRGSSSetupFonts   = NULL;    RGSSInitialize3  pRGSSInitialize3  = NULL;    RGSSEval         pRGSSEval         = NULL;    RGSSGameMain     pRGSSGameMain     = NULL;

 

[BigEd781]

Now though, that data is available at numerous sources online, so one no longer has to do the stuff that is frowned upon...

Irrelevant. Consider a case in which you happen across a stash of stolen cash. It's still illegal for you to benefit from the original crime. It makes no difference whether or not you were the person who actually committed the robbery.


I'm all for open software and I'm not a huge fan of hyper restrictive EULA's, but this sort of use is covered by their user agreement in the reverse engineering clause.

 

[??????]

So... 'Finders Keepers' doesnt apply online?   (i joke btw)

Ok, so now I have to find out exactly what I can and cannot do, cause I mean, there are things I want to be doing, and if the EULA doesnt allow..

Also, I as again as I am not sure you seen, but uhh...

"You said dll, do you mean exe? or do you mean both the exe and dll that use code such as: (code in spoiler in previous post)"

 

[BigEd781]

I mean both. You mentioned using the RGSS3 DLL directly.

 

[??????]

Yes, the custom exe points to functions within the rgss301.dll which are called within the exe..

I do however have a dll which does similar functions (it doesnt act as a game exe or launcher, its simply a dll that applies additional ruby code into the engine at runtime) by calling methods in the rgss301.dll, Whats the view on that?

Also, judging from what you are saying, even if I was to call a function from the dll using ruby code from within the engine, this would be considered illegal? (sorry, but to be that seems absolutely insane to me)

 

[BigEd781]

Yes, the custom exe points to functions within the rgss301.dll which are called within the exe..


I do however have a dll which does similar functions (it doesnt act as a game exe or launcher, its simply a dll that applies additional ruby code into the engine at runtime) by calling methods in the rgss301.dll, Whats the view on that?

Same as before. I don't think they want people using any of their engine code unless it is done via the Ruby API.

Also, judging from what you are saying, even if I was to call a function from the dll using ruby code from within the engine, this would be considered illegal? (sorry, but to be that seems absolutely insane to me)

See above. The provide an API. You're going around the API and using the undocumented portions. That's what they don't want.

 

[kerbonklin]

Same as before. I don't think they want people using any of their engine code unless it is done via the Ruby API.

Just curious, do some general scripts that involve DLLs (such as mode7 scripts for example) also infringe on this? (I suppose they do not since they're been available without issues for a long time) Do those kind of DLLs call data from the RGSS301.DLL (along with adding additional ruby code) ?

 

[Shaz]

Your logic that it's okay to do because someone else has done it and the method is available all over the internet is flawed.

That's like saying it's okay to play hacked games, because someone else did the hacking and posted the results of their handiwork all over the internet, so it's okay to download and play already-pirated games since YOU are not the one breaking the DRM.

 

[Gothic Lolita]

Your logic that it's okay to do because someone else has done it and the method is available all over the internet is flawed.

That's like saying it's okay to play hacked games, because someone else did the hacking and posted the results of their handiwork all over the internet, so it's okay to download and play already-pirated games since YOU are not the one breaking the DRM.

I understand it, else things like free full price movies would be legal too. But it isn't and I don't watch them.

But I guess in basic everything is illegal, if you modify any system files of the maker or the game.exe.

I kinda understand it, I would be mad too, if someone changes or edits my stuff without permission or credits. (\s/)

 

[FenixFyreX]

So reverse engineering is the act of seeing any information whatsoever on a closed source of code, not matter how important? All it takes is opening the dll in notepad to see the names of the functions. Just because a few of us can use logic on how to put these functions together and recreate the exe, we could be shut down? I didn't think that was considered reverse engineering; more aptly a provision for other programs and/or user being able to identify how to use the damn library. Now that I understand quite how restrictive the EULA can be, it makes me really want to move on to a more liberal and quite honestly, better toolset :/


I guess it does no good to get worked up over it; rather, I guess we wait for a more lawful person to give us a better answer, or a higher up to point us in the right direction.

 

[whitesphere]

Depending on exactly what the modified game.exe does, it IS possible that Degicia might grant permission for that one case, provided the source for said exe remains closed and becomes the property of Degicia.

As for the legality of using online sources instead of directly doing the reverse engineering, I think that's just as illegal, just one step removed.

Let's say someone posted instructions on "Here is how to bypass XYZ type of door lock and alarm system."  If I then used those instructions to enter a business after hours, legally I would be breaking and entering even if I literally just set a foot on the property and promptly fell asleep after disarming the alarm and bypassing the lock.

On the Internet you can find instructions on how to door make almost anything.  It doesn't mean because the instructions are there that the result of following those instructions is legal. 

 

[??????]

Ok yea, I get what you guys are saying about alarm systems and movies and whatever, but realistically, those are not fair comparisons. (imo)

I am not using the code to perform any sort of malicious activity on the engine, or cause any loss of income to the company..

I am simply using knowledge I have learned to enhance both efficiency and security of my own game(s) and potentially games of others.

Now.. Its been stated previously that using such an exe (or dll) would result in a EULA breach (which imo is insane, but not gonna argue - if its law, its law.). But it has also been mentioned that if using such an item, you would not be able to use any of the RTP resources. I assume this is 'graphics, 'audio' and 'fonts' ? Does that include the rgss301.dll ?

For example, lets say I make a game using a custom exe, all custom graphics (tilesets, characters, etc..), sounds and fonts, which uses a custom encryption system and the only 'RPG Maker RTP item' is the aforementioned rgss301.dll. - Does that project break the law? Is there potential that the project could be 'shut down' due to EULA infringement?

Also, I would still appreciate some official word from Degica officials. Not that moderators comments dont matter or anything, I just want to ensure the 'end word' answers all the questions I have fully and its clear that you guys are rather restricted/limited in the information you can provide..

Edit:

@Kerbonlin - No, those kind of dll's are fine as their functions are called directly using ruby and at no point does the dll actually attach onto the engine and apply additional 'hidden' logic.

 

[hyde9318]

So this seems to be turning into somewhat of a witch hunt because he mentioned the info being in Google. I read this whole topic and realized that over fifty percent of the replies are "just because the info is online does not make it legal". Yes, it's there, it's been said, I don't feel dekita ever said that it made it legal in the first place. In fact, I feel this thread was here simply to ask if it was legal in the first place, so why don't we figure out exactly what we are looking at first.

Dekita has created a separate .exe to run the game. The term "reverse engineering is bad, mmkay?" Has been thrown around, but I fail to see why it is reverse engineering. This may because I am not a coder myself, so ignore me if I am wrong. But this sounds like it is his own file that calls and runs a file(s) from rpg maker. If the original rpg maker file being called upon was not changed and torn apart to make a new program, then I don't see how that breaks any rules. The idea that he had to reverse engineer the program to learn how to do this isn't a strong argument in the end due to what fenix said, the data is there already and it was a matter of time before someone learned how it worked. If degica or enterbrain wanted it to be completely hidden, there are ways to make sure something like that never happens, or at least is more difficult than it is, but they left it how it is right now. I feel they are more worried about people editing the editor software itself, not the games they create using their software. If we are allowed to sell and make money off games created in this software, why wouldn't we be able to make our own launchers/.exe files? But, as said before, I may be horribly ill-informed or downright wrong, so forgive me if I don't see something obvious.

I really would like to see a verdict from touch fuzzy though. He can shine some major light on this.

 

[??????]

YES!!  Get some fuzzy touching this topic!!

Edit:

@Hyde - Yes, my exe is simply a file that loads the ruby dll and runs it, this causes the rpg maker files to be loaded / read and subsequently, the game to run. Also, my thoughts are pretty similar. I'm not doing anything that causes any harm to like... anything.. So I dont get what is making it so illegal.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I'm reading through, then I'll give my full opinion.


Keep in mind that my opinion will not be an official statement from Degica until I directly say it is. Until that time, it will be my assessment based on the way we have handled things thus far.

 

[??????]

No worries dude, take yo time

 

[Susan]

The Eagle has landed!

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[Touchfuzzy]

OK, this is not an official Degica/Enterbrain statement, but here is where it stands from what I have observed with this kind of situation so far:


Does it break the EULA: Yes, it probably does. In order to figure out how to get it to use the dll, you have to reengineer parts of the original exe.


Are you likely to get in trouble for it? Not particularly. If you are doing noncom, I doubt anyone will ever care, and if you are going commercial, I'd probably want to run it up to higher ups than me to get a better answer.

 

[??????]

Ok, that is something at least.

You mention :

"In order to figure out how to get it to use the dll, you have to reengineer parts of the original exe."

Technically* the custom exe only calls functions from the rgss301.dll. any features within the custom exe aren't re-engineered. They simply use logic to call functions from said dll. Obviously, that is what the default exe does too - this is basic programming techniques shared by most programs though. - call functions from some dll to assist in the performance of the application.

( I suppose one could also argue that this in fact re-ngineering the exe, but in that case, degica re-engineered some other dudes exe to begin with, and he probably re-engineered some other exe before then and so on... )

How would one raise inquiry with the 'higher ups' you mention?

I also want to find out exactly how much I can alter my projects and their files - to make them dramatically different from other rm projects - so I kinda need to know the exact do's and dont's.

 

[Tsukihime]

YES!!  Get some fuzzy touching this topic!!


Edit:


@Hyde - Yes, my exe is simply a file that loads the ruby dll and runs it, this causes the rpg maker files to be loaded / read and subsequently, the game to run. Also, my thoughts are pretty similar. I'm not doing anything that causes any harm to like... anything.. So I dont get what is making it so illegal.

That isn't what makes something illegal.