Equally they might end up reaching a different settlement that involves e.g.
As a result of this there's an open-source engine that you can use to play those games on linux). (I know of one case of this happening: a Japanese visual novel producer, Leaf, released their engine as used in several games e.g. Now the makers of this game and the copyright holder for the GPL work might end up reaching a settlement where the game engine is released under the GPL. But that doesn't mean that I can distribute your work without permission, any more than you assaulting my neighbour means that I'm allowed to assault you. If you don't stay within those conditions, then you're violating that person's copyright (you're redistributing their work without permission) and they can sue you. The way the GPL works is: you are given permission to redistribute someone's copyrighted work provided you comply with particular conditions (such as providing similar permission to your end users). It does not validate the general theory of why such things would be judged to be legal in other situations in other industries. My point is, since this probably only works because Big Company, it only works in similar situations where point 2 applies. This process might be slowed in slower industries like construction and pollution, but I would imagine it to be inevitable. I suspect these kind of situations are unstable, since as time goes by, the “loophole” will be abused more and more, and eventually it becomes untenable, and a judge will rule the “loophole” moot, (especially if the statue of limitations has conveniently expired for the crimes of Big Company). Smaller later companies uses same “loophole” and nobody can say anything, because that would be tantamount to accusing Big Company of misdeeds, and get into trouble. Everybody pretends it’s a loophole, in order to get out of having to get in trouble with Big Company.Ģ. Big Company gets what it wants because Big. For a great example of that look at the incredible work fans did to restore the original Star Wars.ġ. Pirates can do the same in situations where changes are made for other reasons and only the modified works are officially made available. In cases where a released work has to be modified to be legal to sell again and a company is willing to make the effort piracy can preserve the work exactly as the artists originally intended. Piracy solves this problem by maintaining playable copies and making them available so a creative work can delight, offend, and inspire indefinitely. In either case an artistic work and a piece of our culture is locked away forever from anyone who isn't interested in breaking the law.Įven in a case like this where copies of a game were already released eventually the existing CDs will all be lost, degraded, broken, or unusable. Even when it may be possible, it can easily be considered too costly in terms of time, money, and/or effort to be worth it to the company currently holding the copyright. Problems with licensing can make it impossible to sell an artistic work. This is not (just) me trying to look smart, it's stuff that you can actually encounter in some games and firmwares in the wild.
Spongebob moves in hack code#
Then if this code is not explicitly disabled in the production build you might be able to use a memory hack to switch enable_stats to true and get some potentially interesting output out of it.
Then it's obviously going to have a negligible impact performance-wise as long as enable_stats is false.
If you have some check every second that reads like: I mean it obviously depends on the frequency of the test.
>when you’re trying to push 60/120 frames per second nearly every switch statement is going to “cost” something I'm always trying to look smart but I don't always succeed.Īnyway, I'm not part of the industry but I do hack around in emulation circles and I've dug pretty deep in some of these old games, my point was that you can definitely end up with dead or almost-dead debug code that doesn't harm performance significantly (because it's never or almost never called) and lingers in the final binary.
0 kommentar(er)
