It is not illegal (at least in the US, in europe it is) to do it and the tools to do it are nowadays freely available on the web.
To avoid it you can use methods such as obfuscation but since plugins are no commercial application under copyright law I find it pointless to go to such lengths to hide your code. And in case you want to submit a copyright claim for your plugin again it is not illegal for someone to decompile the code and read it, but it is illegal for them to use the code they read. 
e.g. the Rising World code is more or less fully decompilable and clearly readable, me and a few other community members have tried it out of curiosity and to admire red51's coding skills 
Again I repeat the fact that you can see the code doesn't mean you are allowed to use it. Rising World and JIW are registered Trademarks and fall under copyright law so if someone uses the code they see they can be sued depending where they come from even in their own country's judicial system, else there are international courts that try such cases.
PS: sorry for the answer in english my german is not good enough for such legal stuff 
Thank you for your answer.
PS: sorry für die Antwort in Englisch mein Deutsch ist nicht gut genug für solche rechtliches
Do not worry. English and German may be used here.
I am not a lawyer, so what I know and understand is mostly hearsay and second hand; for any 'serious' matter I would consult a lawyer.
That said, as far as I know and remember, I think, >> I THINK << that, at least in the EU, every reverse engineering (R.E.) is forbidden and decompilation definitely fall in the reverse engineering class.
Once upon a time there used to be an exception which allowed R.E. of something else if necessary to make a product of yours interoperating with that something else and if you don't share the result of the R.E. with anybody else; but I have no idea if this is still true.
This, I believe, the theory in great summary. In practice, as @Minotorious said, Java decompilation is easy and at hand reach of practically everybody; many of us surely decompiled parts of RW own code; for instance one can infer this is how all those lists of objects and items are created (which, on the paper, is a "capital offence", as knowledge is obtained from R.E., used to derive other knowledge and then publicly shared!).
I presume JIW Games could go after those practices, but it would be quite silly, as they are, SO FAR, in the interest of the game itself. Certainly, if less fair usages of RW decompilation should surface, the reaction of the copyright holder would be far less benign, I imagine.
If @PatrickBronke is concerned people can read his code, he definitely should not use Java, if possible; but of course for RW plug-ins Java is mandatory. On the other hand, a case could be made that development of new RW plug-ins would benefit from code of existing plug-ins to be freely available and this would ultimately benefit the whole community of users. I myself, I am posting my plug-ins on github, but of course everybody is entitled of his own position on that topic.
@Miwarre you are right: EU Directive 2009/24:
(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the right-holder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.
Hello all ;D
Important is the license, when the Plugin is under GPL and the source is hide or what else ;D So I think is the decompile legal ;D
Ich finde sehr wichtig ist worunter das Plugin für gesetzt worden ist, also die Lizens halt. Wenn es GPL ist, aber der Quelltext ist nicht vorhanden oder weiss der Geier ;D Dann würde ich sagen ist das Decompillieren erlaubt.
Vielleicht sollte @red51 das irgendwie rechtlich absichern hier, das diejenigen die Plugins hier veröffentlichen, das diese Plugins unter einer bestimmten License gesetzt wird. Denke das würde einiges erleichtern ;D
Aber ich bin kein programmierer, daher ist das nur meine persönliche Meinung ;D
Display MoreHallo alle zusammen,
ich habe mal eine ganz interessante Frage. Ist es überhaupt erlaubt, Java Programme zu dekompilieren?
Ich persönlich finde es blöd, wenn jeder deinen Java-Code lesen kann.
Was ist eure Erfahrung / Meinung?
Hello everyone,
I have a very interesting question. Is it even allowed to decompile Java programs?
Personally, I find it stupid if everyone can read your Java code.
What is your experience / opinion?
ich kenne mich mit dem programmieren nur ein ganz klein wenig aus und das eine Plug In was ich raus gebracht habe ist leider auch nicht ohne Hilfe entstanden.
Trotzdem würde es mir nicht im Traum einfallen den Code anderer einfach auszulesen und zu benutzen. Ich weiß aber das es Programme gibt mit denen dies sehr leicht sein soll.
Denke wenn man was nicht weiß oder Hilfe braucht helfen hier die meisten gern und dafür auch mal von mir ein dank an alle. Trotzdem ist es schade das es so ein Thema hier jetzt gibt.
Is it being decompiled and used for money and profit? Does it use an copyrighted software to function itself? The copyright protects you from infringement, allows you to sue for damages and can protect you from the harm of being sued. Do you think a server owner gives up all rights for the proper functioning of his server when they use your plugin with the game? Are you protected from any such damages? Do you put license agreements in your plugin? Sounds like we need JIW and Steam's legal department.
Certainly the moral right of the author to be recognized or protected against a derogatory and harm to the reputation of the author protected from such in these forums. It sounds like JIW needs to publish a fair use policy. Possibly fair use for plugin definition can be published or general plug in license. If a plugin is posted for free download then maybe a "copyleft" type license to let others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
This would allow JIW to remove a posted plugin for free download on their site if you complained of your plugin being copied or infringed upon. This would allow JIW right to also allow plugin for the enhancement of their game and greater development of the game and provide for their ownership rights over such plugins developed for their game.
There may be a policy at Steam or JIW already in place. To me if you publish for free download then "copyleft" makes the most sense if you want the community and game to develop. if you want profits then it is somewhere else you may want to publish.
Apparently EU rules only apply
https://forum.rising-world.net/legal-notice/
there is a EU dispute link.
Certainly the moral right of the author to be recognized or protected against a derogatory and harm to the reputation of the author protected from such in these forums. It sounds like JIW needs to publish a fair use policy. Possibly fair use for plugin definition can be published or general plug in license. If a plugin is posted for free download then maybe a "copyleft" type license to let others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
Every plugin creator has the right to choose whichever licence they want their plugin to be published under. That is clearly indicated in the plugin.yml file.
This would allow JIW to remove a posted plugin for free download on their site if you complained of your plugin being copied or infringed upon. This would allow JIW right to also allow plugin for the enhancement of their game and greater development of the game and provide for their ownership rights over such plugins developed for their game.
There may be a policy at Steam or JIW already in place. To me if you publish for free download then "copyleft" makes the most sense if you want the community and game to develop. if you want profits then it is somewhere else you may want to publish.
The question is not weather the published content can be copied or not, the content no matter if it falls under copyright or not CANNOT be copied unless explicitly said that it can be. Copying content that is not explicitly published to be copied is in the best case plagiarism, and in the worst case copyright infringement both of which are crimes at least in Europe and the latter at least in the USA too. As posted above after the incentive @Miwarre gave me to look for it, in Europe it is technically even illegal to decompile the code without the explicit permission of the person who wrote it.
Every plugin creator has the right to choose whichever licence they want their plugin to be published under. That is clearly indicated in the plugin.yml file.
The question is not weather the published content can be copied or not, the content no matter if it falls under copyright or not CANNOT be copied unless explicitly said that it can be. Copying content that is not explicitly published to be copied is in the best case plagiarism, and in the worst case copyright infringement both of which are crimes at least in Europe and the latter at least in the USA too. As posted above after the incentive @Miwarre gave me to look for it, in Europe it is technically even illegal to decompile the code without the explicit permission of the person who wrote it.
I am expressing an opinion that authors refrain from publishing in free access area if they are worried about people copying or modifying their free published software plug in and not a legal one at that. Why don't we use this thread to teach rather than yelling at one another? I think the EU rules are really clear about personal rights by legal owners of software they own. You need to be really careful before you start yelling that a decompile is illegal by the anyone that got it off a free download site unless you send with it in the file license agreement that is a specific means for a change in these rules. This could require a Qualified Person or person of knowledge if this needs to go to court.
It is my understanding that there is not a plugin-in published or distributed in violation we are talking about. If so it probably needs to be removed from the board and handled by JIW legal?
My opinion expressed was that the EU does allow "copyleft" in the EU and tons of of EU programmers use that everyday even in commercial items for commercial purposes as long as they put the same license in their routines. JIW, clearly as I linked in my post, claims EU rules and therefore, DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC would apply. Having certain rights transferred and clarified for posting plug ins would make life easier for them and those that want to "stand on the shoulders of giants" so to speak and create a really nice game here.
Having said that, I would advise that everyone read DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC Article 5 and 6 decompilation that the program users have certain rights for decompile for interoperability and errors correction in having a license to have a copy and use it. In particular Article 5 paragraph 1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the actsreferred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not requireauthorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary forthe use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer inaccordance with its intended purpose, including for errorcorrection.
link to EU directive in all languages.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega…=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN
Why don't we use this thread to teach rather than yelling at one another?
who yelled at who? I am confused 
You need to be really careful before you start yelling that a decompile is illegal by the anyone that got it off a free download site unless you send with it in the file license agreement that is a specific means for a change in these rules. This could require a Qualified Person or person of knowledge if this needs to go to court.
The EU directive that you have as well quoted in your response clearly states "(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation (= decompilation), adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author."
As in they really can't put it clearer than that, it doesn't matter how you got it if you do anything to it you are breaking European law. Having said that I myself have done it before to look at how things have been done in programs.
In article 6 as you said it says when decompilation is allowed and that is only 1) "to obtain the information necessary to achievethe interoperability of an independently created computerprogram with other programs" under the condition this information was not already available by the program creator. 2) "where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction." again only if the information was not already available by the program creator.
If anyone publishes plugins under the Copyleft or MIT or any other similar licence there you shouldn't have the need to decompile their code to see it as these licences clearly state that they have to provide the code themselves as @Miwarre is doing on GitHub for his plugins which if I am not mistaken he has under the MIT licence.
All in all, that means that if I do not publish my plugin under any of the freeware licenses stated above and I provide you with documentation on how to use and troubleshoot my plugin, as well as provide myself support in case of errors you have no justification to decompile the plugin, unless you want to make it compatible with another plugin e.g. use the same database or something like that.
So we need the interpretation of a Qualified person here I see. As your interpretation differs from My interpretation of the Directive as it clearly does not remove the rights of the end user to make copies and can decompile to insure functionality, correct errors or interaction of other software for the end users use. What you are implying are restricted act violations which require the action of "and the reproduction ofthe results thereof"
So the technical question is does an altered plugin load onto other users computers where it could be considered a distribution? Can a person decompile a plugin from information left on his/her's computer when they play the game?
So we need the interpretation of a Qualified person here I see.
Unfortunately, this is very true (and quite well known). The legislation about distribution and copy right did grow organically into a rather involved mess and the 'simple' understanding of the layman is often wrong: a lawyer (actually a specialised lawyer) is often necessary before committing to significant work or investment.
The saddest thing is that this has very little to do with protecting authors (as a software author for decades, both as an employee and free lance, I think I know what I am speaking about): mostly it is done to protect corporation investments.
Is it being decompiled and used for money and profit? Does it use an copyrighted software to function itself?
These aspects are largely irrelevant: reverse engineering is prohibited in itself, regardless the result is re-distributed or not, is sold or given away for free, or even not re-used in any way and kept secret in a vault (which would make it hard to discover, but a crime nevertheless).
And, of course, almost all software applications need some other copyrighted software to work (the operating system, if nothing else); this does not makes them "less copyrighted" (if such a clause has any sense) in themselves.
____________________
But perhaps, we can learn something from this all: decompiling a plug-in is illegal, but people will do it, because it is easy.
However, a plug-in for RW is unlikely to involve any monetary gain: you may be proud your plug-in is used by many RW servers, but this happens if the plug-in is useful and works, not because you kept its source code secret.
When I started contributing to open source projects (about 15 years ago) where my code was expected to be seen by many other peoples, my coding skill started to improve; I started paying much more attention to documentation, which makes easier for me to maintain my own code, etc, etc.
So, rather than fighting a battle you will ultimately loose for no gain, release your plug-in as open source: you will not loose any money (because you are not going to getting any anyway) and you will have some coding benefits over time: according to my experience, definitely worth the try.
Unfortunately, this is very true (and quite well known). The legislation about distribution and copy right did grow organically into a rather involved mess and the 'simple' understanding of the layman is often wrong: a lawyer (actually a specialised lawyer) is often necessary before committing to significant work or investment.
The saddest thing is that this has very little to do with protecting authors (as a software author for decades, both as an employee and free lance, I think I know what I am speaking about): mostly it is done to protect corporation investments.
These aspects are largely irrelevant: reverse engineering is prohibited in itself, regardless the result is re-distributed or not, is sold or given away for free, or even not re-used in any way and kept secret in a vault (which would make it hard to discover, but a crime nevertheless).
____________________
Decompiling is not illegal in the US. Any case for distribution for commercial use is in the civil side not criminal side of the law in the US.
The EU rules clearly protect the end use to correct errors or interoperability of supporting code. As far as plugins for this game well maybe they should be distributed through steam as DLC and you can charge for them and Steam can audit your files for variations.
As far as plugins for this game well maybe they should be distributed through steam as DLC and you can charge for them and Steam can audit your files for variations.
Plugins I assume will eventually be introduced through the steam workshop and you will be able to download them through steam which means they will be copied a lot, but that is nothing unusual when it comes to mods, just check how many times each skyrim or fallout mod has been reuploaded it is insane how many people just downloaded and reuploaded the same files someone else made
Also mods are generally free, Bethesda tried to introduce paid mods with the "Creation Club" but it was an utter disaster that they had to shut it down after less than a month or so XD
Plugins I assume will eventually be introduced through the steam workshop and you will be able to download them through steam which means they will be copied a lot, but that is nothing unusual when it comes to mods, just check how many times each skyrim or fallout mod has been reuploaded it is insane how many people just downloaded and reuploaded the same files someone else made
Also mods are generally free, Bethesda tried to introduce paid mods with the "Creation Club" but it was an utter disaster that they had to shut it down after less than a month or so XD
Well an author has recourse on this webpage via the rules stated in the JIW terms or use legal area. The author can complain that a plugin violates their plugin and JIW will likely take it down.
Decompiling is not illegal in the US. Any case for distribution for commercial use is in the civil side not criminal side of the law in the US.
You are right; however, EULA's usually prohibit any form of R.E.; if you do it, you risk being sued; the fact it would be a civil rather than a penal case is only marginally better: being sued by, say, Microsoft is not a pleasant experience (I risked it once upon a time...; it is a long story, but the funny thing is that 20 years later they acknowledged I was right and what I did was in their own interest too!)
As far as plugins for this game well maybe they should be distributed through steam as DLC and you can charge for them and Steam can audit your files for variations.
Now, how much would you pay for the Java Area Protection plug-in I am writing? 5 $? How many of the about 120 RW servers currently running would also buy it? Say, 20? That's a grant total of 100$. Taking into account the development time, this amounts to a salary of about 1$ (gross) per hour...
Even if we double all the figures and we arrive around 4 - 5 $ (gross) per hour, we are still almost an order of magnitude off. So, my position is "Here it is, get it for free; and get the source code too". Not everybody would share that position, I know, but many actually do...
Well an author has recourse on this webpage via the rules stated in the JIW terms or use legal area. The author can complain that a plugin violates their plugin and JIW will likely take it down.
Sure and then it will be reuploaded and then you will report it agian and red51 will take it down and then they will reupload it and so on. Deleting content from the web is pointless someone will just upload it again the second after it was taken down. That is why even Steam hasn't bothered to go after all the duplicate mods even though I am sure in their legal notes it is clearly stated that it is not allowed. Also someone need to report the content first, as a plugin creator I wouldn't appreciate others stealing my plugin and uploading it as their own but I won't spend all my days and nights looking for people who have done that to report them, I have better things to do than that
Now, how much would you pay for the Java Area Protection plug-in I am writing?
I wouldn't pay anything for a mod personally. Mods = free + any donations I voluntarily make to the developers that is it. We saw it last time it happened with Bethesda, the creative club fiasko almost brought down the whole company because people are not even willing to pay for mods for Skyrim or Fallout (both much bigger games than RW). So I would say noone will pay for a mod in RW if noone did for Skyrim.
I wouldn't pay anything for a mod personally.
Neither would I!
Mods = free + any donations I voluntarily make to the developers that is it. We saw it last time it happened with Bethesda, the creative club fiasko almost brought down the whole company because people are not even willing to pay for mods for Skyrim or Fallout (both much bigger games than RW). So I would say noone will pay for a mod in RW if noone did for Skyrim.
Agreed. Which gives even more strength to the open source argument...
Don’t have an account yet? Create a new account now and be part of our community!
