The legality of a wrapper

[aphadeon]

Is a wrapper .exe legal? If it uses API calls to modify the original dimensions? Or triggers a macro for an editor addon?

Does this constitute reverse engineering? I doubt it. Haven't reverse engineered anything.

To further the question, what about an unofficial patch for the legal version of the editor? Just a .ppf that increases the size of the call script box? In patch form, it would only be useable by people that already own the program. It wouldn't in any way encourage piracy. Would it constitute reverse engineering? A simple PE script edit?
If so, is this type of 'constructive' patch something they would likely care about? (If it is in fact unacceptable, it wouldn't be hosted or linked to .org in any way.)

 

[Ulqiorra]

I don't see why an unofficial patch would be illegal, as long as it requires you to have the original program... I don't know, maybe send an email to enterbrain?

 

[Glitchfinder]

As best I can tell, it depends on which administration you look at. If we were still under the rule of ccoa and Erk, you'd be in danger just from asking this question. Now, though? Probably not. So long as it doesn't encourage piracy, they'll probably be fine with it. Funny thing about this patch is that it is supposed to add functionality that was edited into the Postality Knight's Edition. In other words, it changes a piece of the program to mimic one of the only good things to come out of a pirated copy of RMXP.

 

[Zeriab]

It feels like a gray area and can easily dependent heavily on your jurisdiction.
If you really want to know I suggest seeking legal advice from an advocate familiar with your jurisdiction since I don't believe there being a clear-cut answer on your question.

*hugs*
- Zeriab

 

[aphadeon]

It's not a violation of the law- because it doesn't infringe upon copyrights (I'm not violating a copyright, and I'm not reverse engineering, borrowing, making dirivitive works, or anything else of that nature.) It's just a matter of wether it's a breach of contract, and if it is, wether it's one that would upset the Enterbrains.

I'll go right to the source. I'll post Enterbrain's reply here when (if) I should recieve one.

 

[Zeriab]

It's a good idea going to the source. Especially in the face of a possible contract breach.
Otherwise my suggestion still stands since the interpretation of the contract you agreed to can depend on your jurisdiction. In addition there is the possibility of some clauses not being valid in your jurisdiction.

Please do post a reply if you receive one.

*hugs*