Some people struggle with the difference between arguing about descriptive statements, about what things are, and arguing about normative statements, about what things should be. And these topics are nuanced.
Decompiling to learn functionality is fair use (because like I said in my previous comment, functionality can’t be copyrighted), but actually using and redistributing code (whether the original source code, the compiled binary derived from the source code, or decompiled code derived from the binary) is pretty risky from a legal standpoint. I’d advise against trying to build a business around the practice.
Yeah, that’s why all the IBM clones had to write their BIOS firmware in clean room implementations of new software that implemented the same functionality as IBM’s own documentation described.
Functionality can’t be copyrighted, but code can be. So the easiest way to prove that you made something without the copyrighted code is to mimic the functionality through your own implementation, not by transforming the existing copyrighted code, through decompilation or anything like that.
Not sure why companies try to push mobile games like that so fucking hard. Just because everyone has a phone doesn’t mean everyone wants to play games on them.
Mobile games make more revenue than PC and console gaming combined. Of course companies are gonna try to get a bigger and bigger piece of that pie.
Let’s not pretend like Blizz or Bethesda will see the end of this decade anyway.
So if you’re management, you face a choice: try to dump everyone now in a reorganization on a moment’s notice, while it’s still Biden’s NLRB, or negotiate a CBA that probably bakes in substantial severance and job protections that will be expensive when they do try to reorganize for business reasons?
If it’s true that the workers were likely to get dumped within the decade, then negotiating protections now actually protects them, or forces management to pay a high cost.