You can't distribute anything that has Mojang source code in it, but other than suing you until you agree to undistribute your work it's probably not illegal.
If you want a actual real legal opinion you need an actual real legal lawyer… one who is a member of the bar in your jurisdiction and (by strong preference) one who specializes in the relevant field (likely intellectual property law).
.
.
As an unprofessional non-legal cracker-barrel point of discussion:
if this is purely for personal use, you're likely fine
if you intend to distribute, you would probably be on firmer ground if what you distributed was an executable that automatically modified the launcher, but included NO MS/Mj code.
.
.
Because it bear repeating:
If you want a actual real legal opinion you need an actual real legal lawyer… one who is a member of the bar in your jurisdiction and (by strong preference) one who specializes in the relevant field (likely intellectual property law).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
If you're trying to distribute anything that includes work from Mojang (textures, files, the base game, code, etc.) then that is illegal.
In other words, that means that most mods are illegal because by definition they modify parts of the game and are distributed - yet I've never heard of any mod being taken down except for hacked clients or when an entire working jar was uploaded.
Before you claim that Forge mods are not illegal (Forge itself aside) many actually do include parts of Mojang's code, even very basic mods, even if just copied+pasted with some changes (for example, "func_151538_a" in this mod is virtually the same as Mojang's; note the variable and method names, which are a dead giveaway that they copied (MCP-deobfuscated) source), then there's all those mods that add in new tools and armor, including ingots, gems, and ores, which are simply recolored vanilla textures (my own mod is guilty on both counts, including textures and code taken from newer versions (with some changes to fit with 1.6.4), which also isn't the only mod that does that, e.g. Et Futurum's legality has been questioned because of this. Here is another thread where the legality of mods is questioned, with forum staff asserting that they are legal (and getting exasperated by the last page).
For those looking for further explanation of some of the issues:
Note that MS/Mj allows distribution of a 'thing' "that doesn't contain a substantial part of our copyrightable code or content".
In one of the linked threads TMC raises the point about "substantial"…
it is:
different in its legal meaning than in common usage
nowhere unambiguously defined in the copyright code
circumstantial [three lines from an epic poem might be seen as uninfringing where three lines of haiku could be]
subject to ongoing debate in many infringement cases.
Copying minor snippets (such as is needed to enable calls or hooks between the main MC program and the modded material ) is generally seen as permissible; how far beyond that one may go provokes debate…
Also of importance is the term "copyrightable"… [again a legal term the exact definition of which is subject to circumstances and debate.]
Code or content that is not "copyrightable" recieves no protection and may be freely used.
As an illustration:
MC includes a wood block minecraft:birch_bark with an associated graphic depicting birch bark [roughly paper birch (Betula papyrifera) ].
The MS/Mj copyright however extends only to that specific depiction of paper birch bark (and any "derivative" works); were I to create a graphic depicting the bark of the paper birch based (for instance) on my personal memories of such trees the result would be a new work to which I would hold copyright even if the general appearance were similar, as might be expected.
The MS/Mj depicition of paper birch bark is copyrightable; the concept of depicting paper birch bark is uncopyrightable.
Further, it is not possible to either copyright or patent an algorithm. [The RSA patent being a anomaly.]
While the specific values used by MC to generate large oaks may have some protection under 'look and feel', a general algorithm for generating a branching structure cannot be protected.
This tends to be important in computer software because the underlying processes are performed by / based on mathmatical algorithms; for any given general task (eg. generating a branching structure) there will be either a limited number of mathmatically vaild algorithms (or a small set of highly preferred algorithms).
Code for common tasks (eg. sort, search, pseudo-random number generation), therefore, will often look quite similar between disparate programs.
.
.
This sort of thing is why:
If you want a actual real legal opinion you need an actual real legal lawyer… one who is a member of the bar in your jurisdiction and (by strong preference) one who specializes in the relevant field (likely intellectual property law).
also serving as my disclaimer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
To be honest none of us know for sure, like someone above said, find someone with higher authority and knows the field. Because I don't and most others.
I decompiled the official launcher 2.0.1003. I want to do a little modification so that it will update the libraries by its own.
The mod that I made does NOT allow users to play mc for free.
Anyone knows if this is legal or not?
MY MODPACK! ~300 MODS! 1.10.2-1.12.2, 1.15.2!
You can't distribute anything that has Mojang source code in it, but other than suing you until you agree to undistribute your work it's probably not illegal.
So by completely recreating the launcher, It's actually legal?
MY MODPACK! ~300 MODS! 1.10.2-1.12.2, 1.15.2!
Are you going to distribute it?
Not until I completely redesigned the launcher I guess
It doesnt allow offline mode so it still requires user to buy the legit game
MY MODPACK! ~300 MODS! 1.10.2-1.12.2, 1.15.2!
If you want a actual real legal opinion you need an actual real legal lawyer… one who is a member of the bar in your jurisdiction and (by strong preference) one who specializes in the relevant field (likely intellectual property law).
.
.
.
.
If you want a actual real legal opinion you need an actual real legal lawyer… one who is a member of the bar in your jurisdiction and (by strong preference) one who specializes in the relevant field (likely intellectual property law).
In other words, that means that most mods are illegal because by definition they modify parts of the game and are distributed - yet I've never heard of any mod being taken down except for hacked clients or when an entire working jar was uploaded.
Before you claim that Forge mods are not illegal (Forge itself aside) many actually do include parts of Mojang's code, even very basic mods, even if just copied+pasted with some changes (for example, "func_151538_a" in this mod is virtually the same as Mojang's; note the variable and method names, which are a dead giveaway that they copied (MCP-deobfuscated) source), then there's all those mods that add in new tools and armor, including ingots, gems, and ores, which are simply recolored vanilla textures (my own mod is guilty on both counts, including textures and code taken from newer versions (with some changes to fit with 1.6.4), which also isn't the only mod that does that, e.g. Et Futurum's legality has been questioned because of this. Here is another thread where the legality of mods is questioned, with forum staff asserting that they are legal (and getting exasperated by the last page).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
quote=TheMasterCaver
e.g. Et Futurum's legality has been questioned because of this. Here is another thread where the legality of mods is questioned, with forum staff asserting that they are legal (and getting exasperated by the last page).
Amusing reads…
For those looking for further explanation of some of the issues:
Note that MS/Mj allows distribution of a 'thing' "that doesn't contain a substantial part of our copyrightable code or content".
In one of the linked threads TMC raises the point about "substantial"…
it is:
Copying minor snippets (such as is needed to enable calls or hooks between the main MC program and the modded material ) is generally seen as permissible; how far beyond that one may go provokes debate…
Also of importance is the term "copyrightable"… [again a legal term the exact definition of which is subject to circumstances and debate.]
Code or content that is not "copyrightable" recieves no protection and may be freely used.
As an illustration:
MC includes a wood block minecraft:birch_bark with an associated graphic depicting birch bark [roughly paper birch (Betula papyrifera) ].
This graphic is [almost certainly] © MS/Mj. Any "small" or "trivial" modification (such as applying a blur filter) would not be sufficiently "transformative" to create an "original work" and avoid infringement (ie. it would be a "derivative" work).
The MS/Mj copyright however extends only to that specific depiction of paper birch bark (and any "derivative" works); were I to create a graphic depicting the bark of the paper birch based (for instance) on my personal memories of such trees the result would be a new work to which I would hold copyright even if the general appearance were similar, as might be expected.
The MS/Mj depicition of paper birch bark is copyrightable; the concept of depicting paper birch bark is uncopyrightable.
Further, it is not possible to either copyright or patent an algorithm. [The RSA patent being a anomaly.]
While the specific values used by MC to generate large oaks may have some protection under 'look and feel', a general algorithm for generating a branching structure cannot be protected.
This tends to be important in computer software because the underlying processes are performed by / based on mathmatical algorithms; for any given general task (eg. generating a branching structure) there will be either a limited number of mathmatically vaild algorithms (or a small set of highly preferred algorithms).
Code for common tasks (eg. sort, search, pseudo-random number generation), therefore, will often look quite similar between disparate programs.
.
This sort of thing is why:
To be honest none of us know for sure, like someone above said, find someone with higher authority and knows the field. Because I don't and most others.
PVP Legend
well haven't checked up the forum for awhile, thank you for all of your replies.
I have put my launcher in a GitHub repo, but it is NOT a cracked launcher and thus players must buy a premium account anyways.
MY MODPACK! ~300 MODS! 1.10.2-1.12.2, 1.15.2!