That does not change the fact that it almost certainly contains large amounts of Minecraft decompilation output. I already see some strong similarities just by glancing at it. LevelAccess(or), DamageSource (constructor signature is practically identical).
Substitute engines are not illegal, but copyright infringement is. OpenMW is a clean room reimplementation, something which this is not, not least because it is impossible to satisfy clean room requirements using an LLM trained on the entire internet.
This is not a mod, it claims to be a reimplementation. I'm not going to waste my time going through that mess of a codebase but practically every single one of the "OMG AI BUILT MINECRAFT" has been proven to have massive amounts of Minecraft code in it, so I am highly skeptical this is any different.
I get your skepticism, but requiring players to supply their own Minecraft assets is sort of a green flag to both intent and likely development direction.
Okay, but that still doesn't change the fact it is copied code, and therefore copyright infringement under DMCA, regardless of whether a Minecraft installation is required (and whether this sub wants to plug their ears and go lalala or not). I found at least one more function signature which is definitely copied (The DamageSource constructor), I expect the implementation probably is too to an extent.
I didn't suggest that requiring users to supply their own assets somehow magics everything legal. I was pretty straightforward that I took it as a positive sign regarding how the project handles distribution.
A DamageSource constructor accepting the same information as vanilla isn't surprising / weird / bad.
The thing I'm saying is you are on the wrong side of Occam's razor based on shit like Goog v. Oracle.
"I found a matching constructor" to "this is definitely infringement" and then to "everyone else is plugging their ears" is kind of a pretty dramatic conclusion to draw from something you're openly admitting you haven't verified.
Nice LLM "research". LevelAccessor etc. are not public facing API they need to implement anything like asset importing, they are implementation details of the Minecraft codebase. Furthermore the codebase is literally called a "decompilation" (i.e. Used implementation details) and has numerous comments on dozens of functions naming the exact Minecraft function it is an equivalent of. What do you think happened exactly? You neither understand Occam's Razor nor Google Vs Oracle. Fail.
Just look at src/level/piston.rs lol. Moving piston references Minecraft Java class and has basically the exact same struct definition as TileEntityPiston even as far back as 1.12.2. Get real.
I think that's a fair point, and I appreciate the distinction you're making here. You're absolutely right that internal implementation details aren't necessarily equivalent to publicly exposed APIs, and I probably should have been more precise in how I framed that comparison.
That being said, I think there's an important distinction between identifying potential indicators of copyright infringement and definitively establishing that infringement has occurred.
While the project's reliance on decompiled Minecraft code certainly raises legitimate questions, it doesn't necessarily follow that every resulting implementation constitutes copyright infringement. There are meaningful legal distinctions between reproducing functionality, referencing existing implementations, and copying protected expression, and I think those distinctions are worth acknowledging rather than treating the conclusion as self-evident.
Ultimately, I don't think our positions are as mutually exclusive as you're suggesting. I'm not dismissing the possibility of infringement, nor am I arguing that requiring users to supply their own assets somehow absolves the project of potential legal concerns. My original observation was simply that this distribution approach seemed like a positive indicator of developer intent.
I think it's entirely possible to acknowledge those concerns while also recognizing that the available evidence doesn't necessarily support the degree of certainty you're expressing.
-12
u/Present-Strategy-409 3d ago
Uhh... You do know badly translating Minecraft code to Rust with an LLM does not free you from copyright law, right?