I was browsing a Pixel Love game developer's blog when I ended up on the Kindi website about a software that protects swf files from being decompiled. Scrolling down the page, I noticed that Nitrome was part of the "Featured Clients" section. This was a tad concerning, since Nitrome Wiki does have a number of articles that show pretty much all decompiled content for a game. Hopefully this doesn't come around to bite us back.
Of course I realise that there is a lot of this so called "unused content" to be found within some games, and we could argue that all is done in "fair use" and we're just an innocent fansite wanting to impress our viewers. I get that. But while looking at some of the features of this encryption protection software, is it possible that it adds in the extra bits of unused content, such as the random text bytes in Go Go UFO as a decoy for decompilers? Is it possible that this wasn't even unused content? How is showing pictures of text even important to the game itself?
The issue surrounding using decompilers is something the wiki simply doesn't take seriously, and it's admittedly alarming. It's not just what we do, but how other people who come to visit this wiki see it. Is the wiki a database for information, or showing closed source games as open source, with all contents ripe for the picking?
Don't think that I'm trying to remove the content - at least not yet. While I do recommend playing it safe and not flat out show all decompiled content (some of it isn't even notable to the game itself), I understand that some of you find this interesting to write about, and maybe to read. (Haven't heard anyone expressing their love for garbled text, though. :/)
I'm not against showing unused content, but every time I've raised this concern, it is usually dismissed without an actual answer that clearly shows that Nitrome has given permission for us to use decompilers and just let loose with images and designs and so much speculation to write about them. I only want to make sure this is 100% okay. I've had it up to my nose with "Nitrome didn't say anything about it so therefore it's allowed" arguments. Just because they don't say anything doesn't mean permission has automatically been given.
Am I freaking out too much over the use of decompilers? Actually, don't answer that. I know what the answer is going to be. Why doesn't anyone ever seem to have a full understanding of how the decompiler works in terms of copyright and the wiki?
Point is, one wrong move could severely jeopardize the wiki and its reputation as a reliable place for getting information about Nitrome. If it means not posting unused content to keep a reliable reputation, it should without a doubt be done. I'm not even going to start about using code to point out sources - the entire code, mind you. If it was just a line or two, displaying the most notable portions that attribute to a function or maybe just mentioning it then it would have made it a bit better. Some users have been so insolent towards the situation that it always arouses the suspicion that maybe it isn't allowed and they don't want to admit it. I don't know; that's the gist I've been getting.