Quick heads up here, just to say I started a CivOne game for the first time, and willing to build a Civ1 clone myself, I must say "DAMN" !!! SWY and you guys have done an impressive job !!!
That's a slight shame but hey if it's still close to Civ1 then it'll be of interest to this community!
Unfortunately, the CivOne project didn't succeed. But, hey, there is a new kid in the town: OpenCiv1.
I'll see your necro, and raise you a forking of the CivOne project to complete the rewrite and fix the bugs. I have been using Claude Code to make a version of the game with all the rules and visuals intact, but I've expanded the playable map. You can try it at https://github.com/mwerneburg/CivOne
Sorry guys, but I simply don't get why you want to work with old partial code when we have OpenCiv1 project which has done so much more and could benefit from other people helping the project become better and more complete.
While I have a different opinion on the matter. I also respect your choice.
Hi, rahorvat. I just don't like the approach. I appreciate the mindset, I did some assembly coding myself back in the mid '90s and understand the appeal. But the time for that code has passed. I liken it to my day job, where we have a COBOL installation with roots in an initial deployment in 1988. At some point you simply rebuild. The right approach in my mind is to make a stable game and increment the features. While the current batch of AI companies are still throwing money at automated solutions like Claude Code I will go that route while I can afford it.
No, sir. I found the original project, went to it in my browser, and was redirected to Solen1985 and away I went. I see more interesting improvements in your version than I can count (YAML save files!!!) and will perhaps re-base in part. I have started rewiring the interface on mine to run full screen on my M1 Macbook Air with a time-appropriate "cassette futurism" theme (produced by Claude Code), so I suppose I'm running on quite a tangent. If you see anything in my commits that is of interest, please help yourself.
) has certain proofs that I should not share complete disassembly with others publicly, just necessary parts. The preferred option would be not to share it at all.
:| Feature | European Union (Software Directive 2009/24/EC) | United States (Copyright Act of 1976) |
| Primary Legal Basis | Directive 2009/24/EC (Art. 5 & 6) - sui generis software protection | 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Fair Use) + 17 U.S.C. § 117 (Archival & Essential Step) |
| Is disassembly explicitly permitted for preservation? | Yes - Art. 5(3) allows "observing, studying, or testing" the program to understand its ideas/principles. Preservation is a recognized study purpose. | No explicit provision - Must rely on Fair Use (case-by-case) or §117 adaptation rules. |
| Can you disassemble to make the program work on modern hardware? | Yes - Art. 6 permits decompilation for interoperability (e.g., making old software compatible with new OS). | Likely yes - §117(a)(1) allows adaptation as "an essential step in the utilization" of the program with a machine. |
| Is the disassembled code considered "source code" under copyright law? | No - It is a reverse-engineered representation, but still a derivative work of the original copyrighted code. | No - Same principle. The original source is protected expression, not disassembly output. |
| Can you distribute the disassembled source code? | No - That would be reproduction/distribution of a derivative work without permission. | No - Same prohibition. Only the original lawful owner may keep the adaptation for personal archival use. |
| What about "abandonware" (no longer sold or supported)? | Irrelevant - EU law grants statutory rights regardless of commercial availability, as long as you are a lawful user. | Relevant - Lack of commercial market strengthens Fair Use factor #4 (market harm). Weighs in your favor. |
| Are there any conditions or restrictions? | Yes - You must be a lawful user (owner or licensee). Disassembly must be necessary for the permitted purpose. You cannot use info to develop a substantially similar competing program. | Yes - Under §117(b), any adaptation must be destroyed if you cease to own the original copy. Also applies to Fair Use: purpose must be transformative, not purely commercial. |
| Can the copyright holder sue you for disassembly? | Unlikely to succeed - The Directive creates a binding exception that overrides general copyright. Courts will dismiss if you follow Art. 5/6 requirements. | Possible but unlikely - No statutory exception for preservation, so a lawsuit could be filed. But with no EULA and old software, Fair Use is a strong defense. |
| Can the copyright owner prohibit disassembly via a EULA? | No - Art. 8(1) of the Directive voids any contractual clause that prohibits the Art. 5/6 exceptions. EULA bans are unenforceable. | Yes - In Bowers v. Baystate (2003), a EULA ban on reverse engineering was enforceable as a contract, even if Fair Use would allow it. But your case has no EULA, so this is irrelevant. |
| Legal risk level for your 1991 preservation project | Very low - Clear statutory right. You are acting within the law. | Low to moderate - No EULA removes the contract risk; Fair Use and §117 provide strong arguments. However, US lacks an explicit preservation exception, so some uncertainty remains. |
| Best practice for compliance | Document lawful ownership. Limit disassembly to what is strictly necessary. Do not distribute output. | Same as EU + retain original media. Be prepared to justify the four Fair Use factors if ever challenged. |
