I have never understood the whole closed-source nature of a lot of the projects in this scene. Honestly, I think the source code of hacks should be open to the public in general. It wouldn't harm anything, and would be useful for so many purposes. What if nobody ever shared the disassemblies of the base games that we have now? The hacking scene would still be where it was in 2005, and it would suck hard. If people could build off of the work of others freely, can you imagine how much further it would take the scene? There'd be a massive explosion in creativity and shared quality. We have disassembled SEGA's commecial work and we distribute a slew of modified versions, illegally and without express permission. And then SEGA is kind enough to tolerate it, retaliating in no way, with full knowledge of what we're up to. The scene is standing on SEGA's shoulder. By extension, the scene also stands on the shoulders of the hard work of those who disassembled the games' code, cleaned it up, and released it for public consumption, precisely for the reasons that I am advocating for. I think the results of that speak for themselves. Isn't it a tad hypocritical to reverse engineer SEGA's work, only to turn around and be like "no you can't see my changes"? I'm not saying that anyone is entitled to this, just that it makes a lot more sense to do things in an open-source manner, and absolutely no sense for closed-source to be the status quo. There are very practical benefits to modelling ourselves after the Doom community's ways. It's foolish to cling to one's modified source, given all that. It's not actually a problem when one writes their own engines from scratch (though open-source is still preferable), but this is derivative work I'm talking about here. Hypothetically, what if in the absence of source, a really good hack was disassembled in the same way the base games were, and the author became upset? I don't feel that people have much room to talk about 'their' code, given the nature of the foundation of all hacks, let alone the permissive example that SEGA themselves have set. Sharing is caring, etc, a misplaced sense of property is not healthy for creative communities. There is a bigger picture here. Hacking/modding communities are built upon collaboration, cooperation and sharing. I'm disheartened by this closed source mentality being so prevalent in this community. Recognition, praise and credit is quite enough. Anything more is selfish, shortsighted, and lacking in perspective and respect for what came before them. Frankly, the way I've seen some people act about derivative code here is disgusting and arrogant, in some specific instances. Not wanting others to make poor use of their code is an invalid concern. It's actually completely harmless and can easily be ignored. The cream always rises to the top. On the opposite end of this, what if someone used some cool features from an existing hack and made a far better hack of their own? If your content doesn't hold up when its corresponding code is used for better content, then perhaps it's more that you're a good coder than game designer and shouldn't be so insecure, possessive and protective about it. I've heard concerns of potential plagiarism. Needless to say, plagiarism is intolerable. Should anything like that happen, it will be easy to spot, and they will be publicly lambasted for it. Not to mention, if the source is open, it makes confirmation even easier, and a lack of source would be cause for further suspicion in cases like these. "Somebody might do something wrong" is never a good reason not to do what's right. It's really not an issue, source should be shared regardless of what one worries others might do with it. Someone pulling some crap has no bearing on the value and authenticity of the original author's code. I highly doubt that people would side with a plagiarist if/when such issues are brought to attention. Besides, it'd take some serious balls to blatantly claim the work of others as their own: I think such a scenario is more than unlikely, and it can be dealt with swiftly and appropriately should it ever crop up. The open-source nature of the Doom community has served it extremely well. People use each other's code all the time (with credit OFC), improve upon it, and often these improvements make their way back into the mainline projects. As a specific example: GZDoom vs. ZDaemon, both forked engines of idTech1. The Doom source was originally released under the Doom Source License as opposed to the GPL later on. GZDoom, while open source, has only recently moved to GPL, but has always been open source. There was a fork called QZDoom that made some major improvements, and all of this was backported to GZDoom. It is literally the most advanced and useful Doom engine out there. ZDaemon, on the other hand, was based on ZDoom (basically an early version of GZDoom by a different author), but they chose to close their source after forking. Look where it is now: buggy as shit and horribly out of date, unable to run any mods newer than 2004 or so. I'd like to explain myself if anyone finds me to be too argumentative: I'm heavily opinionated and will speak my mind, but I am also open-minded and will immediately change my position if presented with sound reasoning. That being said, I cannot possibly imagine a good counter-argument to what I am proposing here, but as I said, my ears are open. The basis of this is prioritizing logic/reason and a desire to realize potential to its fullest. I don't take things personally unless other people make it personal, and I hope that others don't take my arguments personally, because it's not meant that way.