They accept real money though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6godSEVvcmU

It's not a parody when they accept money and deliver the service.

Dumb Starbucks begs to differ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks

And we know they're right, because that lawyer signed a contract on TV saying he'd be liable if they were wrong.

First time I hear about this, it's interesting to have written all of this out.

Now this makes me think of game decompilation projects, which would seem to fall in the same legal area as code that would be generated by something like Malus.

Different code, same end result (binary or api).

We definitely need to know what the legal limits are and should be

Semi-related, someone made basically Malus-for-San-Andreas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBQJYMKmwAs

That's fascinating !

I think it's worth posting as its own submission (if it wasn't already).

i think most game decompilation projects are either openly illegal or operate on "provide your own binary" and build automatic tooling around it

Yes, because we have clear precedent that distributing Art (the assets) is illegal by current copyright law.

But do we have precedent (in any country) that distributing different source code that compiles to the exact same binary is illegal ?