Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document Variables Based On Minecraft Beta 1.2_02-20110512 #128

Open
iProgramMC opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Document Variables Based On Minecraft Beta 1.2_02-20110512 #128

iProgramMC opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@iProgramMC
Copy link
Member

iProgramMC commented Jun 27, 2024

Today, Omniarchive published a prototype version of Minecraft Beta 1.2, namely 1.2_02 2011/05/12. This version is unlike no other build of Minecraft Java Edition after the addition of Multiplayer in 0.0.15a, insofar as it's not obfuscated.

This means that:

  • Class names are visible
  • Field names within the classes are visible
  • A limited set of local variable names also appear to be visible

This allows a more comprehensive analysis of MCPE.

For example, the m_dataX fields in LavaTexture are called current, next, heat, and heata.

To solve:

  • Is this a good idea?
  • Is it legal?
  • Should we ditch the previous code style for the official Mojang style?
@GlitchSlayed
Copy link

  1. Is this a good idea?

    From a technical perspective, this build offers the us a better understanding of the structure as class and field names are now visible but while it’s useful for learning, I am not sure if this leaked build crosses any boundaries with Mojang’s intellectual property.

  2. Is it legal?

    Since Minecraft's code belongs to Mojang/Microsoft, this being an unobfuscated leaked build probably infringes on their copyright. (Although i highly doubt they care about this to much as they provide their own mappings for new versions)

  3. Should we switch to Mojang’s code style?

    As long as we are using Mojang's code style as reference and not directly reusing their code (specifically from this build, not stuff properly reversed) we should be in the clear

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants