copyright open-source-software hypothetical computer-misuse-act
Legality of dual use software that could help with games
<p>Say I have <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/tremor-or-shaking-hands/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tremors</a>, and I edit my GPL mouse driver to use image analysis to identify icons on the screen that I am trying to click on, and click on them for me, similar to a snap to grid functionality.  I release my code under the GPL.  I notice that it makes playing my <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freeware_first-person_shooters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">GPL 1st person shooters</a> (FPS) much easier, and mention this in the README.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/33064/does-selling-game-hacks-based-on-personal-user-agreement-is">this question</a>, it appears that I could be vulnerable to 2 legal threats:</p>
<ol>
<li>The authors of an FPS that <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/eula/394690_eula_1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has in the EULA the below</a> could claim that &quot;Selling something to someone which you reasonably believe will be used to break the law makes you an accessory&quot;, and my mention of FPS's in the README means I reasonably believed this could be used in this way.</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>any other use of TU in connection with the creation, development, or use of any such unauthorized cheats are prohibited under this EULA. Cheats include, but are not limited to: ... programs that automatically target other players or that automatically simulate any other player input to gain an advantage over other players (&quot;aimbots&quot;);</p>
</blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>The authors of the original mouse driver could claim that &quot;A contract for an illegal purpose is void&quot;, therefore I did not give GPL rights to the user, and therefore did abide by the terms of the GPL, and therefore breached their copyright.</li>
</ol>
<p>Is there any merit in these claims?  If not, are there any restrictions on such dual use tools?</p>
<p>This is hypothetical, so any jusritictions would be interesting.  Most to me would be me in the UK and both authors in the US.</p>

<p>This sounds a bit far-fetched. There are laws against circumventing copy protection measures (DRM) but not against aimbotting (to the best of my knowledge). Thus, you cannot reasonably believe that a click-assist functionality would be used to break <em>laws</em>. It could definitely be used to break <em>private contracts</em> such as an EULA, but you are not a party to that contract and are not bound by its terms. Of course, when <em>you</em> use such click-assist tech in an online game, you might be breaking <em>your</em> contract with the game vendor or server provider. But this doesn't imply that a click-assist would be forbidden outside of that context.</p>
<p>Note that assistive technologies sometimes have exceptions from laws, e.g. a permission to circumvent DRM if necessary for accessibility. In the US, the Librarian of Congress adopts exceptions for a duration of three years. While none of the <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">current exceptions</a> match your specific scenario involving video-games, it can be permissible to break DRM on e-books or videos for certain accessibility enhancements.</p>
