The obvious caveat is that with people consent comes into the picture.

So we are back where we started, no?

Code is not people.

There's a philosophical discussion here longer than a comment can afford but the bottom line isn't "code is not people". While I took GP's "wife" remark as a joke, I feel like you're implying that as long as it's "not people" it's a free for all. Like someone "exploring" how it feels like to spend your money, wear your watch, and drive your car.

Since this is a digital world, hacking doesn't have to lead to a loss for the creator. It can be done for your own intellectual pleasure and exploration. But making it available online to the general public is no longer exploration. So depending on the case you no longer have the moral cover of "I was just exploring".

> But making it available online to the general public is no longer exploration.

Why not? I'd argue the opposite: that making something available online to the general public is the first step toward maximizing exploration - in particular, enabling exploration beyond the limits of your own imagination/ability.

But the time and effort put into writing that code was a significant part of their lives, and that code was only shared with those who agreed with their rules.

>>and that code was only shared with those who agreed with their rules.

This is the point of contention though. In EU courts have ruled over and over and over again that you cannot be bound by terms set AFTER the purchase of any software. As a result, EULAs are pretty much worthless, because they are presentented post-purchase.

If you went to a store and bought a copy of this game then that's it, you haven't agreed to anything, and you own a copy of it and you can do almost whatever you wish with it. You cannot make further copies and sell those because that's governed by copyright law, but modifying the binaries to do what you want them to do? Absolutely fine.

It's like with cars - obviously someone put a huge amount of work into making them, they contain a huge amount of software in them, yet the idea that the manufacturer tells you what you can or cannot do with it after purchase is ridiculous(and yes, I know some companies like Tesla are already trying).

We're getting into legal details here, but in principle one can construct a contract where software use plus onerous rules are exchanged for money.

Thanks for the European perspective. Not a big fan of EULAs myself, especially ones where the cost to properly analyze by your own lawyer is likely much greater than the value of the software itself, which is the case for most consumer software.