I say this every time it comes up, but polluting a decomp project with AI generated code is risky, imho. What makes decomp legal (in the US) is that it’s a creative transformation performed by a human and the resulting copyright of the code that just happens to compile to the same binary is owned by the person doing the decompiling.

USPTO and court precedent is leaning heavily toward LLM output not being transformative on its own, making it mechanical, and no longer fair use and in violation of copyright. This puts a legal gray cloud on a project where most contributors couldn’t defend themselves if a rights holder goes after it, and there’s a high likelihood that they would succeed. On the other hand there’s enough case law protecting human decompilation that even the most litigious game companies don’t go after decomp projects that have historically been done by humans.

(I’m not a lawyer, I’m not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc., etc.)

Does it being a creative transformation rob the derivative work status? Personally, I'd liken the process of decompilation to that of translating a book from one language to another - the copyright on the original work does not become void merely because the process of translation requires extensive creativity.

Nicalis and Take-Two have both gone after decompilation projects, also. In particular, Nicalis has gone after a decompilation of Cave Story, but not a black box reimplementation of the same, while Take-Two ended up suing a decompilation developer (albeit settled out of court). However, in some jurisdictions, even clean reimplementations have failed - see Tetris v. Xio.

(I am not a lawyer either, etc etc, but that's my understanding)

These decomp projects are already violating copyright by distributing the decompiled source code. Using LLMs is less risky than sharing the code.