One of the big problems that a lot of people have when talking about law is the lack of understanding about what law actually is.
In the UK we have lots of different types of law like so:
Natural Law: You can't break natural law as it is the physical law of reality therefore no one needs to uphold it.
Common Law: Common law basically states that you may not cause "Harm or Loss" to another. Upheld by officers of the law.
The Magna Carta: The main document in UK law to make sure Mr. Average doesn't get shafted by the royal family or those working under the purview of the royal family (eg. the Government). Upheld by officers of the law.
Statutory Law: The contract made by the "legal identity" of a natural man or woman with the company of "UK PLC". Upheld by company policy officers ( or Police officers as we call them).
Now the first thing to consider is that infringement of copyright is illegal, it is not however unlawful. This is because Copyright law is statutory law and infringement of copyright causes no loss or harm. Loss of monies is not considered as a loss, as money itself is a fiction (just as a legal identity is a fiction) due to only being created under statutory law. If the money was backed 100% by real goods (eg. gold) this would be a different matter, but it is not.
In effect this means that Joe of the family of Bloggs cannot commit this illegal act (he is a natural man and not bound by statute) but Mr. Joe Bloggs (the legal identity of Joe of the family of Bloggs) can commit this illegal act.
Mr. Joe Bloggs (the legal identity) was created when the legal identities of the parents of Joe of the family of Bloggs informed on him by registering his birth. This is of course an unlawful contract as Joe was not an adult at the time and did not agree to the creation of his legal identity.
Now if a Policeman (a policy officer) came to arrest Joe for said infringement Joe must be very careful. If he gives the policy officer his legal identity as a name or admits to his legal identity in any other way he will be in trouble. If the Policeman says "Do you understand" and Joe says "yes" he is also in trouble as in legal terminology he has just agreed to " stand under", ie. "be bound by" statute.
If Joe instead gives his name as Joe of the family of Bloggs and never agrees to stand under statute he is a free man. To be sure of his freedom he should write a letter to the queen declaring "Lawful Rebellion" under section 61 of the Magna Carta disavowing himself from the unlawful legal identity created for him.
He will also then not be required to pay tax, nor will he be entitled to state benefits however, and there are many other implications too. Note that if you have entered a lawful contract you are still bound by it. If you buy a piece of software and agree to the EULA you are still bound by it. Note also that if you declare lawful rebellion you are no longer protected by limited liability. So if you do something unlawful you will probably get a longer sentence.
The situation is very similar in other countries.
In the US you have a constitution. In theory the constitution is "LAW". Sadly this constitution has been eroded to the point of the ridiculous. I will leave the US citizens among you to research this yourselves, you will be horrified at just how little of your rights still exist, and just like us in the UK, it was your legal identities that agreed to it.
If you wish to research what it means to be "free" perhaps you should, it's not as easy or as black and white as some would have you believe though so be careful not to act on questionable advice and please take all I have written above as very much over-simplified, because it is. I don't feel like writing a 200 page essay today.
As an example of just how grey this can all get consider this. In Joe's case the copyright holder claims that the loss of monies resulted in a real loss of food as that is what he would have spent the cash on. Now the situation IS a case of law rather than statute as real loss is involved. See what I mean? More shades of grey than a box of artists pencils.
If it wasn't this way we wouldn't be paying lawyers so much.
As for the original question, there is no harm in adding mods or pokes to a game and/or distributing them providing you don't distribute the copyrighted code itself. Have you ever heard of anyone getting arrested for an unofficial patch?
So don't wait for them to become free, get coding!
