I don't think this is a huge deal, but I'm going to have to go with the GP. This would be an extremely poor example of fair use, and would really only dilute the positive meanings of "fair use".
Fair use is meant to preserve access to copyrighted works by the public that granted copyright in the first place--to maintain certain rights for the public and to ensure that any works built upon copyrighted works (whether that's through inspired creativity or just commentary on the original) aren't themselves held hostage by the original copyright holder.
Nothing in this example is transformative of the original work. The poster just released something that somebody else holds the copyright to. The educational aspect is an extremely weak argument; something merely existing in front of your eyes is not educational. The classic take on educational fair use for this would be taking minimal samples from the source and providing commentary upon them (why they did something the way they did, how they solved a problem that plagues a lot of developers, etc).
It's also certainly not a minimal sampling of the material. The code has been minified, but there appears to be a substantial portion of their UI code intact here, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is largely functional without much more work. It would be dishonest to compare 3MB of scripts to a final game including assets, and even with substantial commentary and insight added to the code, you would not be able to justify redistributing this amount of the source. Again, it isn't quoting from a larger source, it's providing the entire source for large portions of the game engine.
IP law aside, I feel the same way about this as I imagine I would have felt if the Doom 3 source had leaked early: no, you won't be able to play the game for free with it, and it is cool to see, but it's shitty that the people that actually wrote it had no say in its release.
Fair use is meant to preserve access to copyrighted works by the public that granted copyright in the first place--to maintain certain rights for the public and to ensure that any works built upon copyrighted works (whether that's through inspired creativity or just commentary on the original) aren't themselves held hostage by the original copyright holder.
Nothing in this example is transformative of the original work. The poster just released something that somebody else holds the copyright to. The educational aspect is an extremely weak argument; something merely existing in front of your eyes is not educational. The classic take on educational fair use for this would be taking minimal samples from the source and providing commentary upon them (why they did something the way they did, how they solved a problem that plagues a lot of developers, etc).
It's also certainly not a minimal sampling of the material. The code has been minified, but there appears to be a substantial portion of their UI code intact here, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is largely functional without much more work. It would be dishonest to compare 3MB of scripts to a final game including assets, and even with substantial commentary and insight added to the code, you would not be able to justify redistributing this amount of the source. Again, it isn't quoting from a larger source, it's providing the entire source for large portions of the game engine.
IP law aside, I feel the same way about this as I imagine I would have felt if the Doom 3 source had leaked early: no, you won't be able to play the game for free with it, and it is cool to see, but it's shitty that the people that actually wrote it had no say in its release.