3 ms·
> Even better, as in many legislations a derivate of manually deobfuscated code does not count as derivate of the original source, they even give up their copyr
by Aissen 11y ago
> Even better, as in many legislations a derivate of manually deobfuscated code does not count as derivate of the original source, they even give up their copyright on their code, practically.
I never heard that, source ? It's not really "clean room".
- kuschku 11y agoIt’s not clean room, but the ECJ has allowed it one time already. Which did set an interesting precedent.
- Aissen 11y agoI'm guessing you're talking about this then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_Inc_v_World_Programming_Ltd#Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union_reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_Inc_v_World_Prog... I still don't see how it's a derivative of RE'd code (like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3919250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3919250 was). It's just the classic "reverse engineering allowed for compatibility".
- kuschku 11y agoIn that case they actually wrote their code while having the reversed code open side-by-side. That’s the interesting part of the case.