11 ms·
It's not Open Source.
by justinjlynn 8y ago
It's not Open Source.
- idlewords 8y agoYou can just reverse-engineer it!
- justinjlynn 8y agoNo, you almost certainly promised not to do so when you bought a licence.
- gpm 8y agoGhidra on the other hand you could, since even if they never get around to fully releasing the source (unlikely) they still granted us an apache license on the whole thing :) I think it's probably pretty unique right now in that it's under an OSS license without all the source available.
- pcwalton 8y agoGhidra is mostly Java, so decompilation would pretty high-fidelity to begin with.
- gpm 8y agoThe java sources seem to all be there in zip files actually (as far as I can tell). The part I was most interested in atm (the decompiler) turns out to be some sort of native language compiled to an executable, and its source isn't there.
- MrMorden 8y agoAll the source is in .zip files in the download. What's missing (and coming soon) is a build system.
- legitbs_ctf 8y agoThat’s actually untrue - they explicitly give permission to reverse engineer their software in the license. Check restrictions in https://docs.binary.ninja/about/license/index.html https://docs.binary.ninja/about/license/index.html
- elliotec 8y agoFor the lazy: > Restrictions. Subject to applicable copyright, trade secret and other laws, you are permitted under this License to reverse engineer or de-compile the Software but you may not alter, duplicate, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, create derivative works from or provide others with the Software in whole or part, or transmit or communicate any of the Software over a network in order to share it with others.
- justinjlynn 8y ago> create derivative works from That's pretty much the only reason one would reverse engineer it, in this context - and it's somewhat misleading to suggest otherwise.
- reitanqild 8y agoHunting for bugs to report would be a valid, wouldn't it?
- justinjlynn 8y agoI'd rather just have the damn code.
- vectorEQ 8y agothat always of course :D
- BuildTheRobots 8y agoNot if you're oracle.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dman 8y agoIf you have any pointers to a company / individual making a living building open source tools for developers please let me know. (Working for a large cloud / OS provider that is subsidizing tool development as part of a platform play does not count).
- kfriede 8y agoRedis. Sidekiq.
- forgingahead 8y agoSidekiq charges for their Enterprise plan which starts at $179 per month, Redis offers paid Commercial Support. The money always comes from somewhere...
- ascorbic 8y agoOpen source doesn't mean free.
- jazzyjackson 8y agoYeah, the question was about getting paid to develop open source software. The answer is, sell support.
- anyzen 8y agoWrong answer. Selling support means that the developer is incentivized to make product unnecessarily complex. Also, with recent developments it turns out that other entities might be better at providing support than original developers, taking away the option to monetize OSS. Why bother writing your own software, when you can just sell services and provide support for a different one? Note that RedHat, often quoted as success story, is really a services company that just happens to write an occasional piece of software, and support them when their customers need it.
- 8y ago
- lsiebert 8y agoIt's being released at RSA as open source, so it's more correct to say that it's not open source yet.
- EE84M3i 8y agoThis was in reference to Binary Ninja, which was neither released at RSA nor is Open Source.
- maccio92 8y agonot everything in the world has to be open source
- birdiesanders 8y agoTrue, but we do need one of everything to be open source.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]