3 ms·
It's not a given that the hacker will even release the source code. With the ransom threat rebuffed publicly, they might not be bothered to actually distribute
by phire 6y ago
It's not a given that the hacker will even release the source code.
With the ransom threat rebuffed publicly, they might not be bothered to actually distribute the files, or they might choose to keep them privately for bragging rights.
And then it's entirely possible the source code might not be in a compilable state without lots of work.
But the biggest problems are the copyright issues. CDPR will be well within their rights to go after anyone publishing unofficial builds of the source code.
- ethbr0 6y ago> publishing unofficial builds of the source code You could patch installed files and/or at runtime, no? With patches being wholly original work? I'm not actually sure how IP law works for something like that.
- rich_sasha 6y agoPresumably antything based in stolen IP is tainted. Not an exact analogy, but if you translate a copyrighted piece of work, you own the copyright to the translation, but cannot e.g. publish that without the original work’s copyright holder’s consent.
- rootw0rm 6y agoIANAL, but things are complicated. even if you're patching on the fly with original work, you could theoretically find yourself violating a user agreement against reverse engineering, etc. i think it's utter rubbish, but that seems to be the world we find ourselves in.
- phire 6y agoTo add to the complications, many countries have laws (or case law) which disable any anti-RE clauses in EULAs.