5 ms·

This is only a limitation of the demo version of Hopper. The full version can disassemble itself, and it's not even prohibited by the EULA, unlike most softwar

by comex 6y ago

This is only a limitation of the demo version of Hopper. The full version can disassemble itself, and it's not even prohibited by the EULA, unlike most software EULAs which have boilerplate no-reverse-engineering clauses. This behavior, both the technical and legal aspects, originated with IDA. In fact, IDA's EULA has a clause explicitly permitting you to reverse engineer it (whereas Hopper's just doesn't mention reverse engineering).

userbinator 6y ago
In fact, IDA's EULA has a clause explicitly permitting you to reverse engineer it That's funny. I guess they realised that trying to prevent that would both be ironic and not particularly enforceable. (I remember that in the cracking scene, many years ago, it was considered a "rite of passage" to crack your own tools like SoftICE, IDA, etc.)
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Maybe some lawyer can correct me, but I don't think it is possible to legally prevent somebody from understanding how something works (unless it is an atomic bomb or other state secret). If that was possible Apple would just put a label on their iPhones and say that you are not allowed to know or even try to know how it works and that would be the end of all repairability.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    It's not possible to prevent people from understanding how atomic bombs work either. Even the Wikipedia articles are quite detailed. The reverse engineering prohibitions became standard contract boilerplate because apparently in the USA corporations can require people to "voluntarily" relinquish their rights in order to do business with them. They require all customers to agree not to exercise any rights that could lead to economic disadvantage for them. In any sane country, I'd expect such conditions to be considered abusive by courts.
    - wiml 6y ago
      Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state). But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people.
      - matheusmoreira 6y ago
        > Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state). Good to know. I've been told otherwise... Wonder if this is documented somewhere. > But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people. Yeah, it sucks. Most customers aren't really familiar with law and yet they're forced to resolve these ambiguities. There's also the fact legal proceedings are extremely disruptive and costly for the average person but are routine for large companies. So even if they're unenforceable in court they can still force compliance by threatening to take people to court in the first place. It's essentially bullying in my opinion.
        TheGeminon 6y ago
        A big part is (AFAIK) many of these contract clauses have never been fully tested in court, so companies leave them (why not, they are potentially effective, and not definitely illegal), and consumers don't want to be the trial case.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > I don't think it is possible to legally prevent somebody from understanding how something works (unless it is an atomic bomb or other state secret). Also not a lawyer, but DRM might also belong on this list (DMCA).
saagarjha 6y ago
Of course, if you point Hopper at itself it gives you a lot of lorem ipsum selectors and dummy code as part of its amusing anti-reversing.
paper743cut 6y ago
It does not make business sense. If i can not try out with a demo version why would i buy it.

by comex 6y ago

userbinator 6y ago

In fact, IDA's EULA has a clause explicitly permitting you to reverse engineer it That's funny. I guess they realised that trying to prevent that would both be ironic and not particularly enforceable. (I remember that in the cracking scene, many years ago, it was considered a "rite of passage" to crack your own tools like SoftICE, IDA, etc.)

lmilcin 6y ago
Maybe some lawyer can correct me, but I don't think it is possible to legally prevent somebody from understanding how something works (unless it is an atomic bomb or other state secret). If that was possible Apple would just put a label on their iPhones and say that you are not allowed to know or even try to know how it works and that would be the end of all repairability.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  It's not possible to prevent people from understanding how atomic bombs work either. Even the Wikipedia articles are quite detailed. The reverse engineering prohibitions became standard contract boilerplate because apparently in the USA corporations can require people to "voluntarily" relinquish their rights in order to do business with them. They require all customers to agree not to exercise any rights that could lead to economic disadvantage for them. In any sane country, I'd expect such conditions to be considered abusive by courts.
  - wiml 6y ago
    Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state). But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people.
    - matheusmoreira 6y ago
      > Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state). Good to know. I've been told otherwise... Wonder if this is documented somewhere. > But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people. Yeah, it sucks. Most customers aren't really familiar with law and yet they're forced to resolve these ambiguities. There's also the fact legal proceedings are extremely disruptive and costly for the average person but are routine for large companies. So even if they're unenforceable in court they can still force compliance by threatening to take people to court in the first place. It's essentially bullying in my opinion.
      - TheGeminon 6y ago
        A big part is (AFAIK) many of these contract clauses have never been fully tested in court, so companies leave them (why not, they are potentially effective, and not definitely illegal), and consumers don't want to be the trial case.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > I don't think it is possible to legally prevent somebody from understanding how something works (unless it is an atomic bomb or other state secret). Also not a lawyer, but DRM might also belong on this list (DMCA).

saagarjha 6y ago

Of course, if you point Hopper at itself it gives you a lot of lorem ipsum selectors and dummy code as part of its amusing anti-reversing.

paper743cut 6y ago

It does not make business sense. If i can not try out with a demo version why would i buy it.