> a prohibition on the commercial trade — that is to say, specifically the for-profit exploitation of society at large, which is the raison d’etre of the insecu

> a prohibition on the commercial trade — that is to say, specifically the for-profit exploitation of society at large, which is the raison d’etre of the insecurity industry—rather than the mere development, production, or use of exploit code. If the "use of exploit code" is protected then why bother? The law would have to prove an unauthorized use or "for-profit exploitation" of code, and at that point it doesn't matter if it's exploit code; any code could be used for unauthorized use. Worse this would put corporations at the center of what's an exploit. Every time a company makes software there could be someone arguing that its an exploit or makes unauthorized use (of info or computing). Companies already avoid the GPL when they can because of legal FUD and this would extend those fears to all software they release. The Sony CD rootkit [0] was clearly over the line but what of iTunes encrypting local music files? Apple locked you out of your files by encrypting them and then offered to sell you the key -- sound familiar? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... Commercial trade isn't the right definition. Exploit code is: using or bypassing an API in an unintended manner (for the benefit?, or to the detriment?, of the owner.)