5 ms·

Because the binary is under EULA, so you are not allowed to do so: https://code.visualstudio.com/license https://code.visualstudio.com/license > You may not r

Because the binary is under EULA, so you are not allowed to do so: https://code.visualstudio.com/license https://code.visualstudio.com/license > You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the software Check `5. SCOPE OF LICENSE.` VSCodium fixes that, it removes all the proprietary bites and branding. The only downside is that, as far as I know, you can't access a plethora of tooling that would require the proprietary bits.

car_analogy 4y ago
If they don't want us to find out what their software does (the definition of reverse-engineering), it's safe to assume it's malicious, or will be. Edit: In other words, if you bought a sandwich, and the EULA for that sandwich forbade you from examining what's in it, how it was prepared, and what effects it has on you health - would you eat that sandwich?
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Mic-ro-soft - enough said
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  you might be surprised to know that food (for example bread) can't simply be reverse engineered by looking at the ingredients. many brands also use NDAs to protect their trade secrets, example: Coca Cola. So people who know about it, can't legally divulge what they know. It is the same with software, the only difference is that software can be reverse engineered and made indistinguishable from the original, while assuming we could reverse engineer Coke recipe, it would never be Coca Cola, because only Coca Cola can make Coca Cola. The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. It is probably standard when distributing code that is not open and can't be inspected.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. So you have some sort of source for the claim that, if one does not legally forbid reverse-engineering, they can be held "responsible" for unauthorized copies?
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 Also of note is that in the U.S. most End-User License Agreements (EULAs) specifically prohibit reverse-engineering. Courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law which expressly permits it (Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In other words, for your purposes, it sounds like it would be illegal to integrate features from a reverse-engineered program into another program for commercial or non-commercial use. If you were trying to enable interoperability (again, see Section 103(f), noted above), that would be different. The point is not the being responsible part, the point is that if they do not prohibit it the law permits it under certain circumstances. By explicitly denying it companies can claim plausible deniability. (not an expert, just my understanding)
      - car_analogy 4y ago
        Plausible deniability of what? So far nothing indicates that this is anything but an attempt to contractually deprive users of their rights. There is no extra liability that Microsoft would be taking on.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        I don't make the rules, if in USA courts have decided that that such contractual prohibitions override the copyright law companies will use them. Even if there is virtually no risk for them, they will protect themselves because they can and the law gives them the right to override user's rights. At least VS Code is open source and everybody can compile it and inspect it, except the proprietary bits from MS. Which sounds a lot better than old MS. Anyway, nobody complains that they can't reverse engineer AWS. Cloud computing is much more dangerous for users' right, and yet...
vasco 4y ago
There's no warranty so abiding by the EULA is meaningless. That's only there so Microsoft covers their ass because lawyers exist and they justify their salary by doing things that "reduce the probability of Microsoft getting sued". You can reverse engineer the binary all you want.
- numpad0 4y ago
  Copyrights can be enforced even for free products or for meritless motivations. Some thinks it only applies to paid IP or limited distributions but technically there’s no such requirement.
  - parineum 4y ago
    What would enforcement look like in the case where someone reverse engineered the binary?
    - pygy_ 4y ago
      I suppose they'd get their user license perpetually revoked and wouldn't be allowed to use VSCode legally. Good luck enforcing that. This is, if the EULA has legs. MS could have put that language to scare people off event though it doesn't have legal footing.
    - dx034 4y ago
      Probably not allowing them to publish that information? However, if you can state general facts from how telemetry works without going into detail on how you got that information, I doubt they'll be able to convince a court that you did anything illegal. In the end, you can just monitor network traffic and verify telemetry is switched off that way.
      - parineum 4y ago
        > Probably not allowing them to publish that information? That definitely falls under free speech in the United States. Look at DeCSS[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
jcelerier 4y ago
never ask a woman, her age a man, his salary microsoft, how much of `$ strings ./code | grep HTML` are references to LGPL Blink class names
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  Isn’t linking explicitly allowed by LGPL?
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    It's statically linked - which is fine, as long as they allow relinking of the LGPL parts and don't add any restrictions on those (which this EULA goes directly against)
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  extensions in vs code are different processes communications through some IPC exactly to avoid including or linking with OSS codebase they are in practice another application entirely.

car_analogy 4y ago

If they don't want us to find out what their software does (the definition of reverse-engineering), it's safe to assume it's malicious, or will be. Edit: In other words, if you bought a sandwich, and the EULA for that sandwich forbade you from examining what's in it, how it was prepared, and what effects it has on you health - would you eat that sandwich?

zasdffaa 4y ago
Mic-ro-soft - enough said
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
you might be surprised to know that food (for example bread) can't simply be reverse engineered by looking at the ingredients. many brands also use NDAs to protect their trade secrets, example: Coca Cola. So people who know about it, can't legally divulge what they know. It is the same with software, the only difference is that software can be reverse engineered and made indistinguishable from the original, while assuming we could reverse engineer Coke recipe, it would never be Coca Cola, because only Coca Cola can make Coca Cola. The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. It is probably standard when distributing code that is not open and can't be inspected.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. So you have some sort of source for the claim that, if one does not legally forbid reverse-engineering, they can be held "responsible" for unauthorized copies?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 Also of note is that in the U.S. most End-User License Agreements (EULAs) specifically prohibit reverse-engineering. Courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law which expressly permits it (Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In other words, for your purposes, it sounds like it would be illegal to integrate features from a reverse-engineered program into another program for commercial or non-commercial use. If you were trying to enable interoperability (again, see Section 103(f), noted above), that would be different. The point is not the being responsible part, the point is that if they do not prohibit it the law permits it under certain circumstances. By explicitly denying it companies can claim plausible deniability. (not an expert, just my understanding)
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      Plausible deniability of what? So far nothing indicates that this is anything but an attempt to contractually deprive users of their rights. There is no extra liability that Microsoft would be taking on.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        I don't make the rules, if in USA courts have decided that that such contractual prohibitions override the copyright law companies will use them. Even if there is virtually no risk for them, they will protect themselves because they can and the law gives them the right to override user's rights. At least VS Code is open source and everybody can compile it and inspect it, except the proprietary bits from MS. Which sounds a lot better than old MS. Anyway, nobody complains that they can't reverse engineer AWS. Cloud computing is much more dangerous for users' right, and yet...

vasco 4y ago

There's no warranty so abiding by the EULA is meaningless. That's only there so Microsoft covers their ass because lawyers exist and they justify their salary by doing things that "reduce the probability of Microsoft getting sued". You can reverse engineer the binary all you want.

numpad0 4y ago
Copyrights can be enforced even for free products or for meritless motivations. Some thinks it only applies to paid IP or limited distributions but technically there’s no such requirement.
- parineum 4y ago
  What would enforcement look like in the case where someone reverse engineered the binary?
  - pygy_ 4y ago
    I suppose they'd get their user license perpetually revoked and wouldn't be allowed to use VSCode legally. Good luck enforcing that. This is, if the EULA has legs. MS could have put that language to scare people off event though it doesn't have legal footing.
  - dx034 4y ago
    Probably not allowing them to publish that information? However, if you can state general facts from how telemetry works without going into detail on how you got that information, I doubt they'll be able to convince a court that you did anything illegal. In the end, you can just monitor network traffic and verify telemetry is switched off that way.
    - parineum 4y ago
      > Probably not allowing them to publish that information? That definitely falls under free speech in the United States. Look at DeCSS[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

jcelerier 4y ago

never ask a woman, her age a man, his salary microsoft, how much of `$ strings ./code | grep HTML` are references to LGPL Blink class names

eurasiantiger 4y ago
Isn’t linking explicitly allowed by LGPL?
- jcelerier 4y ago
  It's statically linked - which is fine, as long as they allow relinking of the LGPL parts and don't add any restrictions on those (which this EULA goes directly against)
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
extensions in vs code are different processes communications through some IPC exactly to avoid including or linking with OSS codebase they are in practice another application entirely.