4 ms·

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 ot

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...

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...