17 ms·
> Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time. We are not talking about a pr
by AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> Not impossible if you reverse engineer the software and look how the binary code is behaving, emulators does this all the time.
We are not talking about a program that "produces the same binary output" when executed. We are talking about a program that _is exactly the same_ as the original one, bit-by-bit.
It is ridiculously impossible to "independently" discover a program that is _exactly the same machine code_ as the original program by just looking at the inputs and outputs of the original program. (Barring trivial programs, of course.)
This is not reverse engineering. This is just dissasembling and decompiling.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- m-p-3 4y agoBut they're not distributing the compiled output, only their own implementation of the source code which leads to that. If they happen to make their own source code which leads to the same assembly opcodes in the compiler, is that really copyright infringement?
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago"But Your Honor, I'm not distributing copies of the copyrighted program, just another program which happens to generate the copyrighted program bit-by-bit! All my original creation, even though I was literally looking at the copyrighted program while developing it..." Do you think that I can just gzip gplprogram.c and then redistribute gplprogram.c.gz under the "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License"?
- m-p-3 4y agoTechnically you would be distributing your own implementation, not the original source code. Copyright does allow you to do that. They just applied the concept of reproducible build on top.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]