6 ms·

You are wrong. You eyes are blind by hating. Stop. Listen the Nature. Skype-open-source code here: https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs https://github.com/

You are wrong. You eyes are blind by hating. Stop. Listen the Nature. Skype-open-source code here: https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs repo was closed because i host in download section deobfuscated skype5.5 binary, my fault.

daeken 14y ago
No, that's bullshit. https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs/blob/master/sources/skypkt/decode41.c#L405 https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs/blob/master/sources... That function right there (and the vast majority of the rest of the file) is a straight decompiled version from Skype. You even use the register names and comment with addresses from the binary. Having spent a lot of time reversing apps myself, this is a straight copyright violation. Your code is a directly derivative work from Skype.
- caf 14y ago
  I wonder if that's a small enough component to count as de minimus copying.
  - gtirloni 14y ago
    Is there the notion of minimum copyright infringement?
    - fffggg 14y ago
      Yes and no. There is no such notion in copyright law. Case law is unclear, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright
      - caf 14y ago
        The jury instructions issued by the judge in the ongoing Oracle vs Google case make considerable reference to the principle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1018.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1018.pdf
  - Xuzz 14y ago
    At least 3/4 of those 4000 lines is directly copied from Skype, and that's just one file. I don't think that's small enough to not matter; anyway, if it really was so small, it should easily have been rewritten with original code.
    - caf 14y ago
      It's the size compared to the size of the relevant copyrighted work that matters, not compared to the size of the work it's copied into.
      - jahewson 14y ago
        No that's a simplistic approach. Both matter, for example one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a very small portion of the overall work, but it cannot be freely copied. Likewise if you write a book a million pages long, copying entire chapters does not suddenly become ok.
        caf 14y ago
        It is my understanding that "the relevant copyrighted work" in the Encyclopedia Britannica example is likely to be the article rather than the entire encyclopedia.
- skypeopensource 14y ago
  "No, that's bullshit." What about you talking? Maybe you need read dictionary definitions of words bull and shit. Pay copyright rent for this words, and stop trolling us.
yukyukyuk 14y ago
I think "Stop. Listen the nature." is quite possibly the best adaptation of the "my hair is a bird, your argument is invalid" meme to tech arguments. Seriously, this is a gem.

daeken 14y ago

No, that's bullshit. https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs/blob/master/sources/skypkt/decode41.c#L405 https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs/blob/master/sources... That function right there (and the vast majority of the rest of the file) is a straight decompiled version from Skype. You even use the register names and comment with addresses from the binary. Having spent a lot of time reversing apps myself, this is a straight copyright violation. Your code is a directly derivative work from Skype.

caf 14y ago
I wonder if that's a small enough component to count as de minimus copying.
- gtirloni 14y ago
  Is there the notion of minimum copyright infringement?
  - fffggg 14y ago
    Yes and no. There is no such notion in copyright law. Case law is unclear, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright
    - caf 14y ago
      The jury instructions issued by the judge in the ongoing Oracle vs Google case make considerable reference to the principle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1018.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1018.pdf
- Xuzz 14y ago
  At least 3/4 of those 4000 lines is directly copied from Skype, and that's just one file. I don't think that's small enough to not matter; anyway, if it really was so small, it should easily have been rewritten with original code.
  - caf 14y ago
    It's the size compared to the size of the relevant copyrighted work that matters, not compared to the size of the work it's copied into.
    - jahewson 14y ago
      No that's a simplistic approach. Both matter, for example one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a very small portion of the overall work, but it cannot be freely copied. Likewise if you write a book a million pages long, copying entire chapters does not suddenly become ok.
      - caf 14y ago
        It is my understanding that "the relevant copyrighted work" in the Encyclopedia Britannica example is likely to be the article rather than the entire encyclopedia.
skypeopensource 14y ago
"No, that's bullshit." What about you talking? Maybe you need read dictionary definitions of words bull and shit. Pay copyright rent for this words, and stop trolling us.

yukyukyuk 14y ago

I think "Stop. Listen the nature." is quite possibly the best adaptation of the "my hair is a bird, your argument is invalid" meme to tech arguments. Seriously, this is a gem.