4 ms·

Ask HN: Is it unethical to reverse engineer GPL violating software to create OSS

Question in title, situation is you have identified a GPL violation for which the authors refuse to comply and release source. The authors reside in a country which is known for its rampant violations and theft of intellectual property. Is it equally unethical to reverse engineer their modified software and release it as open source? Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

jkic47 3y ago
It kind of depends, doesn't it? The authors have (allegedly, and according to you) committed a GPL violation. The "sins" of the country they live in have nothing to do with the situation. Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it, unless the software is patented, in which case, it isn't. If the software is patented, I'd lead towards it being unethical to break a law in your jurisdiction because you (not through a legal system) have unilaterally decided that they committed a violation.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  > Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it, Looking at the inputs and outputs and guessing the implementation is legal, but I guess the OP meand decompiling the executable and using the decompiled source that is ilegal.
  - jkic47 3y ago
    Ah got it. If OP meant decompiling the executable and using the source, that could indeed expose them to legal risk.
- adastra22 3y ago
  To follow up on this, a lot of people think that if there is a GPL violation, then the composite work automatically becomes covered by the GPL. This is not true. The composite work is a copyright violation, but the GPL terms don’t apply to the proprietary code. “Hacking” the proprietary code is no different than if there had been no GPL violation, under the law.
Juliate 3y ago
What do you mean by reverse engineer exactly here? It can mean various things.
bruce511 3y ago
Ethics are a personal construct outside the law. (In some narrow cases, like psychiatry it's enforced, but that's the exception and doesn't apply here.) In other words ethics are whatever you say they are. And polling the internet for permission will turn up a mix of aye and nay. Is it -legal-? That's a different question, and "ethical " questions are usually a prelude to breaking some law under the implication that the law is "unjust". As an aside I presume you are a -customer- of said company? Since GPL rights only applies to those with a legal, binary, copy.
- vr46 3y ago
  Ethics are more universal, if anything - don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t play anything by Creed or Kenny G over loudspeakers, that kind of thing. Things everyone can get behind. Morality tends to be an implementation of ethics, like respecting the dead by leaving them to be eaten by vultures, or burying them instead.
  - eqvinox 3y ago
    >> Ethics are a personal construct > Ethics are more universal Both of these statements will have philosophers up in arms ;D Whether morals (and transitively ethics) are universal or context dependent is an unanswered (and possibly undecidable) problem in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
    - vr46 3y ago
      Agreed and I was well-aware when commenting, hence the flippancy! I guess I’m from the Simon Blackburn school where relativism is a threat to ethics…
Annatar 3y ago
[dead]
eqvinox 3y ago
Why would you think reverse engineering is somehow "wrong"? You're not "stealing" source code, you're deducing operational concepts and then reimplementing it with your own work. That's perfectly fine in a lot of, if not most cases. (Legal exceptions: your country forbids reverse engineering, or the software is patented [= in both cases, your legal system sucks]. But those are legal arguments, not moral.)
iExploder 3y ago
It is unethical not to do it if you have the capability.
ath3nd 3y ago
No, it's the proper thing to do as a citizen
botten 3y ago
It is ethically sound.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Information must be free.

jkic47 3y ago

It kind of depends, doesn't it? The authors have (allegedly, and according to you) committed a GPL violation. The "sins" of the country they live in have nothing to do with the situation. Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it, unless the software is patented, in which case, it isn't. If the software is patented, I'd lead towards it being unethical to break a law in your jurisdiction because you (not through a legal system) have unilaterally decided that they committed a violation.

gus_massa 3y ago
> Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it, Looking at the inputs and outputs and guessing the implementation is legal, but I guess the OP meand decompiling the executable and using the decompiled source that is ilegal.
- jkic47 3y ago
  Ah got it. If OP meant decompiling the executable and using the source, that could indeed expose them to legal risk.
adastra22 3y ago
To follow up on this, a lot of people think that if there is a GPL violation, then the composite work automatically becomes covered by the GPL. This is not true. The composite work is a copyright violation, but the GPL terms don’t apply to the proprietary code. “Hacking” the proprietary code is no different than if there had been no GPL violation, under the law.

Juliate 3y ago

What do you mean by reverse engineer exactly here? It can mean various things.

bruce511 3y ago

Ethics are a personal construct outside the law. (In some narrow cases, like psychiatry it's enforced, but that's the exception and doesn't apply here.) In other words ethics are whatever you say they are. And polling the internet for permission will turn up a mix of aye and nay. Is it -legal-? That's a different question, and "ethical " questions are usually a prelude to breaking some law under the implication that the law is "unjust". As an aside I presume you are a -customer- of said company? Since GPL rights only applies to those with a legal, binary, copy.

vr46 3y ago
Ethics are more universal, if anything - don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t play anything by Creed or Kenny G over loudspeakers, that kind of thing. Things everyone can get behind. Morality tends to be an implementation of ethics, like respecting the dead by leaving them to be eaten by vultures, or burying them instead.
- eqvinox 3y ago
  >> Ethics are a personal construct > Ethics are more universal Both of these statements will have philosophers up in arms ;D Whether morals (and transitively ethics) are universal or context dependent is an unanswered (and possibly undecidable) problem in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
  - vr46 3y ago
    Agreed and I was well-aware when commenting, hence the flippancy! I guess I’m from the Simon Blackburn school where relativism is a threat to ethics…

Annatar 3y ago

[dead]

eqvinox 3y ago

Why would you think reverse engineering is somehow "wrong"? You're not "stealing" source code, you're deducing operational concepts and then reimplementing it with your own work. That's perfectly fine in a lot of, if not most cases. (Legal exceptions: your country forbids reverse engineering, or the software is patented [= in both cases, your legal system sucks]. But those are legal arguments, not moral.)

iExploder 3y ago

It is unethical not to do it if you have the capability.

ath3nd 3y ago

No, it's the proper thing to do as a citizen

botten 3y ago

It is ethically sound.

RecycledEle 3y ago

Information must be free.