3 ms·
It probably involves some level of reverse engineering. Which last I checked violates the windows license. Regardless of my feelings on whether such reverse en
by thayne 2y ago
It probably involves some level of reverse engineering. Which last I checked violates the windows license.
Regardless of my feelings on whether such reverse engineering should be legal (I think it should), this line of business seems like it is inviting a lawsuit from MS, unless they have some kind of agreement with MS (which is possible).
- toomuchtodo 2y agoIt’s possible reverse engineering is potentially fair use if Microsoft is no longer offering security patches, although a court case would be the ultimate test. I’d be willing to donate a payment to the EFF for an attorney opinion on the topic to add to my citation (their FAQ) to cover the professional time expense. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
- userbinator 2y agoRE has always been "fair use" since the very early days. Look at the books and other work published by Andrew Schulman, Matt Pietrek, Mark Russinovich, etc. AFAIK no one has gotten unwanted legal attention from MS from it (and look at what happened to that last person...), and it's only when you want to be a competitor, like ReactOS/WINE, that they start paying attention. Also notable is that Ilfak Guilfanov (IDA author) published a free patch for the infamous WMF RCE before MS did.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoI’m simply erring on the side of caution. Everyone has a plan until they’re punched in the face.
- RachelF 2y agoIronic, because MS are now saying that anything on the Internet can be used to train AI, and their ISO's are available. Perhaps using AI in the process of making these patches will make it OK ;-)
- disqard 2y agoI love it! Instant loophole-creator -- "we trained an AI on the data"!
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y agoThis will sound pedantic, but it’s not intended to - you say ‘illegal’ - is that in the context of the licence or is some actual law broken outside the scope of that licence agreement?
- dumpsterdiver 2y agoIt’s a fair question, and I didn’t find it pedantic. My understanding from earlier comments is that it required a legally binding contract that wasn’t practical to offer to individuals due to all the clerical work required basically. I may have misunderstood though.