4 ms·

Sounds like this is a moot point, but I'm still curious: How would you legally distinguish between programmer-written assembly, and assembly disassembled from c

by eurleif 14y ago

Sounds like this is a moot point, but I'm still curious: How would you legally distinguish between programmer-written assembly, and assembly disassembled from compiled machine code? Without doing that, it's pointless to require source code, since disassembler-generated assembly is no more useful than the machine code it was generated from. And it seems like no matter what rules you set for how the assembly should look, someone could change it just enough to comply with those rules, while still not being very useful.

lutusp 14y ago
> How would you legally distinguish between programmer-written assembly, and assembly disassembled from compiled machine code? The same question could be asked about certain languages that possess this "de-compilation" property, including Java. And the answer is, if someone understands the code well enough, (s)he can sprinkle comments and plausible-sounding function and variable names and pass the result of as the original. > Without doing that, it's pointless to require source code, since disassembler-generated assembly is no more useful than the machine code it was generated from. Yes, to a programmer, but to a lawyer it makes a world of difference. An invented source code file would have two traits of use as evidence -- it would be byte-for-byte identical with the real source, but it would have gaps in the reasoning expressed in the comments, and it might show implausible function and variable names. Also, apart from providing a basis for a fraud allegation, requiring a source file takes more effort than simply providing an executable. > And it seems like no matter what rules you set for how the assembly should look, someone could change it just enough to comply with those rules, while still not being very useful. When all is said and done, I agree. Although such a requirement places obstacles in the path of cheating, it's not any real barrier to someone who intends to produce what at first glance seems to be the original source code. Also, we don't know if this requirement even exists, which was the reason for my original question. Requiring source might not even be in the minds of those making this proposal.

by eurleif 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> How would you legally distinguish between programmer-written assembly, and assembly disassembled from compiled machine code? The same question could be asked about certain languages that possess this "de-compilation" property, including Java. And the answer is, if someone understands the code well enough, (s)he can sprinkle comments and plausible-sounding function and variable names and pass the result of as the original. > Without doing that, it's pointless to require source code, since disassembler-generated assembly is no more useful than the machine code it was generated from. Yes, to a programmer, but to a lawyer it makes a world of difference. An invented source code file would have two traits of use as evidence -- it would be byte-for-byte identical with the real source, but it would have gaps in the reasoning expressed in the comments, and it might show implausible function and variable names. Also, apart from providing a basis for a fraud allegation, requiring a source file takes more effort than simply providing an executable. > And it seems like no matter what rules you set for how the assembly should look, someone could change it just enough to comply with those rules, while still not being very useful. When all is said and done, I agree. Although such a requirement places obstacles in the path of cheating, it's not any real barrier to someone who intends to produce what at first glance seems to be the original source code. Also, we don't know if this requirement even exists, which was the reason for my original question. Requiring source might not even be in the minds of those making this proposal.