3 ms·

RMS doesn't care about reverse-engineering binaries from disassembly dumps as far as I know; he'd be more apt to promote a complete re-write based on observed b

by derleth 13y ago

RMS doesn't care about reverse-engineering binaries from disassembly dumps as far as I know; he'd be more apt to promote a complete re-write based on observed behavior. The GPL does mandate that the source code must be in the preferred form for making modifications to the software, which forecloses on people releasing obfuscated source code and claiming to be in compliance with the GPL.

NAFV_P 13y ago
> The GPL does mandate that the source code must be in the preferred form for making modifications to the software, which forecloses on people releasing obfuscated source code and claiming to be in compliance with the GPL. Would you be referring specifically to source code generated from an "obfuscating program"? And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? I thought it would have meant, among other things, separation of source into several files, modular structure, etc. Talking about modular structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir
- belorn 13y ago
  > And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means. One argue a case in front of a judge, and if both parties agree, then that will be that. If the two sides disagree, the judge (or jury) makes a decision. However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code. In the same way, they would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form to add modifications on source code that's been obfuscated is not on the non-obfuscated code. Judges and juries are not complete without common sense.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    >> And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? > In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means. That is obvious, why are you telling me this? > However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code. I wasn't talking about binary files, of course I am referring to the source code.

by derleth 13y ago

NAFV_P 13y ago

> The GPL does mandate that the source code must be in the preferred form for making modifications to the software, which forecloses on people releasing obfuscated source code and claiming to be in compliance with the GPL. Would you be referring specifically to source code generated from an "obfuscating program"? And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? I thought it would have meant, among other things, separation of source into several files, modular structure, etc. Talking about modular structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir

belorn 13y ago
> And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means. One argue a case in front of a judge, and if both parties agree, then that will be that. If the two sides disagree, the judge (or jury) makes a decision. However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code. In the same way, they would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form to add modifications on source code that's been obfuscated is not on the non-obfuscated code. Judges and juries are not complete without common sense.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  >> And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? > In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means. That is obvious, why are you telling me this? > However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code. I wasn't talking about binary files, of course I am referring to the source code.