zlacker

[return to "The unexpected effectiveness of one-shot decompilation with Claude"]
1. rlili+xjo[view] [source] 2025-12-06 15:18:48
>>knacke+(OP)
Makes me wonder if decompilation could eventually become so trivial that everything would become de-facto open source.
◧◩
2. jasonj+Iwo[view] [source] 2025-12-06 17:01:00
>>rlili+xjo
It would be "source available", if anything, not "open source".

> An open-source license is a type of license for computer software and other products that allows the source code, blueprint or design to be used, modified or shared (with or without modification) under defined terms and conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Companies have been really abusing what open source means- claiming something is "open source" cause they share the code and then having a license that says you can't use any part of it in any way.

Similarly if you ever use that software or depending on where you downloaded it from, you might have agreed not to decompile or read the source code. Using that code is a gamble.

◧◩◪
3. sa1+dxo[view] [source] 2025-12-06 17:04:44
>>jasonj+Iwo
But clean room reverse engineered code can have its own license, no?
◧◩◪◨
4. comex+ftp[view] [source] 2025-12-07 01:31:29
>>sa1+dxo
If we're talking about actual clean-room reverse engineering where only the overall design or spec is copied and not the specific code, then yes. In this process, one person would decompile the original and turn it into a human-readable spec, and another person would write their own implementation. But the decompiled code itself is never distributed.

That's very different from the decompilation projects being discussed here, which do distribute the decompiled code.

These decompilation projects do involve some creative choices, which means that the decompilation would likely be considered a derivative work, containing copyrightable elements from both the authors of the original binary and the authors of the decompilation project. This is similar to a human translation of a literary work. A derivative work does have its own copyright, but distributing a derivative work requires permission from the copyright holders of both the original and the derivative. So a decompilation project technically can set their own license, and thereby add additional restrictions, but they can't overwrite the original license. If there is no original license, the default is that you can't distribute at all.

[go to top]