zlacker

They could argue that by viewing the copyrighted code/implementation, you could effectively infringe by (even subconsciously) writing the same/similar code.

There's merits to this claim if you're indeed implementing some advanced, niche algorithm but it definitely wouldn't apply here as all he's doing is calling HTTP APIs, a very generic and common thing to do.

>>Nextgr+(OP)
Ah, so it's not the act of disassembling that's the problem, but that you're infringing on the original code's copyright? That makes sense, thank you.

>>stavro+u
You may have come across this concept already, but this is where clean rooms come in.

One person views the "contaminated" decompiled code and writes a specification. A separate person writes the code based solely on the specification. This is an accepted method of demonstrating that there is no infringement.

>>angus-+h4
Yep, I knew of clean-room reimplementations, I was just wondering whether decompiling is somehow in itself illegal.

>>stavro+u
But disassembling/decompiling doesn't give you anything like the original code!

>>6502ne+5l
That kind of depends on the language, but it's a fair point. I think it might only matter that the general algorithm/solution is the same, not the lines of text themselves.

>>6502ne+5l
It gives you a derivative work of the original code