zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. stavro+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-10-13 20:31:00
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.
replies(2): >>angus-+N3 >>6502ne+Bk
2. angus-+N3[view] [source] 2023-10-13 20:53:14
>>stavro+(OP)
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.

replies(1): >>stavro+ga
◧◩
3. stavro+ga[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-13 21:38:51
>>angus-+N3
Yep, I knew of clean-room reimplementations, I was just wondering whether decompiling is somehow in itself illegal.
4. 6502ne+Bk[view] [source] 2023-10-13 23:03:35
>>stavro+(OP)
But disassembling/decompiling doesn't give you anything like the original code!
replies(2): >>stavro+Rk >>aidenn+tn
◧◩
5. stavro+Rk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-13 23:05:26
>>6502ne+Bk
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.
◧◩
6. aidenn+tn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-13 23:29:24
>>6502ne+Bk
It gives you a derivative work of the original code
[go to top]