sorted by: recent | see :
popular
Content Tagged reverse
Thoughts on “Google denies disassembling Vista code for Chrome”
http://www.adamsinfo.com/google-denies-disassembling-vista-code-for-chrome/
Inspiration: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39492220,00.htm
Is disassembling software wrong? Well, I’d suggest that it isn’t. You may have agreed to a plethora of licencing terms when you downloaded, bought or installed a piece of software, but where does it say that the software running on your PC shall remain a mystery and you should not explore it?
Each time you run the software, your platform will essentially take it apart and run it for you. If your platform is expected to understand the software in machine readable format, then why shouldn’t you?
Disassembling for resale is likely against the terms of the specific software, however disassembling for personal profit in order to further your own software is a grey area. The software was clearly released with the intention that your platform should be able to interpret and understand it, so is it wrong that the operator of the platform should ignore this black box of tricks and not attempt to learn and understand it? I suppose there’s the argument that should you attempt to ‘break in’ to someone elses distributed software and learn from it for your own gain, then that amounts to theft, however are you breaking in to anything when the intention is that it is open for interpretation by the platform? If the intention is that it is understandable by your platform, then I would insist that it is obvious that it should be understandable and available to the user of that platform.
This follows on to the next issue of source code. If a manufacturor declines to release the source code for his product, perhaps that infers that it is his intention for you not to disassemble and attempt to replicate that source code.
That may be true however my personal point of view, is that if you give me a piece of software that is expected to run on my hardware, I do have a right to investigate it via any means I have available to me. I don’t however have the right [morally] to use methods that I may have learned or taken from this investigation for personal profit. Where does one draw the line though?
compile
decompile
engineer
legal
reverse
disassemble
moral
User:davidapnic
REVERSE TELEPHONE SCHEMES FIRST YEARS AGO STILL WORKS INTRODUCED GRAHAM BELL HUNDRED
CONVENIENT REQUIRE CONNECTING EACH REVERSE TELEPHONE SET PUBLIC CONTAINING INTERNALLY OPERATED SWITCHING
SCHEMES DESIGNED ALLOW CONSUMER SHARE SAME EXTERNAL LINES RATHER COMMERCIAL REVERSE TELEPHONE COMPLEXES
TELEPHONE PAY MANAGED REVERSE VOIP ALLOWS GROW
TOLL FREE NUMBER EASILY ASSOCIATED HELP SERVICED REVERSE TELEPHONE WHERE CONSUMER FEED INCREASE 30% EARLIER
Google denies disassembling Vista code for Chrome
http://www.adamsinfo.com/
Inspiration: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39492220,00.htm
Is disassembling software wrong? Well, I’d suggest that it isn’t. You may have agreed to a plethora of licencing terms when you downloaded, bought or installed a piece of software, but where does it say that the software running on your PC shall remain a mystery and you should not explore it?
Each time you run the software, your platform will essentially take it apart and run it for you. If your platform is expected to understand the software in machine readable format, then why shouldn’t you?
Disassembling for resale is likely against the terms of the specific software, however disassembling for personal profit in order to further your own software is a grey area. The software was clearly released with the intention that your platform should be able to interpret and understand it, so is it wrong that the operator of the platform should ignore this black box of tricks and not attempt to learn and understand it? I suppose there’s the argument that should you attempt to ‘break in’ to someone elses distributed software and learn from it for your own gain, then that amounts to theft, however are you breaking in to anything when the intention is that it is open for interpretation by the platform? If the intention is that it is understandable by your platform, then I would insist that it is obvious that it should be understandable and available to the user of that platform.
This follows on to the next issue of source code. If a manufacturor declines to release the source code for his product, perhaps that infers that it is his intention for you not to disassemble and attempt to replicate that source code.
That may be true however my personal point of view, is that if you give me a piece of software that is expected to run on my hardware, I do have a right to investigate it via any means I have available to me. I don’t however have the right [morally] to use methods that I may have learned or taken from this investigation for personal profit. Where does one draw the line though?
compile
decompile
engineer
legal
reverse
disassemble
moral
User:davidapnic
