| Humberto Massa 2004-06-20, 10:24 pm |
| @ 17/06/2004 21:21 : wrote Josh Triplett :
>
>Indeed. For that matter, disassemblers perform mechanical translations,
>so if the disassembled code were not a derived work of the executable,
>that would greatly aid most reverse-engineering efforts.
>
>- Josh Triplett
>
>
>
>
No, mechanical translations are not derived works: THEY "ARE" THE
ORIGINAL WORK. Sorry about the shouting, but this misconception (that
they are not protected) is beginning to crop up here.
I get some software in binary form. Let's call it w0.
I disassemble it. Let's call it w1.
I put comments in w1. Let's call it w2.
I assemble it again in a new binary. w3.
w0 == w1.
They are one and the same.
w2 is derivative of w0. Which is the same as saying: w2 is derivative of w1.
w3 == w2. So w3 is derivative of w0. or w1, if you want.
--
br,M
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|