Well of course there are many ways to do that, but it is simply more difficult. One of course is to claim that you are correcting an error and in such case you can also re-engineer and keep a private copy of the object code. It's up to you then find a convincing proof that you corrected an error and in which sense.
You cannot use a disassembler because that's what we call "a translation from object code" (mere numbers) to opcodes human readable (nor ASM debuggers help). Translating is a copyrighted action and you cannot do it. Of course enforcing is the problem, but it just puts you in a situation where you are aware that you are misrepresenting your license agreement and committing an illegal action. Then, you reasonably say: who is ever going to find me as long as I do that in a dark sweat room under my desk with a blanket covering me and my pc so that no spy-webcam can see me? You are right, no one and being in Italy that is 100% sure :) The principle is that decompiling and reverse engineering violates trade secrets if done in the "translation"/"modify" way. This simply puts you in a guilty position whatever you may want to do to trick your competitor and milk the system. But again you will be never caught probably, and yes then you can claim that you independently reached/improved the math and at that point you reverse the "burden of proof" to your competitor. Of course there are methods like the Clean Room Design/Chinese wall where this can be easily circumvented...as I said is only a matter of just letting you know that you are misbehaving. As I understand, in the states you can freely decompile and debug the asm code and it is legal. Am I wrong? M. > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: music-dsp-boun...@music.columbia.edu [mailto:music-dsp- > boun...@music.columbia.edu] Per conto di robert bristow-johnson > Inviato: venerdì 6 febbraio 2015 01:10 > A: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu > Oggetto: Re: [music-dsp] R: Thoughts on DSP books and neural networks > > On 2/5/15 6:48 PM, Marco Lo Monaco wrote: > > I dont know very much about US IP laws but in Italy (EU), reverse > > engineering in illegal unless for interoperability issues. > > > You can understand an algorithm only by measuring in-out relationships > > (very difficult to understand the details of an algo by only doing > > this), > > maybe, if it's LTI. > > > but no > > decompiling or "modify-the-code-and-see-what-happens" techniques. > > how do they enforce that? if someone is really good at it, and with a good > logic-state analyzer and/or disassembler (remember MacNosy?), gets to look > at the code after it's been decrypted, and figgers out what the math that > gets done is, and then writes that math in his company notebook, how can > they differentiate that from if the mathematical ideas didn't just pop into > that someone's head and he or she wrote it down? > > even if, in litigating the reverse engineering, they say "the math is the same, > he or she must have reverse engineered it", usually you can find something > different (and often better) to do to it that ostensibly makes it not quite the > same. > > people don't volunteer evidence that is contrary to their own interest. > > > But actually you are also allowed to reverse engineer to fix some > > errors in the code. > > how about making something better in design? not quite the same as fixing > errors, even though both make the product better. > > -- > > r b-j r...@audioimagination.com > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
