Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Vitaly Lugovsky <vsl@o...>
Subject: Re: Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml
On 8 Jun 2000, Daniel Ortmann wrote:

> > 1) Reverse engineering is legal in many european countries.
> 
> I did not know that.

 But, sure, it is completely legal, for example, in Russia. And license
conditions which prohibits reverse engeneering, like M$ license, is illegal ;)

> Is "making it hard to reverse engineer" illegal?  :-)

 No. But I can't see a way to make it hard.

> ... But the answer would be:  Don't distribute the actual encryptiong directly
> with O'Caml, just the hooks.

 Yeah, like it was in Linux kernel: kernel from US, and concrete cryptographic
functions from Europe.

> a) I am NOT saying "Everything should be encrypted".  Absolutely not.  I am
>    saying "Consider what might need to be done technically to make such a
>    thing possible."

 It is possible, but it is completely uneffectife.

> I just "reverse engineered" emacs byte code by doing
> <control> x <control> r ~/.emacs.elc ... and easily viewed actual lisp code.
> 
> That's how easy it was.  That's the kind of thing I was thinking about
> avoiding.

 Java reverse engeneering is not much harder than Elisp ;)
So, it'll be the same for OCaml. 

P.S. [offtopic] Fundamental science is just a reverse engeneering and violation
of God's intellectual property. ;)

--

   V.S.Lugovsky aka Mauhuur (http://ontil.ihep.su/~vsl) (UIN=45482254)