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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 16:05:14 MET DST