At first I thought it said "Overcooked no more" and assumed it was another article about another rocker swearing off the drugs, but no, it's another article about a woman who did something along with a dozen or more others but she should be pointed out because she's a woman. At least this is a real thing and not inventive. BTW, did you know the producer of the first Hip-Hop single was a woman? That should be more interesting than this.
I just love that not only they copyrighted it, they even give excuses for it.
You can't copyright someone else's work, regardless of how long you took to reverse-engineer it from disassembled binaries. Obviously the "rights owners" are not going to take those two guys to court (pity though, that would've been hilarious), but since the only reason those two could license this is that this is a computer virus and no one will claim authority, their claims to ownership of the code have no merit.
I would love it if someone would publish or use it and not give them credit or "violate" the terms of the license in some manner, as I'd love to see those two try to claim their case.
They DO have copyright on the reverse engineering work. But that doesn't mean that they don't have full copyright over the code which looking at the LICENSE file alone it looks they are claiming. There should at least be a copyright line mentioning the original authors, even if just "Unknown Authors". They also obviously don't have permission to redistribute their derivative or to create it in the first place.
Its also ironic that they expect others to follow their license when they are fine with ignoring the copyright of the original hackers.
Ultimately though, copyright as we have it today is extremely silly and all they are asking for is attribution which IMO should be the default.
This. They don't give you the same as the original virus code, they give you different code (namely readable one), than apparently compiles to the virus assembly.
It's plausible this took effort, so I think it's only fair if they license it - it seems also ethically fair, since their licence is permissive.
I am sure big software companies wouldn't agree on this: decompile Excel or Photoshop and copyright the resulting code, and you shall get a nice lawsuit within days, if not hours. However, I guess there would have a bit of ToS breach, a pinch of DMCA and a lot of copyright infringement for reverse-engineering the software, maybe not that much for copyrighting the decompiled code.
They won’t agree and would file suit but legally this isn’t a highly tested area. The closest we get is Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp. as far as I’m aware and that can be seen as more of a win for the reverse engineering than Sony. The particulars are but different to be sure though.
Realistically it unlikely that anyone would attempt to decompile and fully reverse engineer excel and attempt to package it as a product that they own. It just doesn’t make sense practically. But throwing something in Jira isn’t the same thing as actually putting in the work to reverse engineer it and make it effectively a perfect replication. You don’t unbake the cake, you can’t. You just figure out a process to end up with the same cake.
As for TOS goes, that’s its own other legal issue that has a mixed history erring on the side of TOS not actually being enforceable.
The people who did this work I think are fine to ask people to respect their license. They don’t have to worry about the US/Israel knocking at the door to tell them they can’t claim ownership anyways.
>but both of us spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours between ASM code trying to figure out what was behind those binaries and we are providing the product of our hard work (i.e. readable C code) to you for free
also
> It is not a simple job and it is not a short job, both our licenses are extremely permissive
>I'd like to ask you is that our job get recognized...show us your support by giving us credit for what we did
I do not know much about other jurisdictions, but in Germany a derived work has its individual copyright. For example, if one is translating a copyrighted work and publishes the translation without authorization, the translation is still prodected. The orginal copyright owner may sue the publisher of the translation, but the translator may sue anyone who publishes the translation without authorization.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." - Robert Firth
That's some deep theosophical kung-fu you bring there, grasshopper. But seeing as the words of the Torah existed before the creation of the world, it might just be that you are correct.
This is a weird one, but it seems the point isn't "Broken features aren't used" but rather "unused features don't get maintained and tend to break" and also the point of the article isn't broken features but "on whether to remove features, and which ones to remove"
I think the author, being a Java guy is using OO and Java as a reference point, not arguing that "this isn't applicable to non OO development". Basically he's saying that remembering the principles and practices is essential in every level of the development.
First thing I look for whenever I run across another "C competitor" is to look which language it is implemented in. Usually that's C, or C++, but this time, it does look like Crystal is implemented in Crystal, which is, to me, a very good indication that this is a "real" system language.
I believe Rust is also implemented in Rust and Go, after a few years of being implemented in C has now a compiler written in Go.
The rationale is, that once you have a programming language that is implemented in itself (usually that means that the compiler/interpreter is written in that language), then it means that your language has tackled and can deal with many issues that "system languages" deal with. Mainly dealing with the OS in a lower level, dealing with CPU/RAM, etc.
This is a large problem space that you can glean over by using C as a layer of interaction between your language and the underlying machine, but it makes your language a: not truly a "system language" and b: it also ties you to C philosophy, API/ABI, calling conventions and so on.
