81–90 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is one supposed to make a clean-room reverse engineering in the absence of any documentation and sophisticated obfuscation on Skype's part ?
Seems like you could do it in theory by observing the protocol in action. Set up two machines a-skyping, sniff all the packets, think real hard, write code that interoperates with Skype clients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there the notion of minimum copyright infringement?
Yes and no. There is no such notion in copyright law. Case law is unclear, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a serious obstacle to collaborative open-source reverse-engineering.
Yes it is, but thats where other solutions need to be met.... say a script that de-obfuscates a vanilla binary package so the output is created on the users machine vs being distributed as such. You can distribute the script and leave compliance to the end user.
If I write a script that generates the Matrix movies from the binary file of, say, Elephant's Dream, I won't be allowed to distribute that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least 3/4 of those 4000 lines is directly copied from Skype, and that's just one file. I don't think that's small enough to not matter; anyway, if it really was so small, it should easily have been rewritten with original code.
It's the size compared to the size of the relevant copyrighted work that matters, not compared to the size of the work it's copied into.
How about "Skype: The Missing Technical Manual"? MS will contribute nothing to the state of the art of free voice and video calls over the internet. As is so often the case, what they purchased with the Skype deal was a user base. One that they could never obtain with the own products. There is a way to do this without violating copyright. Do not waste time duplicating the P2P element of Skype (the P2P protocol). P2P…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are wrong. You eyes are blind by hating. Stop. Listen the Nature. Skype-open-source code here: https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs repo was closed because i host in download section deobfuscated skype5.5 binary, my fault.
No, that's bullshit. https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs/blob/master/sources... That function right there (and the vast majority of the rest of the file) is a straight decompiled version from Skype. You even use the register names and comment with addresses from the binary. Having spent a lot of time reversing apps myself, this is a straight copyright violation. Your code is a directly derivative work from Skype…
What about you talking? Maybe you need read dictionary definitions of words bull and shit. Pay copyright rent for this words, and stop trolling us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is, but thats where other solutions need to be met.... say a script that de-obfuscates a vanilla binary package so the output is created on the users machine vs being distributed as such. You can distribute the script and leave compliance to the end user.
If the result of this script is forbidden to be distributed, this could be a rationale for forbidding the distribution of the script itself. If I write a script that generates the Matrix movies from the binary file of, say, Elephant's Dream, I won't be allowed to distribute that.
Feel free to study current implementation stage here - https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs
We are appreciate you help on working on Epycs - reverse engineer skype project. Feel free to study current implementation stage here - https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the size compared to the size of the relevant copyrighted work that matters, not compared to the size of the work it's copied into.
No that's a simplistic approach. Both matter, for example one volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a very small portion of the overall work, but it cannot be freely copied. Likewise if you write a book a million pages long, copying entire chapters does not suddenly become ok.