|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
Decompiling code has been a long-accepted legal way of reverse engineering a
product to see what it does. But, the person looking at the decompiled binary
output should be writing specifications on what the code does for someone else
to implement. There needs to be a clean break between the decompiler/reverse
engineering effort and the implementation of the alternate code.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- De-Compiling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
- De-Compiling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- De-Compiling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- De-Compiling - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:44 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
It was not the source code, the implementation code that Oracle's witness
was looking at. It was the decompile of the package headers.
Of course the decompiled Oracle package headers look like the Google
code! All that is in there are the function name, arguments and types.
In other words, Oracle merely proved that the gas pedal is in the right,
break on the left, in both Ford and GM cars. How are Ford build a car that
practiced GM drivers can use!!!
That is the gist of this trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
