|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
| And awfully meta. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
The non-programmers around here probably won't get the joke, so I will try and
explain it:
The above "dogrel", in addition to its poetic verses, is also both a
bash script and a Java program. Most of the lines begin with # to make bash
treat them as a comment, and there are plenty of /* and */ and // that make Java
comments out of most of the text, too.
When invoked from bash, it compiles itself with a Java compiler, and then
decompiles the compiled .class file, and appends the reconstructed source to the
original file with the unix "cat" command.
(The stuff below the ========= line is the output of the decompiler, and its a
pretty good match for parts that the Java compiler saw, that weren't comments.)
It's a lot like an "International Obfuscated C Code Contest" entry: an
unusual-looking program, with aesthetic value to humans, that also does
something non-obvious if fed to a computer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:34 AM EDT
- yep... - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:45 AM EDT
- yep... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 12:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:16 AM EDT |
It is -impossible- for a "decompiler" to produce a copyright eligible
text because the "compiler" already stripped away everything that was
expressive but not functional.
This, in turn, means that when comparing the decompiled output of a file to the
original source, -EVERYTHING- that matches is excluded from copyright protection
for being functional.
The only possible exception to this declaration of absolute exclusion is
whatever might be in double-quoted string literals. And what does remain of
those strings is now entirely out of the original context.
Thing like the loss of the variable names ("of_data" became
"s") and the decompiler replaced all those simple concatenation
operators (e.g. "+") with .append(whatever) and the compiler already
crammed a StringBuilder instance into the mix with its final toString().
So saying the files are -copies- of -protected- expression is mechanically,
technically, and semantically impossible.
You simply can -not- have copied code by decompilation.
It's like saying you copied a brick by throwing it through a window.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
| A step toward getting any Judge to see Flat Land? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
| This should so be entered into evidence for the trial... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
