| |||||||||||||
GPL enforcement: waiting for the MonsoonGPL enforcement: waiting for the MonsoonPosted Sep 27, 2007 22:32 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)In reply to: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon by giraffedata Parent article: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon
strings is more like taking a look at the pen and noticing that there's "Busybox" printed at the side (think of these self-advertising gifts companies hand out).
(Log in to post comments)
GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon Posted Sep 28, 2007 5:44 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] It's somewhere in-between. What you get from strings is not what's on the outside of the binary, but what's on the inside. Using it certainly *could* be part of a reverse-engineering effort. Whether it violates the EULA would depend on the exact terms of the EULA - if it says "reverse engineering" then you could argue intent; if it specifically says you agree not to look at the executable code, then you'd have a harder argument.
GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon Posted Sep 29, 2007 8:14 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] Mh, a text string in a binary is like a ink drop on paper -- it will be visible on both sides.
|
|||||||||||||