- rlwreverse.PNG (23.85 KiB) Viewed 7275 times
Oh, you guys went there! YAY! I was wondering in the back of my mind if anyone (myself included) using this is breaking any EULAs / Licenses with Microsoft. I'm not a lawyer and not going to take a guess, but will say if the answer is "yes" I sure wouldn't want to be the one selling it.
Of course, there's also the hypocrisy factor -- who's bytes are those?
Of course, there's also the hypocrisy factor -- who's bytes are those?
-
PROBLEMCHYLD
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 2013-03-22 12:55
Steven W wrote:Oh, you guys went there! YAY! I was wondering in the back of my mind if anyone (myself included) using this is breaking any EULAs / Licenses with Microsoft. I'm not a lawyer and not going to take a guess, but will say if the answer is "yes" I sure wouldn't want to be the one selling it.
Of course, there's also the hypocrisy factor -- who's bytes are those?
Thats the whole thing in a nutshell. They are Microsoft Bytes because its embedded inside the source code, something he don't have. The bytes already exist in the file, all he did was turn them on, while Microsoft had them turned off.
-
PROBLEMCHYLD
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 2013-03-22 12:55
rloew reverse engineered Microsoft Software and lamp222 reverse engineered rloew software. This shit is crazy 
I will say, it is a brilliant bit of deduction. I do kinda feel for the guy. I'm sure he spent lots of time on it. I wasn't even going to bring up the legal ramifications, but you guys were out in front of that, so I figured why not.
I think I've taken personal offense at one of his statements even though it wasn't directed at me. When he said "you guys" that was a little vague. There's vague lines all over the place with this. I'm sure some things were said in the heat of the moment.
I certainly don't blame the mods for taking the stance of not deleting words. As an American who'd like to think that I still have some rights, I say kudos on that one.
In short, rloew, I apologize if I did misinterpret your intent. I think your patch is brilliant, but this thread does bring some of the vague matters to light.
I think I've taken personal offense at one of his statements even though it wasn't directed at me. When he said "you guys" that was a little vague. There's vague lines all over the place with this. I'm sure some things were said in the heat of the moment.
I certainly don't blame the mods for taking the stance of not deleting words. As an American who'd like to think that I still have some rights, I say kudos on that one.
In short, rloew, I apologize if I did misinterpret your intent. I think your patch is brilliant, but this thread does bring some of the vague matters to light.
-
rloew
PROBLEMCHYLD wrote:Steven W wrote:Oh, you guys went there! YAY! I was wondering in the back of my mind if anyone (myself included) using this is breaking any EULAs / Licenses with Microsoft. I'm not a lawyer and not going to take a guess, but will say if the answer is "yes" I sure wouldn't want to be the one selling it.
Of course, there's also the hypocrisy factor -- who's bytes are those?
Thats the whole thing in a nutshell. They are Microsoft Bytes because its embedded inside the source code, something he don't have. The bytes already exist in the file, all he did was turn them on, while Microsoft had them turned off.
Incorrect. Those Bytes do not exist in any Microsoft File. I did not unlock a hidden feature.
The only Microsoft Bytes in my Patcher are there only to locate the proper Patch points. They are read not written.
Lamp222 copied my Bytes without understanding either Microsoft's or my own code.
The DMCA allows reverse-engineering to solve compatability problems such as crashing with too much Memory.
This particularly true since Microsoft has refused to fix it.
Avoiding paying for an existing program is not considered grounds for allowing reverse-engineering.
By removing the Demo Code he would also be in violation of the Unlock prohibition also in the DMCA.
-
rloew
Steven W wrote:I think I've taken personal offense at one of his statements even though it wasn't directed at me. When he said "you guys" that was a little vague. There's vague lines all over the place with this. I'm sure some things were said in the heat of the moment.
True. "You guys" was aimed primarily at the people who were posting nothing but destructive criticism. "You" generally refers to the parties to the immediate conversation. You hadn't even posted for a while so out of sight, out of mind.