Decompilation projects are getting attention right now because AI models being able to do it is a new thing. Essentially the end of closed source is a huge deal and people haven’t realized the implications…
This. I am so demoralised as a SWE who was trying to get out of working for a morally objectionable company by working on passion projects and selling them as apps. Guess I need to find something else… again.
Not inherently (you can still do things because you want to), but I mentioned wanting to make a living out of selling them. Trivial decompilation makes this completely unviable.
Software is subject to copyright. Yes you can implement the same APIs, but when you get into the visual presentation, things can get copyright related even if the code isn’t being ripped off.
If you decompile rather than clone, well then the code is copyrighted even if transformed into plausible source code.
The way I unterstand it, at least in European practice, the code itself is copyrighted, as in, the actual text, not the concept behing it. Decompiled source is not the same as original source, it goes through rounds of compiler optimisations and the process of reversing that includes a lot of guesswork. So, in practice, decompiling and working on the decompiled source was at least tolerated, probably because it would have been a grey area at worst.
In terms of whether the ‘clean room’ approach is as critical in Europe or not, I can’t be sure. It might be more permissable for someone to use a decompile as a reference and also directly work on a replacement. However I’m pretty sure starting with a decompile of proprietary software as a direct codebase would run afoul of issues.
Otherwise, imagine you have an HEVC encoded rip of a 4K blu ray. You transcode it to AV1. The bytes are totally different, and even the resultant frames are likely not even pixel for pixel identical. I don’t think copyright law would deem that not a violation, regardless of jurisdiction.
Transcoding would not be a violation, but in order to rip it in the first place, you had to bypass technological restrictions built into the disc and the drive. Under section 1201 of the DMCA, the creation or sharing of software that can do thatis a felony punishable by half a million dollars and six months in prison for a first offense.
Resharing your transcode would be a violation, even assuming the original was somehow an unencumbered HEVC. Ripping a VHS and encoding would still be a violation even without any DMCA complications
They claim it’s “clean room”, so no decompilation involved. I’m just waiting for the lawsuits to arrive, so we may learn how much of that is true. The big ones probably are already checking the code.
Companies were just dropping the entirety of their proprietary code base into chatbots to save money after firing their best developers. I bet that’s where they’re getting most of it.
I think that could only be really claimed if you know what training data the LLM was trained on. That will only matter if it ends up in court though and no one seems willing to fight that fight at the moment.
Decompilation projects are getting attention right now because AI models being able to do it is a new thing. Essentially the end of closed source is a huge deal and people haven’t realized the implications…
This. I am so demoralised as a SWE who was trying to get out of working for a morally objectionable company by working on passion projects and selling them as apps. Guess I need to find something else… again.
Why can’t passion projects be a thing anymore ? Because they can be decompiled ?
Not inherently (you can still do things because you want to), but I mentioned wanting to make a living out of selling them. Trivial decompilation makes this completely unviable.
I think its over for us, and most other knowledge based jobs eventually. I have no idea where this is going.
If someone does that to an app you’re actively selling you’re well within your rights to C&D them.
Reverse engineering isn’t illegal. It’s how projects like Wine are possible.
Well, depends.
Software is subject to copyright. Yes you can implement the same APIs, but when you get into the visual presentation, things can get copyright related even if the code isn’t being ripped off.
If you decompile rather than clone, well then the code is copyrighted even if transformed into plausible source code.
Of course then there are patents…
The way I unterstand it, at least in European practice, the code itself is copyrighted, as in, the actual text, not the concept behing it. Decompiled source is not the same as original source, it goes through rounds of compiler optimisations and the process of reversing that includes a lot of guesswork. So, in practice, decompiling and working on the decompiled source was at least tolerated, probably because it would have been a grey area at worst.
In terms of whether the ‘clean room’ approach is as critical in Europe or not, I can’t be sure. It might be more permissable for someone to use a decompile as a reference and also directly work on a replacement. However I’m pretty sure starting with a decompile of proprietary software as a direct codebase would run afoul of issues.
Otherwise, imagine you have an HEVC encoded rip of a 4K blu ray. You transcode it to AV1. The bytes are totally different, and even the resultant frames are likely not even pixel for pixel identical. I don’t think copyright law would deem that not a violation, regardless of jurisdiction.
Transcoding would not be a violation, but in order to rip it in the first place, you had to bypass technological restrictions built into the disc and the drive. Under section 1201 of the DMCA, the creation or sharing of software that can do thatis a felony punishable by half a million dollars and six months in prison for a first offense.
Resharing your transcode would be a violation, even assuming the original was somehow an unencumbered HEVC. Ripping a VHS and encoding would still be a violation even without any DMCA complications
That is explicitly prohibited by virtually all proprietary software license agreements.
Which makes it a breach of contract, but not illegal.
I have news for you about breaches of contract. They can be sued over.
Also DMCA 1201 is a thing which often makes reverse engineering a felony.
Calling decompilation the “end of closed-source” is way too hyperbolic.
Sir, there’s a reason nobody likes to see the sausage being made.
They claim it’s “clean room”, so no decompilation involved. I’m just waiting for the lawsuits to arrive, so we may learn how much of that is true. The big ones probably are already checking the code.
Companies were just dropping the entirety of their proprietary code base into chatbots to save money after firing their best developers. I bet that’s where they’re getting most of it.
I think that could only be really claimed if you know what training data the LLM was trained on. That will only matter if it ends up in court though and no one seems willing to fight that fight at the moment.
Can’t decompile an app that does all the real work in the cloud.
@LastYearsIrritant @chunes then use cloud as a black box, replicating it behaviour
Nope but AI can perfectly re-create the API by observing the payloads being sent and received, and make an app with the same functionality.