Gerard, Thank you very much for clearing that up. It's always good to hear that there's one less things I need to worry about.
Pete Gerard Bricogne wrote: > Dear Pete, > > Thank you for your message. I can confirm that you need not worry about > this clause: it is meant to prohibit the aggressive use of code decompilers > with the intention of stealing the content of the source code. What you have > described in your hypothetical example is nothing of the sort, but instead a > very useful kind of comparative evaluation. > > > With best wishes, > > Gerard. > > -- > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:53:19AM -0500, Pete Meyer wrote: >> Apologies for going slightly further off-topic... >> >> Last time I had a free half-day to look into sharp, I noticed that the >> academic license prohibits reverse-engineering. This seemed to put any >> comparative testing into a slightly grey area. For example, if I find >> that sharp does the best job refining sites, but bp3 outputs better >> phases for a dataset due to different representation of phase >> probabilities*, I've implicitly constructed a primitive model of how >> sharp is working. This seems close enough to a first step of >> reverse-engineering that I was concerned. >> >> Could someone confirm that I'm worrying about things I don't need to here? >> >> Pete >> >> * Purely hypothetical example. >> >
