Dear All Thank you all a lot for your answers, and sorry for the trouble that my question has generated.
Gerard B. : Thanks a lot to you and your colleagues for releasing, in the forthcoming time, an OSX version of BUSTER-TNT. Best from LA Jacques 2008/10/28 Pete Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. > >> > > >
