James Hawkins wrote:
On 8/5/07, Jakob Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DMCA Reverse engineering exemption:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210
From the article:
The reverse engineer is required to ask permission first, however.
...good luck with that.
On 8/7/07, Jakob Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On 8/5/07, Jakob Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DMCA Reverse engineering exemption:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210
From the article:
The reverse engineer is required to ask
On 8/5/07, Jakob Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
By browsing MSDN, i found out that i can accomplish this by using the
documented function StalkWalk64(), which can examine the call stack. I
would then introduce this into the test system for DLLs like user32.
By
Am Montag, 6. August 2007 21:02 schrieb James Hawkins:
The reverse engineer is required to ask permission first, however.
...good luck with that.
Asking is easy :-)
Does the reverse engineer have to get permission? If he does need the blessing
of the creator of the reverse engineered
On 8/6/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 6. August 2007 21:02 schrieb James Hawkins:
The reverse engineer is required to ask permission first, however.
...good luck with that.
Asking is easy :-)
Does the reverse engineer have to get permission? If he does need the
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note that reverse engineering by disassembly is not the same
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 17:27 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 09:58 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 09:58 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note
On Sunday 05 August 2007 17:27:23 you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Kai.
My pleasure.
It's also not allowed to break other laws while developing software.
Where would you draw the line? Disassembling software is (almost always)
illegal. Killing people is illegal. Should both be in the
On Sunday 05 August 2007 18:06:28 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it
Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
By browsing MSDN, i found out that i can accomplish this by using the
documented function StalkWalk64(), which can examine the call stack. I
would then introduce this into the test system for DLLs like user32.
By running the test on original Windows we could know
Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note that reverse engineering by
Kai Blin wrote:
Why would you even bother to disassemble to write a unit test? All Wine cares
about is What's the output of function X when I put in Y and Z as
parameters?. That's why you write a conformance test that will run on
Windows. Then you make Wine behave the same. No need to
Hello James/Wine.
1)
I noticed your comment the forums here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel/52810
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
14 matches
Mail list logo
