We've been saying again and again that reverse engineering a binary is impractical to modify. It doesn't matter if you invest billions into hiring multiple software development first studying the binary code, it still doesn't change the fact it is impractical to modify.
Licenses more free and restrictive than GPL?
Joshua Baker
Carson Rodriguez
No they are asking to be given the source code by someone else. They don't have it.
If technical aptitude is all that matters then a binary does fine.
They can hire a professional to reverse engineer a binary.
The source is a specification for a binary. Everything the binary does is found in the binary. The fact that you don't have the source does not change this.
They shouldn't be.
Josiah Gray
Fuck I mixed up false dependencies with aliasing.
Aiden Myers
You are mixing up freedom and technical aptitude
Xavier Cruz
Technical aptitude has zero bearing on the practicality of modifying a binary program without source code. A computer program without the source code can not be practically controlled by the user.
Dominic Long
Right so a virus research phd and a normie who cant use a computer has no relationship to the ability to reverse engineer a binary. I'm sure that ones true.
Every instruction executed by the binary is executed because the user let it.
Luis Brown
There is no freedom in modifying binary programs without access to the source code. There does not exist any amount of technical aptitude that can improve the practicality of modifying binary programs without access to the source code.
Lincoln Evans
Okay so NES hacked roms don't exist. Sure thing.
Sure, but you have the freedom to edit the binary without the source.
Isaiah Long
A virus by its very nature is trivial in scope.
Users cannot practically control the binary without access to the source code. It is completely impractical no matter how many experts you put into it.
Aaron Howard
citation needed
This is not trivial.
The user has full control over what the binary does on their computer.
Wrong.