Script Decompilation Poll

[Richard Robertson]

I only compile scripts when I want to fix a friend's computer but don't trust them to make certain kinds of changes.

[Valik]

Oh sure, hiding your code does not speak of innocence. People who show their code are not hiding anything, period. You may want to learn from that.

You obviously missed his point. He's saying the reason AutoIt went to closed source is because of IP theft. He's also saying scripts should be better protected against decompilation to prevent IP theft. Keep your open-source agenda's out of this, please, they serve no purpose in this discussion.

[jvanegmond]

You obviously missed his point. He's saying the reason AutoIt went to closed source is because of IP theft. He's also saying scripts should be better protected against decompilation to prevent IP theft. Keep your open-source agenda's out of this, please, they serve no purpose in this discussion.

And yet, moderators on these forums fail to understand and counter IP theft effectively.

I stopped sharing sources here, because of it.

Discussion not required.

[Valik]

And yet, moderators on these forums fail to understand and counter IP theft effectively.

I stopped sharing sources here, because of it.

Discussion not required.

Yes, discussion required. First of all, we can't police everything. The community is responsible for policing itself to a certain degree. I have people PM me things that they feel are inappropriate. These are things I wouldn't otherwise see because 1) I don't go into the any forum but Chat and Developer's Chat; 2) I don't see messages sent when people use the "Report" feature. As long as these people aren't wasting my time, they get results. If you see examples of IP theft and you aren't reporting them, then it's just as much your fault as ours. If you are reporting them and aren't getting satisfactory results, PM somebody else, PM me. Don't try to pin all the blame on us if you aren't doing your part. It should be pretty obvious I respect people's IP because I've long been the advocate of people's right to do what they want with their scripts (their choice not to post the source, for example). I haven't received the first thing from you, or anybody else, concerning IP theft.

Another point. It's not our responsibility to counter IP theft. We are responsible to try to prevent it via decompilation, an impossible task due to the nature of the language, made even more impossible by the former existence of supported decompilers which I presume gave everyone a leg up on how it's done. Second, it is our responsibility to remove offending material (and user's) from the things we control - the forum or any file managers we host. But as for defending the IP? That's the holder's prerogative. All we can do is keep the stuff from propagating *here* and get rid of user's who propagate other people's stuff here. But again, we need the community's help with that. Once again, I'll mention the important point, I have never received a communication regarding IP theft.

I think this adage applies here: "If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem". If you're seeing this stuff, are a victim of it or so fed up with it that you stop posting here, but you haven't done your part to stop it, then you're about one peg away from the thieves. The way I'm going to put it, don't complain about crime in your town when you walk past the same mugger robbing victims every day.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Valik
Fixed some spelling issues.

[DaveF]

@Manadar, you'll have to excuse me if after reading your post I can only take it as a joke that you're talking about IP theft...

[qazwsx]

Could you explain why?

[SmOke_N]

@Manadar, you'll have to excuse me if after reading your post I can only take it as a joke that you're talking about IP theft...

It's more of a joke that he's even commenting on this thread at all. Considering he's one of the users that openly shares cracked decompilers and hack ideas with others.

Edit:

Can't really prove the strike through... but I'm fairly sure I remember it all the same.

Edited June 26, 2008 by SmOke_N

[MHz]

You obviously missed his point. He's saying the reason AutoIt went to closed source is because of IP theft.

I missed no point. The claim of IP Theft under the terms and conditions of the GPL v2 is invalid. People have the freedom to download, use, change, distribute etc. the source code publicly shared under the terms and conditions of the license.

[monoceres]

Edit:

Can't really prove the strike through... but I'm fairly sure I remember it all the same.

Check out his website

[Valik]

MHz, two things. First, stop taking quotes out of context. You took Koshy John's original quote out of context which facilitated my response which you also took out of context.

Second, our claims aren't really as invalid as you might like to think. Intellectual Property consists of more than just code. Fact is, not only did the certain product which instigated the catalyst in our source management use our source code in a distasteful and unethical (albeit legal) manner, the author went a bit beyond that. Including, but not limited to, using our own resources (the forum) as a personal advertising service to promote competition which we previously held no notion of. Further, there was a time when our name was leveraged for the other products benefit, likely a very clear violation of copyright. Lastly, the legality doesn't alter the claims of theft. Theft does not involve legality in any capacity. Theft is nothing more than wrongful taking. The manner in which our code was taken was wrongful. The license, at the time, exonerates any legal action but it does not make it any less of a theft. It just means it's not theft with legal repercussions.

Lastly, I have 3 things to say to you. First, keep your nose out of things you don't know about. Nobody, except the developers, know the half of what went on concerning a certain now-competing product. So keep your idiot-hole shut on that subject. Second, I have told you once already to keep your open-source agendas out of this because they do not belong. We don't need a review of the GPL2 to know the situation. I have stated all along that what happened to us violates the spirit of the GPL and open-source software and I stand by that statement today. We don't need all these open-source comments. Lastly, stop taking things out of context. As mentioned previously, you started this by trying to take something Koshy John said out of context and have followed it up by taking me out of context. The fact is, this is a damn serious subject and we don't need stupid bickering over shit that happened 4+ years ago.

[KJohn]

Oh sure, hiding your code does not speak of innocence. People who show their code are not hiding anything, period. You may want to learn from that.

From your second reply (below), I understand you took issue with my comparison with AutoIt. Though the post quoted above may hold meaning on its own, I have no idea how it could be considered a logical reply to my original post. 'People who show their code are not hiding anything'? I do not disagree. The reason I want scripts protected is not because I want to hide something! I have no problems with responsible people going through my code. But the fact remains that not everyone is responsible - I choose to spend time writing scripts in AutoIt and if the scripts are not protected adequately, it just take one irresponsible person to rip off my hard work. I hope you fully understand my first post now.

I missed no point. The claim of IP Theft under the terms and conditions of the GPL v2 is invalid. People have the freedom to download, use, change, distribute etc. the source code publicly shared under the terms and conditions of the license.

Like Valik said, taking somebody else's work without them intending to let you do so is theft. The way I see it, all the GPL did was to facilitate the theft and legalize it. I acknowledge your view based on the strict interpretation of the GPL but I am entitled to my own views and I expect that to be respected.

[KJohn]

Check out his website

@Manadar - please refrain from being such a hypocrite. Complaining about IP theft when you openly facilitate it.

[Xenobiologist]

Hi @all,

interesting discussion

To cut a long story short, for me and maybe for some other noobs the main question concerning this thread is:

(although this question wasn't intended by the thread owner)

Autoit can be ("easily") decompiled and deobfuscated. (state today 2008/06/27)

So, will Jon and/or the other devs someday think about changing Autoits architecture (kernel) call it whatever you want, to achieve a more secure executable or not?

Regards

Mega

[Lakes]

I`ve also been following this interesting thread...

First, let me say Autoit is great, it got me interested in writing programs again.

There`s a competing product for autoit?, I did`nt know this, is it a ripoff of the autoit code?, and since Autoit is free, how does it compete?

If people are worried about IP theft don`t use Autoit, use another (compiled) language, no-one makes you use autoit after all, its your choice.

I`m not condoning IP theft at all, but if you are writing programs for commercial/business use, then you use autoit at your own risk, at the end of day it is a free product.

[jvanegmond]

It's true that I facilitate decompiling. However, I do not encourage IP theft.

The decompiler makes IP theft possible from compiled sources, that does not mean I encourage it. I have found myself in many occasions where I needed the source code of an application that I previously compiled myself, and thus needed the decompiler.

@SmOke_N, you know emoyasha has stolen my sources over many occassion while I explicitely stated in the terms of agreement that noone could copy and/or modify my sources. I came to you for help and guidance, and you simply told me to stop fighting. I honestly can't forgive you for that.

[Jos]

It's true that I facilitate decompiling. However, I do not encourage IP theft.

The decompiler makes IP theft possible from compiled sources, that does not mean I encourage it. I have found myself in many occasions where I needed the source code of an application that I previously compiled myself, and thus needed the decompiler.

Sound pretty contradicting to me.

I have found myself in many occasions where I needed the source code of an application that I previously compiled myself, and thus needed the decompiler.

This means you haven't been taking proper backup measures in the first place.

@SmOke_N, you know emoyasha has stolen my sources over many occassion while I explicitely stated in the terms of agreement that noone could copy and/or modify my sources. I came to you for help and guidance, and you simply told me to stop fighting. I honestly can't forgive you for that.

What would you expect us to do about it?

You mean we should BAN anybody that used source code without first properly asking permission or hosts illegal decompilers?

I cannot see how we could be Judge and Jury in these type of matters.

Jos

Edited June 27, 2008 by Jos

[jvanegmond]

This means you haven't been taking proper backup measures in the first place.

What would you expect us to do about it?

You mean we should BAN anybody that used source code without first properly asking permission or hosts illegal decompilers?

I cannot see how we could be Judge and Jury in these type of matters.

Jos

True, I did not take proper backup measures. After all, I was 16, just had my first programming experiences, do you expect me to run professional grade back-ups? I do run proper back-ups now. I ghost my hard-drive weekly, and my programming projects daily.

I didn't mean for anyone to get banned, but doing something about it does help the author. Look, I like this community and I'm happy to share source code, as long as noone blatantly copies it, modifies it and then reposts it as their work giving no credit to the original writer.

Even though, this was the case indeed, and it was not the first time from this particular user. Upon contacting a moderator I was simply told to "stop fighting" and thus let him steal my code, that I spend weeks on writing.

Sharing source code, does not mean it becomes public property. This is what is assumed by some members. "Official" statements by developers that this is not the case, and countering topics that have been produced by IP theft is in order.

How would you feel if I copied your obfuscator, changed it slightly, and reposted it as my work giving no credit to you? ( Even though this is quite impossible. )

Edit: Also, it's fine if you don't see how you can counter it. Just don't expect any more source or help for me.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Manadar

[KJohn]

It's true that I facilitate decompiling. However, I do not encourage IP theft.

The decompiler makes IP theft possible from compiled sources, that does not mean I encourage it. I have found myself in many occasions where I needed the source code of an application that I previously compiled myself, and thus needed the decompiler.

This is the same as hosting cracks for commercial programs and then saying that you do not encourage piracy. If you've needed to decompile your own programs, that's your business. But I don't see how you justify hosting it publicly even when you know that the AutoIt developers are against it. Show some gratitude to the people who maintain this language for us to use by respecting their wishes.

@SmOke_N, you know emoyasha has stolen my sources over many occassion while I explicitely stated in the terms of agreement that noone could copy and/or modify my sources. I came to you for help and guidance, and you simply told me to stop fighting. I honestly can't forgive you for that.

You are angry that your sources were stolen? That is perfectly understandable. And even then you make available tools for people to get your code even if you decide not to share? I cannot comprehend the reasoning behind this. Is it "the devs/mods didn't help me, so i'll make life miserable for other autoit scripters to teach them a lesson"? Seriously, I want to know what you are thinking.

I can't comment on what Smoke_N did or did not do since I have not seen the exchange myself.

[Jos]

Even though, this was the case indeed, and it was not the first time from this particular user. Upon contacting a moderator I was simply told to "stop fighting" and thus let him steal my code, that I spend weeks on writing.

Sharing source code, does not mean it becomes public property. This is what is assumed by some members. "Official" statements by developers that this is not the case, and countering topics that have been produced by IP theft is in order.

How would you feel if I copied your obfuscator, changed it slightly, and reposted it as my work giving no credit to you? ( Even though this is quite impossible. )

Edit: Also, it's fine if you don't see how you can counter it. Just don't expect any more source or help for me.

@Manadar,

Hey, I understand the frustration you voice, but I am not going to get frustrated about it when anybody takes my sourcescode and claims it as his.

All AutoIt3 scripts I have written are always published with source, and... at the risk of sounding like an "OLD FART", as time passes by you learn not to get frustrated about things you can't control. People stealing your Source and claiming its theirs is one of those things. It really is not important enough to lose any sleep over it.

I do appreciate that you removed the hacked decompiler because you were put on the spot here. We know others are active in that area too but have no plans to start and witch-hunt.

Thanks

jos

[SmOke_N]

@SmOke_N, you know emoyasha has stolen my sources over many occassion while I explicitely stated in the terms of agreement that noone could copy and/or modify my sources. I came to you for help and guidance, and you simply told me to stop fighting. I honestly can't forgive you for that.

I can't recall the details of that, but knowing myself, if I could have proven anything, I doubt seriously I wouldn't have taken action.

@Everyone... This thread is totally going in the wrong direction. I'd suggest not posting here any longer unless it's something specifically to the topic at hand.