.NET and OpenSource....

[HamorSth]

What does "open source" mean in the .NET platform while almost all
"non-obfuscated" codes are "Open-Source"? Just yesterday i got an add-in for
my ".NET Reflector" which saved the entire disassembled-to-C# "mscorlib"
library for me in .cs files, and i now have a project on my computer that
was one day the efforts of hundreds of people in MS!
I mean, we can't expect the library developers to obfuscate their code in
..NET if they are to expose their classes to others. Now, isn't this just the
unconscious mind of MS that has let him into releasing a powerful platform
like .NET in "open-source"?
Please help me on this issue!

[Helge Jensen]

HamorSth wrote:

Please help me on this issue!

Open Source is a licensing issue. Not a decompilation issue.

There are decompilers for C/C++/Java/* as well.

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-

[Mitchell Vincent]

HamorSth wrote:

What does "open source" mean in the .NET platform while almost all
"non-obfuscated" codes are "Open-Source"? Just yesterday i got an add-in for
my ".NET Reflector" which saved the entire disassembled-to-C# "mscorlib"
library for me in .cs files, and i now have a project on my computer that
was one day the efforts of hundreds of people in MS!
I mean, we can't expect the library developers to obfuscate their code in
.NET if they are to expose their classes to others. Now, isn't this just the
unconscious mind of MS that has let him into releasing a powerful platform
like .NET in "open-source"?
Please help me on this issue!

OpenSource is a lot more than just *having* the source code. It's a
license, and furthermore an philosophy and a marketing method.

What issue do you want help with? Explaining why they did it?

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com

[Andrew D. Newbould]

In message <Ob************ **@TK2MSFTNGP10 .phx.gbl>, HamorSth
<ha******@hotma il.com> writes

What does "open source" mean in the .NET platform while almost all
"non-obfuscated" codes are "Open-Source"? Just yesterday i got an add-in for
my ".NET Reflector" which saved the entire disassembled-to-C# "mscorlib"
library for me in .cs files, and i now have a project on my computer that
was one day the efforts of hundreds of people in MS!
I mean, we can't expect the library developers to obfuscate their code in
.NET if they are to expose their classes to others. Now, isn't this just the
unconscious mind of MS that has let him into releasing a powerful platform
like .NET in "open-source"?
Please help me on this issue!

The definition of "Open Source" means you have full access to the source
code to use and modify if required. Obfuscated code by definition can't
be classed as "Open Source".

--
Andrew D. Newbould E-Mail: ne********@NOSP AMzadsoft.com

ZAD Software Systems Web : www.zadsoft.com

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

"Helge Jensen" <he**********@s log.dk> wrote in message
news:42******** ******@slog.dk. ..

There are decompilers for C/C++/Java/* as well.

That's true. But trying to disassemble a native executable written in C++
back to its source code is a lot like trying to disassemble a cake back to
flour and water and eggs. You can get an idea of what it is made of but
you'll not know for sure exactly what and how much.

Regards,
Will

[Sean Hederman]

"HamorSth" <ha******@hotma il.com> wrote in message
news:Ob******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

What does "open source" mean in the .NET platform while almost all
"non-obfuscated" codes are "Open-Source"?
As Helge pointed out being able to decompile code does not make it Open
Source. I can take apart my Sony TV and reverse engineer it, but the design
for the TV still belongs to Sony, and if I tried to sell copies they would
be well within their rights to sue the hell out of me.
Just yesterday i got an add-in for
my ".NET Reflector" which saved the entire disassembled-to-C# "mscorlib"
library for me in .cs files, and i now have a project on my computer that
was one day the efforts of hundreds of people in MS!
Just as a matter of interest, many EULA's prohibit reverse-engineering, so
doing that would technically be illegal. MS appear to have a sort of relaxed
attritude about this as far as the BCL goes, since they do not appear to
object to people peering into the internals using Reflector or similar tools
to find out whats going on under the hood. Release your own version of the
BCL using their code and I imagine you'd hear from their lawyers sharpish.
I mean, we can't expect the library developers to obfuscate their code in
.NET if they are to expose their classes to others.
Why? Besides the legalities and licensing issues raised above having the
source code does not mean it is instantly understandable. Many projects are
difficult enough to understand even with documentation and comments. In
addition whilst it may be interesting to see how a competitor implements
something, generally you have your own ideas. When a company I worked for
merged with a competitor, I had access to their source and was horrified.
Without the documentation and the developers walking me through their <ahem>
interesting implementation I would have spent months figuring it out,
probably more time than it would have taken me to develop it from scratch.
Now, isn't this just the unconscious mind of MS that has let him into
releasing a powerful platform
like .NET in "open-source"?
No, it's an emergent characteristic of verifiable systems. Since the CLR
needs to verify that the code doesn't do anything nasty, the code has to be
easy and quick for the CLR to inspect. Thus the code is also easily
decompiled.
Please help me on this issue!

[Helge Jensen]

William DePalo [MVP VC++] wrote:

That's true. But trying to disassemble a native executable written in C++
back to its source code is a lot like trying to disassemble a cake back to
flour and water and eggs. You can get an idea of what it is made of but
you'll not know for sure exactly what and how much.

Have you tried it? decompilation works really works surprisingly well on
many applications. Structural analysis have moved the boundries a lot in
the last 10 years.

Some C++ decompilers still don't recreate templates, but the
C-equivalent code isn't too hard to read.

Have a look at
http://www.program-transformation.or.../DeCompilation.

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

"Helge Jensen" <he**********@s log.dk> wrote in message
news:42******** ******@slog.dk. ..

Have you tried it?
Yes, though not lately.
decompilation works really works surprisingly well on many applications.
Structural analysis have moved the boundries a lot in the last 10 years.

Some C++ decompilers still don't recreate templates, but the C-equivalent
code isn't too hard to read.

Have a look at
http://www.program-transformation.or.../DeCompilation.

So I quickly followed the link. If I read it correctly, EXE2C goes back to
the early '90s. Since it wouldn't make it to your "last 10 years" period I
looked at REC where I found this quote

<quote>
Note also a serious problem: REC assumes that the stack pointer does not
change between the prologue and epilogue of a procedure. This is not valid
for programs using the "omit frame pointer" optimisation (or equivalent),
including many Windows programs compiled with MSVC. For more details, see
the paper Using a Decompiler for Real-World Source Recovery.
</quote>

It hardly seems worth the trouble to experiment with a C++ decompiler if it
doesn't understand FPO. :-)

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it is not possible. Just as a mass
spectrometer might be used to analyze the cake, decompiling C++ to source
code is a really hard problem that takes lots of time and money to solve.

Regards,
Will

[Mitchell Vincent]

Sean Hederman wrote:

No, it's an emergent characteristic of verifiable systems. Since the CLR
needs to verify that the code doesn't do anything nasty, the code has to be
easy and quick for the CLR to inspect. Thus the code is also easily
decompiled.

Well said, Sean. I think people need to quit worrying about it and
develop some software.

Most software is no mystery, it's just a lot of hard work. Having the
source code is a tiny part of the overall picture that, in the end,
likely wouldn't get the pirates anything *really usable* anyway. I mean,
who really cares if they have something they can't ever use?

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com

[Dan Bass]

> That's true. But trying to disassemble a native executable written in C++

back to its source code is a lot like trying to disassemble a cake back to
flour and water and eggs. You can get an idea of what it is made of but
you'll not know for sure exactly what and how much.

the analogy made me smile.