What is it called when there's a process that's available to individuals but is long and onerous and cannot be shared among them? Saying the binaries are open source now means that the work of reverse engineering will be repeated exactly in proportion to the number of times it's modified. I would argue on a large scale this is still effectively closed source.
replyAs soon as you can share binary patches (highly illegal of course) we're off to the races.
replyBinary patches aren’t illegal right? How would they be?
replyI'm not a lawyer. But I think if your "binary patch" is a series of instructions to write specific code to specific locations in a binary file, and the patch itself doesn't include any of the code present in the original binary, making/distributing a binary patch can't possibly be copyright infringement.
replyIt's normal in the videogame ROM hacking community to distribute this kind of binary patches (known as IPS patches) so as to avoid legal trouble, since the binary patch is useless if the user doesn't have access to the original videogame ROM. Distributing the ROM or even its patched version would be illegal, but a patch of the kind I mentioned is fine.
CFAA and friends (in the US, at least) means that even things you might not otherwise expect are illegal get turned into super illegal.
replyBinary patches are probably fine to make, but to distribute them for other people's binaries is probably not.
More like mildly illegal. Seems on par with torrents to me.
replyI would move the quotes to "open" since the issue of licensing is still left. Although LLM providers have shown that they don't care about copyright so it should go both ways.
replyQuotes for all of it, it's a closed binary that is transparently user modifiable these days I guess, so "open" "source".
reply