alex@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Alex S. Crain) (02/03/89)
I'm sending the latest patches for the 3b1 dissassembler to comp.sources.misc, if for some reason you don't read that group (or they fail to arrive after a couple weeks) send me mail and I'll mail them to you. These patches do a few things: fix random syntax bugs. do automatic lookup of shared library addresses, so that you can dissassemble stipped files. do better internal address resolution, and more accurately display holes in the data segment. make "dis -lc(malloc.o)" work. There is also a -k flag, that will attempt to resolve varoius kernal addresses, includeing the u structure. unfortunely there are still problems dealing with relocatable symbols, so this is of dubious value. documentation is still poor, but I'm working on it. Enjoy. -- :alex Alex Crain Systems Programmer alex@umbc3.umbc.edu Univ Md Baltimore County nerwin!alex@umbc3.umbc.edu (NEW DOMAIN)
john@polyof.UUCP ( John Buck ) (02/04/89)
In article <1636@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>, alex@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Alex S. Crain) writes: > > I'm sending the latest patches for the 3b1 dissassembler to > comp.sources.misc... > do automatic lookup of shared library addresses, so that you can > dissassemble stipped files. > make "dis -lc(malloc.o)" work. > There is also a -k flag, that will attempt to resolve varoius kernal > addresses, includeing the u structure. unfortunely there are still problems > dealing with relocatable symbols, so this is of dubious value. > Alex Crain > Systems Programmer alex@umbc3.umbc.edu > Univ Md Baltimore County nerwin!alex@umbc3.umbc.edu (NEW DOMAIN) Distributing (or using) such a utility in the manner illustrated above sounds like a blatant violation of your UNIX PC license: AT&T UNIX PC System Software Book (the one with the disks in it) Page 2/3 "LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS CARD CONTAINS THE AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. ("AT&T-IS") LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE BEFORE YOU OPEN THE SEALS ON THE PACKAGES CONTAINING THE DISKETTE AND THE DOCUMENTATION. ONCE YOU HAVE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS, YOU MAY OPEN THE SEALED ENVELOPE... BY OPENING THE SEAL, YOU SHOW YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT... ... 1. TITLE AND LICENSE GRANT ... You agree to use your best efforts to see that any user of the SOFTWARE licensed hereunder complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and refrains from taking any steps, such as reverse assembly or reverse compilation, to derive a source code equivalent of the software. ..." --------------- END QUOTE ---------------------- I have noticed a few postings if so-called "reverse assembled" sources float by. These postings violate the Unix PC license. I am not saying the disassembler violates the license, but the poster above gave examples of things that DO violate the license. I'd check with your legal department to make sure what you are doing is legal...
alex@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Alex S. Crain) (02/05/89)
In article <434@polyof.UUCP> john@polyof.UUCP ( John Buck ) writes: >Distributing (or using) such a utility in the manner illustrated above >sounds like a blatant violation of your UNIX PC license: Nah. I included kernel symbols so that you could debug the loadable device drivers that you wrote. I would never suggest that you use such a utility to dissassemble propriatary AT&T code, that would be illegal. There is a readme file that refers users to the licence agreement you mentioned, it is called README.FIRST and is included in the sources. I would implore all users of this utility to "just say no" when someone suggest that they dissassemble the kernal or any of the AT&T utilities. >I have noticed a few postings if so-called "reverse assembled" sources >float by. These postings violate the Unix PC license. The only such posting that I am aware of was Fords keyboard driver, which was reverse engineered from a Public Domain driver called capcntrl (available free from AT&T's, "The Store"). >I am not saying the disassembler violates the license, but the poster >above gave examples of things that DO violate the license. Now now, I would never do that. just because I posted the thing and offered ways to utilize it, doesen't imply that I encourage breaking the law. Dissassembling the kernel is quite legal as long as you have the proper source licence(s), I trust that the unix-pc community is upright enough to obay all of the local laws and statutes. Besides, I told you that it was of dubious value. -- :alex Alex Crain Systems Programmer alex@umbc3.umbc.edu Univ Md Baltimore County nerwin!alex@umbc3.umbc.edu (NEW DOMAIN)
joel@arizona.edu (Joel M. Snyder) (02/05/89)
I don't want to begin a long legal discussion (which belongs on another news group), but I do want to remind the gentleman @polyof that the license agreement which is printed on the envelope which you "agree" to when you open the envelope is not necessarily enforceable in all states, and in ones in which it is, the clause involving disassembly has never (to my knowledge) been tested . The whole point of this class of "shrink wrap" license agreements is that someone can't hold you to a contract which is (I forget the legal term for it, but roughly:) "one-sided." A contract in which you implicitly have no chance to negotiate terms and conditions is not necessarily a valid contract. The opinion of the folks in our department that deal with those agreements is that we agree to follow the spirit of the agreement in re: one license bought per machine, but that the miscellaneous conditions regarding the number of backups, disassembly, and all that other nonsense, are both unenforcable and useless. In summary: just because it says it on the paper, doesn't mean it's so. (please, followups to the appropriate news.whatever group, NOT 3b2!) jms@mis.arizona.edu (Joel M Snyder)
motteler@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Howard E. Motteler) (02/05/89)
In article <434@polyof.UUCP> john@polyof.UUCP ( John Buck ) writes: >In article <1636@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>, alex@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Alex S. Crain) writes: >> >> I'm sending the latest patches for the 3b1 dissassembler to >> comp.sources.misc... >> do automatic lookup of shared library addresses, so that you can >> dissassemble stipped files. >> make "dis -lc(malloc.o)" work. >> There is also a -k flag, that will attempt to resolve varoius kernal >> addresses, includeing the u structure. unfortunely there are still problems >> dealing with relocatable symbols, so this is of dubious value. >> Alex Crain >> Systems Programmer alex@umbc3.umbc.edu >> Univ Md Baltimore County nerwin!alex@umbc3.umbc.edu (NEW DOMAIN) > >Distributing (or using) such a utility in the manner illustrated above >sounds like a blatant violation of your UNIX PC license: > > [etc. etc. ... ] This is utter nonsense. You can do whatever you want with your binaries, dissassemble, patch, reassemble, explore, munge, etc., *as long as you don't re-distribute the results*. Redistributing the binaries is obviously illegal; distributing a straight dissassembly, or significant portions of a dissassembly, is also. However, distributing or discussing "principles of operations," techniques, etc., that you may discover by examining binaries is a somewhat grey area. Companies might not like you to do this, but this is no longer any sort of copyright violation. If a company managed to cover some algorithm as a "trade secret" they might be able to make trouble if you disclosed it. If the algorithm is patented, it's on file anyway, and you can "disclose" it all you want. You just can't *use* it in something you are distributing. Howard Motteler