Take some code under GNU GPL

you can't patent software
you can only patent business processes

>pick up a prostitute in a dark alley
>dissolve her dead body in acid

How can anyone find out you're violating the law?

If people realize she is gone, police may start investigating. From this point onwards, you have a pretty good chance of being caught due to security cameras, cellphone tracking, witnesses and so on. With software, there are some things that can give you off. A coworker that knows you're breaking the license, a source code leak, some very specific bug that would only realistically affect the stolen software but affects yours as well.

Women were a mistake

>With software, there are some things that can give you off. A coworker that knows you're breaking the license, a source code leak, some very specific bug that would only realistically affect the stolen software but affects yours as well.
Exactly.

>You are always allowed to reverse.
Even in US?

By decompiling and/or pattern matching. You can always obfuscate though.

I'd still advise against it.

give it back, jamal

they can't, which is why the BSD license exists. If you're gonna become a cuck, you might as well go all the way.

In the U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). Interoperability is defined in paragraph 4 of Section 103(f).

It is also often lawful to reverse-engineer an artifact or process as long as it is obtained legitimately. If the software is patented, it doesn't necessarily need to be reverse-engineered, as patents require a public disclosure of invention. It should be mentioned that, just because a piece of software is patented, that does not mean the entire thing is patented; there may be parts that remain undisclosed.

Also of note is that in the U.S. most End-User License Agreements (EULAs) specifically prohibit reverse-engineering. Courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law which expressly permits it (Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

I prefer cucking others by using unlicense. Some poor bastard is going to get burned for living in a shithole country with no "public domain". One day.

Interesting. Thank you user.

>You are always allowed to reverse.
Like Puri.sm was allowed to reverse Intel's IME?

Attached: Bucephala-albeola-010.jpg (1536x1024, 377K)

You came from a woman, you braindead mron.

exactly

Only allowed to make the development of a new product easier. That's another question what is the point of the development.

Some women were mistake
PS: I LOVE YOU MOMMY

I'd be heartbroken to have a child like you :(

pretty much yeah. puri.sm is technically allowed. Intel are just being jerks and threatening to put them out of business by making them spend more money than they can afford on legal procedures.

From the Purism update on the article, Intel only asked them to take down the technical bits about what they were doing.
Purism explicitly stated that it had no impact on them future goals.

2018-05-10 UPDATE: Intel politely asked Purism to remove this document which Intel believes may conflict with a licensing term. Since this post was informational only and has no impact on the future goals of Purism, we have complied. If you would like the repository link of the Intel FSP provided from Intel, please visit their publicly available code on the subject.

You just described MediaTek, OP.

Attached: 1521637611653.jpg (720x720, 138K)