Here's my beef with EULA's, they're completely useless.
In my opinion, there should be one general EULA (ie. The EULA) which states that the corporation/organization/individual who produced and distributed the software claims no responsibility of the user's actions in relation to the software. I mean, the user has paid for a license of the software, so let them do with it as they please.

As for the disassembler discussion:
I'm pretty sure the method of "deconstructing" the executable is done differently by different disassemblers. There might be some that monitor the commands being issued to the kernel, and there might be some that read the file (without executing it) that piece together and interpret the commands that would be given to the kernel if the program were run.

The disassembler would just look at the file. It can't draw any conclusions from executing the program because there are so many potential paths through a program and, for example, it wouldn't know if the instruction was within a loop or not.

that is almost inpossible to do that
or i have never heard about doing that

ok the EULA thing, what i do with somthing i purchased in my own house.. that is up to me.. when i buy a car, GM cannot make me sign somthing telling me i cant tear it apart.. so until there is some actual legal backing for the people cooking up these restricting EULAs.. then i will disassemble and explore anything i want to.. and if you are slave to an accept button.. you really need to lighten up..

as far as the difficultly level of disassembling and understanding what you see, it does not take a rocket scientist, just a little study.. you need a working knowlege of assembly, and google to find some tuts.. as far as disassemblers you cant beat ida..

anyhow. i would say that all the eula talk is worthless to OP as i think he said about disassembling viri.. i dont think viruses come with a eula.. maybe they do and i just click accept before i read.

haha, viruses have EULAs, but they click the Accept button for you

I think i've been misunderstood, and rightfully so since I wasn't very clear. I don't disassemblers are illegal, like xhi said GM can't stop you from tearing apart your car. Its what you do with the torn apart code thats illegal. Microsoft has patents on thier software, if you disassemble windows and then resale the code for your own profit, that breaks patent laws, and that is, without a doubt illegal. I guess the car example dosen't really apply here because you could do this to a car and not get in trouble, but code dosen't follow the same laws as cars do.

A virus though, there's no law protecting a virus. I'm sure Symantec and Mcaffe have both been decompiling, or atleast been trying to decompile, viruses for years now.

laws are not what is written on paper but what is held up in court.. and i dont believe anyone made mention of selling anything here. but merely tearing somthing apart to see how it works..

i dont think you quite grasp the concept of reversing.

No I'm well aware of the difference. Its just the longer this thread gets the less relevent my comment was

[QUOTE=Penguin of Wonder]I think i've been misunderstood, and rightfully so since I wasn't very clear. I don't disassemblers are illegal, like xhi said GM can't stop you from tearing apart your car.

Nevertheless, there are some restrictions for cars too, believe it or not, reverse engineering applies to car parts aswell, for instance, if GM made a car with a great engine, then Ford (legally) just can't buy one, tear it apart and study how the engine was made to mimic the design.

Concerning something I've read in another post, contrary to the popular opinion, when you buy propietary software (eg. windows) you are NOT buying the software product, you are just paying for the right to execute it (again, read your EULAs). You can't own windows, microsoft does. Just think about it, if you could buy windows, then ms could not charge bussiness with anual licensing fees.

Thats an interesting point. I never thought about it like that.

there are these things called patents.. and yes they stop ford from reselling copied parts.. great.. but that does not stop me from tearing apart *my* car for *my* own knowlege of how the thing works.. maybe i want to know what does what. or maybe i know somthing about cars and i am concerned for my safety.. some people arent just happy to ride down the road in a car, they would like to know how reliable, safe, well built it is.. and even if i want to take the alternator out and smash it with a hammer for no good reason at all.. hell i can its my car.. there are thousands of copies of it, but it is mine i will do with it what i want.. if i break it i will fix it.. i dont see a differnence between a car and a copy of windows or any other software.. im sure there are going to be reasons someone will tell me. but i have not bought into the whole bend over here comes a EULA deal..

now if you are doing somthing illegal then yes it is illegal. if you reverse and release cracks, thats illegal. if you are stealing code by reversing that is illegal. if you are reversing to find out how it works.. what does what behind the scenes and you are not gaining anymore than knowlege.. well is that illegal.. just use a little common sense and its not to hard to figure out what is right or not.

The difference is what I said earlier: you buy a car, then it's yours to smash against a wall if you want, you buy windows, it's still microsofts' and it's illegal to fail to comply with the eula (if you agreed to it). Fine, you don't like what the eula says, then use something else, it says so right there in the eula, that's what the "I don't agree" button was made for. Microsoft says: you "bought" windows, ok, theese are my terms, don't like it, fine, use something else, but not windows.

Legally pressing the "I accept" button is the same to signing something in the real world, you can't just sign a paycheck and then refuse to pay for it since it's your money, your paycheck, your bank, etc. you are legally entitled to comply.

ok.. if i do not own it, and microsoft does, why is it that i can not return it to the store? say i buy windows, go home to install it, actually read the EULA, then say wow i am not crazy i will not agree to that.. try to return it to the store and am refused my money back.. will microsoft give me my money back? no.. sure does seem like it is not microsofts or the stores at that point.. whos could it be? so they take my money, i cant return it if i end up not wanting it after reading the EULA during install., yet i dont own it... no thanks i think i will go on believing that anyone who believes everything in a EULA is crazy.. atleast until i see some proof of courts ruling that could affect me..

you make a very valid point if someone would have no common sense at all.. or maybe you helped to write the DMCA ?

Wrong again. Chrysler did EXACTLY that with their new "hemi" engine - they basically cloned the LS1 engine(the engine used in the fifth-generation Corvette)'s bottom end, and slapped a hemispheric head on top to take advantage of "nostalgia" marketing.

You can reverse anything you want. Patents protect what patents protect, and copyright protects what copyrights protect, but unless you violate a patent or do a copy & paste of decompiled code and simply recompile it, you're in the clear.

Please stop spreading misinformation and FUD.

Sorry folks, I didn't mean to sound like a ms executive telling yoy that ms has all the power. Just tried to put in perspective how unfair propietary software eulas are to people.

About the disassemble of the car engine, I had no idea someone had already done it and actually got away with it. Beyond legal matters, it doesn't seem very fair to the original car designer...

finally, regarding windows, they don't take refunds and don't allow ISV's to do it either, that's because you could've made a copy of the software to yourself and then ask for your money back. This kinda turns the tables whether we can really say no to eula's (no matter how unfair they are) since we have already paid for the product.

Sorry again folks, specially KimVette, didn't mean to spread anything beyond my personal opinion and you're in all your right to disagee.