Ask HN: Is it unethical to reverse engineer GPL violating software to create OSS

[wannacboatmovie]

Question in title, situation is you have identified a GPL violation for which the authors refuse to comply and release source.

The authors reside in a country which is known for its rampant violations and theft of intellectual property.

Is it equally unethical to reverse engineer their modified software and release it as open source? Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

[eqvinox]

Why would you think reverse engineering is somehow "wrong"?

You're not "stealing" source code, you're deducing operational concepts and then reimplementing it with your own work. That's perfectly fine in a lot of, if not most cases.

(Legal exceptions: your country forbids reverse engineering, or the software is patented [= in both cases, your legal system sucks]. But those are legal arguments, not moral.)

[bruce511]

Ethics are a personal construct outside the law. (In some narrow cases, like psychiatry it's enforced, but that's the exception and doesn't apply here.)

In other words ethics are whatever you say they are. And polling the internet for permission will turn up a mix of aye and nay.

Is it -legal-? That's a different question, and "ethical " questions are usually a prelude to breaking some law under the implication that the law is "unjust".

As an aside I presume you are a -customer- of said company? Since GPL rights only applies to those with a legal, binary, copy.

[vr46 → bruce511]

Ethics are more universal, if anything - don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t play anything by Creed or Kenny G over loudspeakers, that kind of thing. Things everyone can get behind.

Morality tends to be an implementation of ethics, like respecting the dead by leaving them to be eaten by vultures, or burying them instead.

[eqvinox → vr46]

>> Ethics are a personal construct

> Ethics are more universal

Both of these statements will have philosophers up in arms ;D

Whether morals (and transitively ethics) are universal or context dependent is an unanswered (and possibly undecidable) problem in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

[vr46 → eqvinox]

Agreed and I was well-aware when commenting, hence the flippancy! I guess I’m from the Simon Blackburn school where relativism is a threat to ethics…

[Juliate]

What do you mean by reverse engineer exactly here? It can mean various things.

[iExploder]

It is unethical not to do it if you have the capability.

[botten]

It is ethically sound.

[ath3nd]

No, it's the proper thing to do as a citizen

[jkic47]

It kind of depends, doesn't it?

The authors have (allegedly, and according to you) committed a GPL violation.

The "sins" of the country they live in have nothing to do with the situation.

Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it, unless the software is patented, in which case, it isn't. If the software is patented, I'd lead towards it being unethical to break a law in your jurisdiction because you (not through a legal system) have unilaterally decided that they committed a violation.

[adastra22 → jkic47]

To follow up on this, a lot of people think that if there is a GPL violation, then the composite work automatically becomes covered by the GPL. This is not true. The composite work is a copyright violation, but the GPL terms don’t apply to the proprietary code.

“Hacking” the proprietary code is no different than if there had been no GPL violation, under the law.

[gus_massa → jkic47]

> Reverse engineering closed-source software is generally legal, as I understand it,

Looking at the inputs and outputs and guessing the implementation is legal, but I guess the OP meand decompiling the executable and using the decompiled source that is ilegal.

[jkic47 → gus_massa]

Ah got it. If OP meant decompiling the executable and using the source, that could indeed expose them to legal risk.

[RecycledEle]

Information must be free.