Sounds like a brilliant brand new concept for making money.... what i mean was, why don't hide an EULA in code, just and only for anti virus industry. Not the user has to agree to terms.. this is the point, where userrights will be broken, but a av-engeneer at work will have to agree, that he have no rigths to break and analyse the code of the virus.
Between breaking the rights of the "enduser", which computer gets infected and the rigths of the author, which copyright and intellectual property will affected, there is a difference.
If you protect intellectual properties by law, you have protect intellectual properties of the author of a virus also.
I say you have to go even further and patent the algorithm of your virus....so no one can developing antivirus software or a clone of you virus without breaking patent laws or paying licence fees.
This is exactly the point i was looking for,
if you ban reverse engineering for commercial and private use, this also means, your ban it for a virii too.
I think virii writer should employ a licence agreement in there virus, what says, if you reverse engeneer beyound this point, this is illegal and if they get accuesed for writing a virus, they should sue the AV industry for breaking the DMCA.
This can be simplified by embeding the authors name in the code, so that almost every attempt to unveil the authors identity is done by reverse engineer the code.
A lawsuit against Police and AV-industry is sure in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a brilliant brand new concept for making money. ... what i mean was, why don't hide an EULA in code, just and only for anti virus industry.
...so no one can developing antivirus software or a clone of you virus without breaking patent laws or paying licence fees.
Not the user has to agree to terms.. this is the point, where userrights will be broken, but a av-engeneer at work will have to agree, that he have no rigths to break and analyse the code of the virus.
Between breaking the rights of the "enduser", which computer gets infected and the rigths of the author, which copyright and intellectual property will affected, there is a difference.
If you protect intellectual properties by law, you have protect intellectual properties of the author of a virus also.
I say you have to go even further and patent the algorithm of your virus.
This is exactly the point i was looking for, if you ban reverse engineering for commercial and private use, this also means, your ban it for a virii too. I think virii writer should employ a licence agreement in there virus, what says, if you reverse engeneer beyound this point, this is illegal and if they get accuesed for writing a virus, they should sue the AV industry for breaking the DMCA. This can be simplified by embeding the authors name in the code, so that almost every attempt to unveil the authors identity is done by reverse engineer the code. A lawsuit against Police and AV-industry is sure in this case.