Github Microsoft? :(

[Mira Yurizaki]

12 minutes ago, wasab said:

Try figuring out what this does then. 

https://github.com/sobolevn/python-code-disasters/blob/master/obfuscation/__init__.py

Source code is barely for me to read and I can't even figure it out. 

It creates a fire in a disco.

[Dat Guy]

Good!

 

/me downloads and runs 2656 copies of it

[reniat]

34 minutes ago, wasab said:

Try figuring out what this does then. 

https://github.com/sobolevn/python-code-disasters/blob/master/obfuscation/__init__.py

Source code is barely for me to read and I can't even figure it out. 

I think you're missing their point, which is that they don't need the source at all. In fact, for code like that, reverse engineering is probably an easier approach to understanding it than the source code lol

 

Another way to reverse engineer a system is a decompilation, which gives you a version of the source code reconstructed from the binary output. The relevant detail here is that in both forms of reverse engineering don't get you the source code you saw when creating the code, so super obfuscated code is just as secure as non-obfuscated code. This applies to both decompiling binaries, as well as reconstructing code from bytecode (e.g. java, python, etc.).

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Nocte said:

Any code you make open-source can be used by anyone. Not only Microsoft. That's the whole point of open-source... People can use your code, contribute to it, etc.

If you make your repo private then no, no one will see (and therefore use your code). But private repos require a premium account.

The whole point of the open source, speaking of GPL license (which is something that people usually refer to for open source) is encouraging (or forcing) a project to remain "open" and not just giving code for free so someone can do what they want, that's more a BSD thing 

You couldn't make pay something like Linux, GPL doesn't even let you add shared non-GPL(or proprietary if I don't remember wrong) libraries to a GPL software so that's more like an imposition of having a completely open source software that can't be taken and sold by anyone 

Just saying open source is too generic, this just means that the code can be accessible but with some conditions, even a proprietary software can become open source for some people for example without complying for the GPL license or BSD for example, and a proprietary software built on open source like the Playstation OS which is based on FreeBSD isn't open source either just because it has FreeBSD code

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Just saying open source is too generic, this just means that the code can be accessible but with some conditions, even a proprietary software can become open source for some people for example without complying for the GPL license or BSD for example, and a proprietary software built on open source like the Playstation OS which is based on FreeBSD isn't open source either just because it has FreeBSD code

To add to this, macOS is another example. The Darwin kernel is open source, but everything else on top of it is Apple's secret sauce.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

To add to this, macOS is another example. The Darwin kernel is open source, but everything else on top of it is Apple's secret sauce.

A lot of apple software is released as open source, except the GUI components and iOS (which is built on BSD anyway, they just don't release the code so can be considered closed)

 

They also have their very own BSD-Like license, probably because they used to sell it, you couldn't do that on another open source license like GPL, what I don't know is if that was all GPL instead since they are the projects owners too they probably can sell that anyway...? 

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

They also have their very own BSD-Like license, probably because they used to sell it, you couldn't do that on another open source license like GPL, what I don't know is if that was all GPL instead since they are the projects owners too they probably can sell that anyway...? 

GPL allows you to sell software that uses it as a license. In fact, the GNU project encourages it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

GPL allows you to sell software that uses it as a license. In fact, the GNU project encourages it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Oh I remember about that, it's a bit twisted reasoning

 

Anyway the project owners can do what they want, even if they should basically remove other people contributions, unless is mentioned in the license that contributions people are going to make still belongs to Apple 

 

still any change needs to be provided with the source code, so you could sell a gnu software in form of binary indeed but you need to provide the source code for it