geots wrote:you could I suppose be wasting your time. Not much you can say to someone like Bob who agrees to some sort of screwy hearing over Vas and Rybka, then states that "even if he is found innocent, he is still guilty". Of course they all know that they cant prove anything unless they get their hands on the code for any versions of Rybka AFTER Beta 1
They do not have even bonafide source for RYBKA Beta 1 (only Strelkafied reverse engineer job, so it fall foul of non-reversibility caused by many-to-one relationship between high-level source and object), so my refutation still applies.
If this gets within ten kilometres of the correctly constituted judicial authority, the
many-one nature of compile process will deliver terminal blow to stonethrower logic. To win Mr Rajlich has to prove nothing, a compile process from undefined compilers' modules is
irreversible functionally, period. The stonethrower must show other-wise. This is impossible.
All that "decompile" can produce is a source that may have been legally congruent to the original, and which when compiled will produce the object code. In no way it suggests, let alones proves, that this was legally congruent to the actual source used by Mr Rajlich.
From the university of Mr Rajlich's family can come experts to testify this, experts real at whose name the ICGA will tremble.
Demonstrations can be arranged with actual compilers of very different source compiling to identical object.
Then Mr Rajlich can choose who has most money from any vandal pack, and obtain a compensation by due process.
But, it will not become to this. Mr Rajlich is too gentleman and Mr Levy too clever to fall inside the baboontrap. (I have no authority from or connection of Mr Rajlich, last sentence is my hope for community good. I derives my authority only from legal practice).