Re: Outrageous Thoughts on Ada Compilers.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:34:04 AM UTC, Simon Wright wrote:
> Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> > A point I want to establish is that - reference the compiler - no
> > matter how it is done and no matter what langauges are used to
> > complete it all of these languages use 'ASCII' as their encryption
> > domain - if I can then somehow access the compiler sourcecode I can
> > customise a unique compiler for my own exclusive use by encrypting a
> > private version that I can ahare with another entity having made a
> > secure delivery to that person of the modified compiler.
> 
> Months ago I provided you with source code demonstrating that your
> woefully inefficient encryption could be used on any input, including
> binary; so ASCII is irrelevant.
> 
> You could certainly produce a compiler for your exclusive use; it might
> be a copyright violation (not in the case of GNAT), but you'd be very
> unlikely to be found out. You could encrypt the source, and/or the built
> compiler, and distribute the result; in the case of GNAT, the licensing
> terms would oblige you to provide the other entity with the source as
> well as the compiler. For other compilers, the legality would depend on
> the copyright/licensing status of the source material.
> 
> > Do you know how to access the compiler sourcecode?
> 
> For GNAT, yes; otherwise, no.

< For GNAT, yes; otherwise, no.

Would you kindly publish a few lines of Gnat here just for me to show readers what I mean


Austin