From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.66.160.9 with SMTP id xg9mr42179694pab.38.1456424010122;
        Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:13:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.125.195 with SMTP id ms3mr554498obb.17.1456424010075;
 Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!hb3no8990820igb.0!news-out.google.com!pn7ni2199igb.0!nntp.google.com!ok5no4799300igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:13:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ly1t81m8vp.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=86.166.161.242;
 posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.166.161.242
References: <3acc13a4-d92e-498b-8dbe-cb2e399c54ed@googlegroups.com>
 <1456246988.16316.22.camel@obry.net> <dj43mmFo9gtU1@mid.individual.net>
 <09392c3a-b79b-49d3-ab7c-0f90d0f454eb@googlegroups.com>
 <ly1t81m8vp.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a5950f5b-4b28-4c68-804b-c68f200c1836@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Outrageous Thoughts on Ada Compilers.
From: Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:13:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29609
Date: 2016-02-25T10:13:29-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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