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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Outrageous Thoughts on Ada Compilers.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:34:02 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly1t81m8vp.fsf@pushface.org>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="03d977edd803a9f1bf346d48fa393156";
	logging-data="15832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qNDKPeyLcf5ArZMPQknsi/X0vSf4Jr8c="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sEX0GZCzKrvoNxbFvSkPIjE3x90=
	sha1:1a9Fq7iBBaWw0pNcRQvxMo7pSvY=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29602
Date: 2016-02-25T09:34:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.