>Hi Peter,
>
>> the sole intended purpose of which is to facilitate the unauthorized removal
>
>>My interpretation is that it's forbidden to produce and publish a program that intentionally cracks protected code.
>
>If ReFox would be marketed as a tool to decompile other developers applications, that would probably be true. However, ReFox is sold as a tool for you to recover your own source code even if you encrypted the EXE (which is perfectly legal). ReFox can be used for something else, but that "else" is not the "sole intended purpose" of ReFox.
>
>Since ReFox refuses to decompile code that it has marked as protected, it's actually complying with c) by not letting unauthorized users decompile this application.
After having received a huge amount of dollars. Actually, it's quite an expensive tool. :(
That's why I plea for a
free utility that allows us to prevent the decompilation of our code with Refox.
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
