Wow. I have to disagree. Someone has developed a tool which benefits developers. If something happens to your source, you can use Refox for legitimate reasons to recover it. Now, because someone else may come around and use that tool for non legitimate purposes, does not put the blame for that on the developer of the tool. That is like the makers of pseudoephedrine (an excellent drug for legitimate medical purposes) responsible for the actions of consumers who use it in methlabs.


>>>A friend of mine asked me the following:
>>>
>>>"I have a legitimate reason to decompile an old foxpro mfoxplus 2.10 .FOX file. The person I am trying to help has some part of the source code, but part of it is junk (control characters, indicating corruption at some earlier point). They also have the source code, but the code they have for the fox file I need to tweak is corrupted (control chars mixed with ASCII). Most of the coding was done in 1988, and I just need to tweak it for them. My change that I need to make is probably as simple as adding another ! in the picture list for the screen."
>>>
>>>He doesn't want to spend the money on the refox, but would be willing to pay someone to do the decompile for him (with refox or anything else for that matter!)
>>>
>>>If someone can do this, let me know and I will connect you with my friend.
>>
>>FWIW, I believe this is a violation of the license for ReFox.
>
>I'm inclined to react with a 'F*ck Refox'. The developer of Refox doesn't appear to give a damn about, for example, MY copyrights. My applications' licenses explicitly state that decompilation is forbidden.
>
>However, a 'F*ck Refox' probably would not really seem to be congruent with my rejection of the legitimacy of Refox.
>
>On the other hand, I once have suggested that it might perhaps be a good idea if the community did have some spot in the world where decompilation of uploaded application could be done by a community controlled team.