Comment by estebank

7 years ago

I'm surprised that no comment has extrapolated that since this was a vsprintf implementation copy, the final binary would be non compliant only if the machine code generated for it was distributed, but if it was only used for debugging internal builds (as I would assume), then the original developers didn't run afoul of the license. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

The author notes that they were able to find constants that the code uses in the binary, so odds are it was at least partially distributed.

  • The constants mentioned are the following:

    "01234567890abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" and "01234567890ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"

    It's very possible that separate implementations of this function would use those same constants. It's not as if they're some completely arbitrary strings.

    • These constants should appear in most arbitrary-base-integer-to-string functions. I wouldn't say that this proves anything.

    • When these constants don't appear elsewhere in the source?

      And what, they'd have another implementation of this function, but have a different one with their code because... reasons?

      1 reply →

Isn't it common to leave debug code in production software?