Decompiler for exe to C,C++

[sbvishal]

Dear All
Does anybody know about any decompiler for MAC or Windows which can decompile an exe and can generate the C,C++ source code.


Regards

 

[Aptmunich]

Nope, plus that's usually not legal either.

If the program you want to decompile is open source, you can find the source code on the project's website.

If it ain't, then you got no business snooping around in other people's source code.

 

[Discerptor]

7-zip can unarchive a .exe into files it contains, but not the source code I'm pretty sure.

 

[jchutch2]

Nope, plus that's usually not legal either.

If the program you want to decompile is open source, you can find the source code on the project's website.

If it ain't, then you got no business snooping around in other people's source code.

Ugh! I can't stand when people just throw the word illegal out there when they're completely uninformed. In the U.S. there is NO law that protects software from being decompiled, snooped, unencoded, and otherwise completely laid open by one who has purchased or obtained it legally. Courts in this country have CONSISTENTLY affirmed a private user's right to know exactly what code does when installed on their PCs. The only thing that is illegal is the unauthorized DISTRIBUTION of protected content.

Basically anyone can open, inspect, and even make copies of anything they purchase; cd, DVD, BR, or software, etc. The only time the law is broken is when they provide that content to someone else. At that point they're distributing the material and am breaking the law.

People have EVERY right and reason to "snoop other people's source code" if they've been legitimately provided the code and are going to be putting on THEIR own computers. Quit giving people completely bad and wrong device.

Yes, I know this is an old post, but people still come across it. These falsities need to be corrected everywhere they're found.

 

[vansmith]

In the U.S. there is NO law that protects software from being decompiled, snooped, unencoded, and otherwise completely laid open by one who has purchased or obtained it legally. Courts in this country have CONSISTENTLY affirmed a private user's right to know exactly what code does when installed on their PCs. The only thing that is illegal is the unauthorized DISTRIBUTION of protected content.

There is a world outside of the United States. What makes you think every reader of this is American? For example, as a Canadian, I couldn't care less what those courts have to say so why should we assume that everyone does?

Let's also not forget that it's safe to assume that a German resident replied to an OP who, from the context, appears to reside in India. Did you miss that?

Yes, I know this is an old post, but people still come across it. These falsities need to be corrected everywhere they're found.

Yes, they do. Let's start with your false assumptions.

 

[jchutch2]

There is a world outside of the United States. What makes you think every reader of this is American? For example, as a Canadian, I couldn't care less what those courts have to say so why should we assume that everyone does?

Let's also not forget that it's safe to assume that a German resident replied to an OP who, from the context, appears to reside in India. Did you miss that?

Yes, they do. Let's start with your false assumptions.

My assumption was that India and Germany, like most nations dealing with these problems, used the U.S. laws as a basis because the U.S. was the first to come up with such copyright laws of that level of magnitude. And, it was an informed, well-reasoned, and correct assumption. German and Indian copyright laws are identical to those in the U.S. for the private decompiling of software.

By the way, Candian laws also mostly mimic the U.S. laws on this matter. Canada actually has a very long history of using U.S. law as precedent for rulings in their own courts.

 

[vansmith]

My assumption was that India and Germany, like most nations dealing with these problems, used the U.S. laws as a basis because the U.S. was the first to come up with such copyright laws of that level of magnitude.

Evidence? Research would suggest that Europe declared decompilation a protected act a year before the US did. I could be wrong but I honestly don't care.

And, it was an informed, well-reasoned, and correct assumption. German and Indian copyright laws are identical to those in the U.S. for the private decompiling of software.

Probably could have started with that - would have been more relevant to the context.

Canada actually has a very long history of using U.S. law as precedent for rulings in their own courts.

Actually, the history of foreign precedent is much more closely linked to the use of English courts as a source. Add to that the explicit rejection of perceived differences in the notion of rights (many scholars argue that Canada privileges collective rights, the US privileges individual rights) and you have two considerably different approaches to law. Do Canadian lawyers and judges make use of foreign examples for the sake of precedent? Sure, but not as if its essential or intrinsically tied to any other particular context.