On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/03/13 17:35, Harald Kirschner wrote: >> As David said, obfuscates would be a first step to protecting your >> code. UglifyJS already munges several special cases for more >> efficient code, making it harder to reverse it. The next step would >> be Google Closure in advanced mode, which is a one-way >> transformation. >> >> The final and most protected path for you would be Emscripten. >> Writing your business critical modules (like API client or >> Encryption) in C++ and compiling them to JavaScript (or even >> asm.js).The result resembles byte code, using typed arrays as >> memory. > > While some partners will no doubt do it anyway, it concerns me a little > that we are going around actively recommending these things. Mozilla > runs the Webmaker program, whose entire point is that the web is > hackable and remixable, and that people should do that. It's this > ability to change and innovate which is part of the selling point of > Firefox OS to users and carriers. > > If every Firefox OS app came as a bit of Emscripten-compiled-from-C++, > then it would be a very sad day for the open web. I think there is a valid use case in protecting source code when a merchant is selling an app. If the app can't be protected, how can you sell it? And if you can't sell an app then you can't build a business on offering something compelling to the user. This obviously isn't the only business model for apps but it's one that the open web should support better than it does today, IMO. I'd liked to see web businesses get support for more models than the ad model, which is the most prevalent today and it's clearly disliked by users. -Kumar > > Gerv > _______________________________________________ > dev-webapps mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
