> -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Wildgoose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:48 AM > To: Jesse Schoch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Source Hiding (was: Encrypting Source) > > > > 1. Obfuscation doesn't prevent ppl from stealing source. Java > has the same > > problem, there are plenty of great decompilers for java to prove it. > > 2. Though we understand point 1, "the perception" is that perl being a > > scripting language creates a "risk" and large companies are risk-averse, > > which is why large companies prefer java regardless of the lack > of security > > it provides(larry wall doesn't have the same marketing budget as SUN). > > I think you have hit the nail on the head here. My company and > many others aren't going to ship something to clients that the > client can easily just peel the top off and look inside.
That's how we feel. Our customers are people who *DO* write their own home-grown versions of our product, and we don't want them casually lifting pieces of our prodcut, improving their home-grown stuff, then not buying our stuff. > You can of course ALWAYS nick the sourcecode. That's the whole > point, industrial espionage is always possible. > <..snip..> > Basically unless you happen to reverse engineer stuff everyday, > then it's going to take ordinary people at least a few days to > weeks to google around, download stuff and hack the program. Right, and another thing: if people have to decrypt it before "sharing" it with their buddies, it makes it very obvious that they are violating the license agreement. > To be honest I think it would be very fair game to *sell* any PAR > encryption mechanism that you write. The only people who will be > using it are those shipping closed source software for money, and > as such they will most likely happily pay for it... A business > idea for someone perhaps? I agree. We'd pay. In fact, has anyone had experiences with Stunnix (www.stunnix.com)?
