On Jul 7, 7:58 pm, "Shannon -jj Behrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have enjoyed your email much more if you didn't use such
> strong language ;)
>
> I've used obfuscation tools for Perl before, and yes, they're nice.
> When we encrypted the Python code, the only way to unencrypt it was to
> understand the unencryption code which was written in C and compiled
> statically into Python. Sure, it's not perfect. However, it's
> definitely a strong deterrent. On top of this is the DMCA, etc.
>
> By the way, major props to Mike Orr. I agree. I hate closed source
> software even when I get paid to write it ;)
>
the keyword is that its a 'deterrent'. its not going to be perfect.
if you want to throw away your money at encryption to make it harder,
so be it. but someone who wants to reverse engineer and decrypt and
decompile something will - you're just going to make it harder and
waste their time. and when someone does steal it, you're going to be
in the same situation in terms of needing to litigate.
so, IMHO, i think firms are better off building software, being clear
on the license/copyright, and focusing on making things work -- not
locking them down.
and despite me saying 'lawyer' many times -- open sourcing as much as
they can.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
