> I've used obfuscation tools for Perl before Isn't this redundant?
* rimshot * On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
