Fuzzyman wrote:
Dave Brueck wrote:
By "futile" I meant that, if the code ends up running on a user's
machine, then
a sufficiently motivated person could crack it wide open, regardless
of
implementation language - the only way to truly protect the code is
to never let
it out of your hands (i.e. it's
Dave Brueck wrote:
> Fuzzyman wrote:
> > Dave Brueck wrote:
> > It's certainly something lot's of people are interested in. I
guess it
> > depends who your audience is. If ytour code isn't for *mass*
> > distribution - the chances of people putting a lot of effort into
> > breaking it are greatly
Fuzzyman wrote:
Dave Brueck wrote:
It's certainly something lot's of people are interested in. I guess it
depends who your audience is. If ytour code isn't for *mass*
distribution - the chances of people putting a lot of effort into
breaking it are greatly reduced. I don't htink it's necessarily f
Dave Brueck wrote:
> Jiri Barton wrote:
[snip..]
Hello Dave,
>
> Protecting code in any language is pretty tough and/or futile, but
you can
> Google the archives if you're interested in reading more on that.
>
It's certainly something lot's of people are interested in. I guess it
depends who yo
Jiri Barton wrote:
I'd like to be able to distribute some python modules of my system (plugins)
without the source. So far, I have done this by including only the *.pyc
files. However, I have recently found they are platform dependent and
python version dependent.
This approach has been very conven
