On 4/20/08, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > En Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:55:51 -0300, Banibrata Dutta < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > Wanted to check if there is any known, reliable, FOSS/Libre -- > Obfurscator > > for Python 2.5 code. > > Why do you want to do that in the first place?
I need to do to retain the confidentiality for certain core components, which are not supposed to be open. While I do have the option of implementing them in C/C++, I'm trying to see if I can avoid that for 2 reasons -- 1. Its a fairly large and complex set of components, and doing it in C/C++ 'might' take significantly longer. 2. I'd try to avoid having mix of languages if possible. It makes the developement easier to maintain/manage over a period of time. There is very few you can do to obfuscate Python code. You can't rename > classes nor methods nor global variables nor argument names due to the > dynamic nature of Python. All you can safely do is to remove comments and > join simple statements using ; I do not understand the nuances of dynamic languages completely, so this might be a foolish assumption, but if i make a complete, self-contained Python application (collection of modules), then just before shipping a production copy, why can't I replace 'all' symbols i.e. classes, methods, variables etc ? Esply if I'm compiling the source ? If you remove docstrings, some things may break. Even renaming local > variables isn't safe in all cases. Hmmm... but I'm aware of atleast 2 Obfuscators one commercial and one FOSS, that seem to exist for Python. The commercial one is what I might try if I don't find anything FOSS. The FOSS one seems to be a dead project. If they are (or have been) there, I guess obfuscation is a doable thing, no ? cheers, B -- > Gabriel Genellina > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- regards, Banibrata http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdutta
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
