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 reduced. I don't htink it's necessarily futile. > > 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 accessible just via a web service). >
Hello Dave, I understand what you are saying - using hte word 'futilew' implies that code is *likely* to be broken, not that it is *theoretically possible* for it to be broken. If code has a small user base it is probable that there is plenty that can be done to make breaking the code a lot harder. There are also legitimate reasons why someone would want to do this. 'Futile' is definitely a misleading response :-)3 It's a question that often comes up on comp.lang.python - and the reply is often "don't bother, it's not possible - and why do you want to do that anyway". This is a response that is likely to turn people towards other languages.... Best Regards, Fuzzy http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python > -Dave -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
