On 8/6/2010 9:03 AM, Peter Otten wrote:
...
Seriously, I try to make a joke once in a while, usually with devastating
results. The idea you were meant to take away was that once you start
thinking about a protection scheme there is always a next step until you
reach the point where your software, say, is completely safe, but also
completely unusable. Had Guido started the language in that mindset there
would be no Python for you to worry about its ripp-off safety.
Why would I send you the py code, for example, if I
wanted to protect it because of its importance?
Because if you think again you may find that it's not as important as you
think?
I'd put it in exe form
and send it and allow you to input data to produce the desired result of
the program.
There is no analog in python, and if you cannot concentrate on your honest
customers the only option that offers reasonable "safety" would be to turn
your application into web service.
Peter
So you think Python is part of open software in terms of distributing a
"product"? So I should stick to C, where one can distribute programs w/o
revealing code details, and having a customer compile the code? It's
been awhile since I've used Linux or Unix, but I think there's a lot of
commercial code out there dependent upon it, and the users do not have
to compile anything.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
