Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
its sources?
To avoid embarassment.
+1 QOTW (Everyone else was doing it, I just wanted
Peter Hansen wrote:
Gustavo CÃrdova Avila wrote:
Peter Maas wrote:
Grant Edwards schrieb:
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
its sources?
To
Gustavo CÃrdova Avila wrote:
Peter Maas wrote:
Grant Edwards schrieb:
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
its sources?
To avoid embarassment.
Peter Maas wrote:
Grant Edwards schrieb:
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
its sources?
To avoid embarassment.
:) This cannot be the whole tr
Grant Edwards schrieb:
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
its sources?
To avoid embarassment.
:) This cannot be the whole truth otherwise the
+1 QOTW
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Monday 29 November 2004 14:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting
source
> > doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
> > its sources?
>
> To avoid embaras
On 2004-11-29, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the "reverse engineering" argument boils down to "protecting source
> doesn't make sense" then why does Microsoft try so hard to protect
> its sources?
To avoid embarassment.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! W
Craig Ringer schrieb:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:04, Peter Maas wrote:
I can think of 3 reasons to prevent tampering:
[...]
My understanding is that that's never guaranteed safe, no? Or are
restrictions against reverse engineering now commonly enforcable?
It's not guaranteed but if protection works
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:04, Peter Maas wrote:
> I can think of 3 reasons to prevent tampering:
>
> - You need money and want to sell your software on a "per seat" basis.
If you mean that you therefore must add built-in copy-protection, then
sure. Users will always get around it if they really w
RCS schrieb:
I am looking for methods of deploying applications with end users so
that the python code is tamper proof. What are my options ?
An interesting question is, what makes your source code so innovative as
to mandate this tamper proof thing?
I can think of 3 reasons to prevent tampering:
Alan Sheehan wrote:
Hi pythonistas,
I am looking for methods of deploying applications with end users so
that the python code is tamper proof. What are my options ?
I understand I can supply .pyc or .pyo files but they can easily be
reverse engineered I am told.
Is it possible to load the scripts f
12 matches
Mail list logo
