Re: Python obfuscation

Chris Mellon schrieb: >>There is a company who is developing and marketing a single application. >>It is a simulation software for industrial processes which embodies an >>enormous amount of knowledge accumulated by the hard work of many >>individuals since about twenty years, algorithmic, process,

Re: Python obfuscation

On 12/25/05, Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yepp schrieb: > > Once you got the model of free and open source software you can't but shake > > your head at obfuscating people treating their users as enemies. > > Sorry but this is naive nonsense. Open source is a good model but > it can't be

Re: Python obfuscation

yepp schrieb: > Once you got the model of free and open source software you can't but shake > your head at obfuscating people treating their users as enemies. Sorry but this is naive nonsense. Open source is a good model but it can't be applied everywhere. Look at the following example: There is

Re: Python obfuscation

only work well if" when in context of replacing obfuscation techniques. From 1+1 == 3 I can derive anything. I know its lame, but my time limitation forces me to go back (or up) one level in order to refute you. > > You seem to tackle the problem of python obfuscation by first

Re: Python obfuscation

uot;perturbations" in his system, so the practicing economic actor today needs a mix of science and art (in the original meaning of "art", of course). > You seem to tackle the problem of python obfuscation by first proving > that it isn't feasible and then giving some ki

Re: Python obfuscation

inequality an injustice develops naturally. To me it looks more like it's caused by organized crime, where *official* legal governmental organizations are either crimimal organizations themselves or are cooperating with such organizations. You seem to tackle the problem of python obfuscation

Re: Python obfuscation

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:06:31 -0800, Ben Sizer wrote: > My interest lies in being able to use encrypted data (where 'data' can > also include parts of the code) so that the data can only be read by my > Python program, and specifically by a single instance of that program. > You would be able to ma

Re: Python obfuscation

Ben Sizer wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Decompyle (http://www.crazy-compilers.com/decompyle/ ) claims to be > > > pretty advanced. I don't know if you can download it any more to test > > > this claim though. > > > > No, it doesn't claim to be advanced

Re: Python obfuscation

On 18 Nov 2005 06:56:38 -0800, "Anton Vredegoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >Pardon me, but I'm Anton, not Antoon (well maybe I am but lets keep >this distinction in order to avoid mental hash collisions) D'oh. I'm sorry. Please pardon _me_ ;-/ Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.o

Re: Python obfuscation

Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > What was mostly on my mind (but I didn't mention it) is that for > something to be commercially viable there should be some kind of > pricing strategy (NB in our current economic view of the world) where a > better paying user gets a vip interface

Re: Python obfuscation

Bengt Richter wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:53:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: > > >Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > >> The idea of using a webservice to hide essential secret parts of your > >> application can only work well if one makes some random altera

Re: Python obfuscation

>You have not been working with the right people. They do exist, but they >are rare. Elucidate? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:53:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: >Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> The idea of using a webservice to hide essential secret parts of your >> application can only work well if one makes some random alterations to >> the results of the qu

Re: Python obfuscation

Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Maybe this micropayment thing is already working and active. What is > the cost of a mouseclick and what is the monetarial value of the fact > that someone is clicking on a link? Someone bought virtual property for I believe that all of the curre

Re: Python obfuscation

Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your rights are anything you can do that is not forbidden - the US > constitution is explicitly designed in this way, something that people > often forget. There is no difference between an "explicit" and an > "inferred" right, by design. If you read the t

Re: Python obfuscation

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Eternal Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >My point exactly. A good application of moderate to large size (100K >lines of code) is about as large as a single person can write without >automation, You have not been working with the right people. They do exist,

Re: Python obfuscation

Alex Martelli wrote: > Modern equivalent of serialization (publishing one chapter at a time on > the web, the next chapter to come only if the author receives enough > payment for the previous one) have been attempted, but without much > success so far; however, the holy grail of "micropayments" m

Re: Python obfuscation

On 17 Nov 2005 01:29:23 -0800, Ben Sizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > > Are you claiming therefore that it's more acceptable to you to have to > > > access the data remotely every time you use the software than once per > > > install? > > > > Alex's solution doesn't require sp

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > > Are you claiming therefore that it's more acceptable to you to have to > > access the data remotely every time you use the software than once per > > install? > > Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster > recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire wrote: > Plenty of case law exists behind judgements made to repair loss of > sales opportunites... these are called infringement upon sales > territories.. Is that supposed to impress me? There are plenty of lousy laws on the books being enforced. Oh yeah, that's right, they

Re: Python obfuscation

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster >> recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the > I'm not sure I understand this. I would assume that any software (or, > for that m

Re: Python obfuscation

Standard libraries are usually paid for by the implementor of the language, so this is not an issue. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster > recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the I'm not sure I understand this. I would assume that any software (or, for that matter, data) of any substantial importance, wort

Re: Python obfuscation

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:35 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > > > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure if that is meant to be a rhetorical > >> question or not, but something of the order of 95% of > >> all software written is never

Re: Python obfuscation

Plenty of case law exists behind judgements made to repair loss of sales opportunites... these are called infringement upon sales territories.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

"The Eternal Squire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A fair request. The teaching of legality and ethics of incorporating > other peoples' works into one's own should begin at 6th grade and be > repeated every year until the message is driven home. Right. You want to teach potential programmers th

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: > >Ethics such as sharing, and helping one's neighbour? > > Giving away an illegal copy of software it not helping one's > neighbor, it is making that neighbor an accessory to copyright > infringement, a federal offense punishable n

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The legality of copying, modifying and redistributing works should be > >reformed until it matches a 6th grader's intuitions about sharing. > > A 6th grader also has intuitions regarding the ownership of an idea. > "It was MY idea!!!" "No, it's NOT

Re: Python obfuscation

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:00:16 -0800, The Eternal Squire wrote: >>The legality of copying, modifying and redistributing works should be >>reformed until it matches a 6th grader's intuitions about sharing. > > A 6th grader also has intuitions regarding the ownership of an idea. > "It was MY idea!!!"

Re: Python obfuscation

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:25:50 -0800, The Eternal Squire wrote: > The teaching of legality and ethics of incorporating > other peoples' works into one's own should begin at 6th grade and be > repeated every year until the message is driven home. I think you have that completely backwards. Sixth gr

Re: Python obfuscation

>Utter poppycock. Who is to say that a particular entity holds an >exclusive "sales opportunity" to a particular individual? Are we to >protect the expectations of profit for some, at the expense of sharing >things with each other? Utter horse manure. Anyone can profit from something so long as i

Re: Python obfuscation

>The legality of copying, modifying and redistributing works should be >reformed until it matches a 6th grader's intuitions about sharing. A 6th grader also has intuitions regarding the ownership of an idea. "It was MY idea!!!" "No, it's NOT!!!" "Is TOO!!!" The Eternal Squire -- http://mail.p

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The greatest theft of sales opportunities Utter poppycock. Who is to say that a particular entity holds an exclusive "sales opportunity" to a particular individual? Are we to protect the expectations of profit for some, at the expense of sharing thin

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The teaching of legality and ethics of incorporating other peoples' > works into one's own should begin at 6th grade and be repeated every > year until the message is driven home. I disagree strongly. The legality of copying, modifying and redistrib

Re: Python obfuscation

Change from 3) User support and service is not an increasingly large component of the service provided by a software product, which can only be obtained to 3) User support and service is an increasingly large component of the service provided by a software product, which can only be obtained Oo

Re: Python obfuscation

>I'm asking coz i don't have any real world/industrial basis to better >understand the problem and factors involved when selling software - i'm >just a student A fair request. The teaching of legality and ethics of incorporating other peoples' works into one's own should begin at 6th grade and b

Re: Python obfuscation

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:35 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not sure if that is meant to be a rhetorical >> question or not, but something of the order of 95% of >> all software written is never distributed to others, >> and so copyright or the lack

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: >> "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > In my >> > case, providing a free download of any lost executables or data upon >> > presentation of a legitimate license key should be adequate. >> My special handling for such >> things - a

Re: Python obfuscation

Ben Sizer wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Decompyle (http://www.crazy-compilers.com/decompyle/ ) claims to be > > > pretty advanced. I don't know if you can download it any more to test > > > this claim though. > > > > No, it doesn't claim to be advance

Re: Python obfuscation

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure if that is meant to be a rhetorical > question or not, but something of the order of 95% of > all software written is never distributed to others, > and so copyright or the lack of copyright is not an issue. Can you cite your source(s) f

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In my > > case, providing a free download of any lost executables or data upon > > presentation of a legitimate license key should be adequate. > > My special handling for such > things - and *especially* for entertainment software, wh

Re: Python obfuscation

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > The Eternal Squire a écrit : > >> Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a >> novel? > > > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing programs?-) I'm not sure if that is meant to be a rhetorical question or not, but s

Re: Python obfuscation

Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Mellon wrote: >> I don't know about you, but I own the copyright to almost nothing that >> I have written and been paid for, and further, none of has it's >> copyright exploited to make money for the entity that does own the >> copyright. > But t

Re: Python obfuscation

Chris Mellon wrote: > I don't know about you, but I own the copyright to almost nothing that > I have written and been paid for, and further, none of has it's > copyright exploited to make money for the entity that does own the > copyright. But they wouldn't have paid you if you didn't (implicitl

Re: Python obfuscation

On 11/15/05, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Eternal Squire a écrit : > > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a > > novel? > > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing programs?-) > -- I don't know about you, but I own the cop

Re: Python obfuscation

My point exactly. A good application of moderate to large size (100K lines of code) is about as large as a single person can write without automation, hence it is of an effort comparable in scope and creativity to a novel. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

>In my case, providing a free download of any lost executables or data upon >presentation of a legitimate license key should be adequate. Excellent compromise! The Eternal Squire -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire a écrit : > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a > novel? Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing programs?-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But we can be >> explicit if you want: How do you do that without requiring that your >> software be given special consideration in the distaster recovery and >> preparedness planning? > I should state that I am not at all claiming a "one size fits all" >

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > "Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Decompyle (http://www.crazy-compilers.com/decompyle/ ) claims to be > > pretty advanced. I don't know if you can download it any more to test > > this claim though. > > No, it doesn't claim to be advanced. It claims to be good at what

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >> Depends on the country's laws and the exact agreement. > > Work for hire is part of the Berne convention. > According to recent (2003) Slovak copyright law, ONLY the individual authors own the copyright, and they cann

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It is? Is the Python disassembler so much advanced over the state of >> the art of binary disassemblers, then? Or maybe it's the Python >> decompilers that are so advanced? > Decompyle (http://www.crazy-compilers.com/decompyle/ ) claims to be > pretty adva

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > > I have considered distributing my program as open source but with > > encrypted data. Unfortunately anyone can just read the source to > > determine the decryption method and password. Maybe I could put that > > into an extension module, but that just moves the weak link along

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

I realize that this thread skirts with being OT, but there are serious implications for Pythonistas and Open Source software types. I didn't mean to suggest that T.E. moved to California. I did, however, misspeak (mis-type?) when I said Edison formed a studio in California. His was in NJ, ac

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

David T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Tom Edison moved to California so _he_ could skirt copyright laws of I'm not aware of any move to California for either the better-known Thomas Alva Edison, or his lesser-known and less successful son of the same name. Could you clarify? The movie indu

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > That is *not* generally true, although it is true in certain industries, > such as newspapers. It is true in many industries, including the software industry. My point was that the creator of a work and the copyright holder and not necessarily one and the same. Often,

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Depends on the country's laws and the exact agreement. Work for hire is part of the Berne convention. -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis Life is painting a picture, n

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:16:43 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote: > David T wrote: > >> Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of >> works. > > When someone pays you to create a work, then they own the copyright, not > you. It's called work for hire. That is *not* general

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

Erik Max Francis a écrit : > David T wrote: > >> Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of >> works. > > > When someone pays you to create a work, then they own the copyright, Depends on the country's laws and the exact agreement. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/l

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python obfuscation]

Mike Meyer wrote: > Further, recent evidence is that this is no longer true in that > country, assuming it ever was. Oh, please. Take the political crap elsewhere. -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfranci

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

David T wrote: > Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of > works. When someone pays you to create a work, then they own the copyright, not you. It's called work for hire. -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA &&

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python obfuscation]

>As far as I know, only one country ever claimed to have that, so your >"we" only applies to citizens of that country, and not to everyone who >may be reading the letter - and the status of the person you quoted >but did not attribute is unclear. It applies to not only the US, which explicitly has

Re:Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]

> > Thomas Edison (I think it was him) once said it took 999 failures to > make 1 success. That makes SourceForge 10 times more successful. > > > >> The world is filled with >> millions of wanna-be poets, writers and creators whose sum total >> contribution to the artistic wealth of the world is n

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python obfuscation]

"The Eternal Squire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Copyright is a gift granted by the government, not the natural state of >>the world. When kings and emperors and presidents give commercial and >>economic gifts, like monopolies, they rarely are for the benefit of the >>majority. > Last I knew, we

Re: Copyright [was Re: Python obfuscation]

>Perhaps there is no way to make a living from writing novels without >copyright. There is no way to make a living from playing solitaire either >-- should the government pass a law giving a legal monopoly on playing red >queen on a black king to my granny, so that everyone playing that move >has t

Re: Python obfuscation

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a competitive marketplace, why would I choose to buy DRMed software if > there is a non-DRMed equivalent with the same functionality and equivalent > cost? The only explanation I can think of is, their marketing must be AWEsome!-) Alex -- http://

[OT] Copyright [was Re: Python obfuscation]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:22:45 -0800, The Eternal Squire wrote: > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a > novel? I don't know. How did William Shakespeare make a living from writing plays and sonnets and poems? How did Sir Walter Scott make a living from writing novels

Re: Python obfuscation

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > And if instead you lose one customer because you've denied them their > fair use rights, then your copy protection has lost you more in the > form of a cost that you overlooked than all the costs you actually > considered. In a competitive m

Re: Python obfuscation

Paul Rubin writes: > "The Eternal Squire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a >> novel? > This guy seems to be doing ok: http://craphound.com > His publishers are the only ones allowed to sell his novels comm

Re: Python obfuscation

Paul Rubin wrote: > "The Eternal Squire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a > > novel? > > This guy seems to be doing ok: http://craphound.com > His publishers are the only ones allowed to sell his novels

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hadn't seen any damage done from misusing "it's". Certainly not on par You should see my pharmacy bill for Maalox... and my liver ain't too happy about it either;-) Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: > > There is no effective manner of protecting your code, except running it > > only on well-secured machines you control yourself. If you distribute > > your code, in ANY form, and it's at all interesting to people with no > > interest

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Indeed, everything has a cost, and I was wrong in saying > "free". However, if convenient language-supported transforms are used, > the direct cost of using obfuscation would be miniscule in comparison > to just about everything else. Implementing it should b

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Code obfuscation is a transformation of the program (whether at > source code level, intermediate object code level, binary executable > level, etc) to hinder (prevention seems impossible) reverse > engineering (attempts to determine the workings of the code,

Re: Python obfuscation

"The Eternal Squire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a > novel? This guy seems to be doing ok: http://craphound.com His publishers are the only ones allowed to sell his novels commercially, but you can download them all and print the

Re: Python obfuscation

Alex Martelli wrote: > There is no effective manner of protecting your code, except running it > only on well-secured machines you control yourself. If you distribute > your code, in ANY form, and it's at all interesting to people with no > interest in respecting the law, then, it WILL be cracked

Re: Python obfuscation

Alex Martelli wrote: > It's interesting, in this context, that Civilization IV is mostly > written in Python (interfaced to some C++ via BoostPython). > > It took me 12 seconds with a search engine to determine that CivIV's > protection uses "SafeDisc 4.60" and 30 more seconds to research that > i

Re: Python obfuscation

Without copyright, how could one possibly earn a living writing a novel? And I submit that many ISD's are only a single person burning with that one software idea of a lifetime, the equivalent of the Great American Novel. Are we to punish that impulse by denying that person a legal monopoly on t

Re: Python obfuscation

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:52 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote: > > >> Obfuscation has it's place. > > > > What I think of this thesis is on a par of what I think of this way of > > spelling the possessive adjective "its" (and equally unprintable in > > poli

Re: Python obfuscation

My, we're about to get *seriously* off topic. Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:43 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >>> I'd just like to make it non-trivial to make or use additional copies. >> How do you do that without infringing my fair use rights? > And that is th

Re: Python obfuscation

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:41:52 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote: >> Obfuscation has it's place. > > What I think of this thesis is on a par of what I think of this way of > spelling the possessive adjective "its" (and equally unprintable in > polite company). Aside: given that "it's" is "it is", how wou

Re: Python obfuscation

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:11:32 -0800, petantik wrote: > the argument that most people buy software rather than get a pirated > version depends on the country that they are in e.g. china's piracy > problem where shops sell pirated software with no retribution by the > state - remember china is abou

Re: Python obfuscation

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:43 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >> I'd just like to make it non-trivial to make or use additional copies. > > How do you do that without infringing my fair use rights? And that is the million dollar question. So-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monop

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: >> There are ways to distribute >> Python modules so that the user can't just open them in a text >> editor. There are also ways to get cryptographic security for >> distributed modules. > As for cryptographic security, could you provide a

Re: Python obfuscation

Ben Sizer wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > There are ways to distribute > > Python modules so that the user can't just open them in a text > > editor. There are also ways to get cryptographic security for > > distributed modules. > > I know distributing as bytecode helps, but I was under the impressi

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A recent, heavily >> publicized case where Sony added copy protection to a product cost >> them sales, and from what I've heard, even legal fees. > I think that's a poor example - the cost hasn't come from the mere act > of adding protection, but the metho

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > There are ways to distribute > Python modules so that the user can't just open them in a text > editor. There are also ways to get cryptographic security for > distributed modules. I know distributing as bytecode helps, but I was under the impression that the disassembers worke

Re: Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer wrote: > Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ben's analogy of the house is not a perfect example, but it's still a > > fair one. You know that if some one really wants to break into your > > house, he will get in, regardless of your sophisticated laser trip > > wire system, ex-SAS

Re: Python obfuscation

petantik wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: >>I think that's feeble protection. If you have valuable code, and >>distribute it, people WILL crack it -- just check the warez sites for >>experimental proof... EVERYTHING that people are really interested in >>DOES get cracked, no matter what tricky machin

Re: Python obfuscation

The Eternal Squire wrote: > Two things: ... > 2) Only sell to an honest customer willing to be locked into > nondisclosure agreements. This goes back to the maxim of good > salesmanship: Know Your Customer. If you have this, you don't need the obfuscation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > My brother is bugged by Civilization IV's copy protection. A couple of > days ago, after consulting me on what other options he could try, he > finally said in frustration, "Maybe I should go buy the game." It's interesting, in this context, that Civi

Re: Python obfuscation

petantik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > I think that is not workable because it is easy to say the the internet > is available everywhere. This implies that, if it were difficult to say it, then the scheme WOULD be workable... which I doubt is what you mean, of course;-) > It is not availab

Re: Python obfuscation

Yu-Xi Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Mill wrote: >> Your only solution, then, is to write unpopular code. Because, as Alex >> said, it will otherwise be broken into. Let's look at two very popular >> pieces of code: Half-Life 2 and Windows XP. How are they secured? >> Previous version of th

Re: Python obfuscation

Bill Mill wrote: > Your only solution, then, is to write unpopular code. Because, as Alex > said, it will otherwise be broken into. Let's look at two very popular > pieces of code: Half-Life 2 and Windows XP. How are they secured? > Previous version of these software products used sophisticated > c

Re: Python obfuscation

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 16:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Dude, a comprehension protection for *any* software can never be built > because of the fundamental nature of computers. Trying to stop bytes from > being copyable is like trying to stop water from being wet, and once > copied, all copies are id

Re: Python obfuscation

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, I'd like to write a game in Python. I'd like to give the > game away free and charge for extra content. In C++ I can make it > difficult for users to share content with others who haven't paid for > it, with cryptographic hashes and the like. N

Re: Python obfuscation

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:23:07 -0800, petantik wrote: > Perhaps a comprehensive protection for interpreted languages can never > be built because of their high level nature? Dude, a comprehension protection for *any* software can never be built because of the fundamental nature of computers. Trying

Re: Python obfuscation

> Reliability is >important but so is protecting your code in an effective manner > > there is no way to prevent people disassembling your code compiled or otherwise. once you give then the program they can easily take it apart. no if's, no but's; do NOT rely on binary's for security. > >the

Re: Python obfuscation

"petantik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps a comprehensive protection for interpreted languages can never > be built because of their high level nature? Nah. Compiling/interpreting is an implementation detail, and orthogonal to the issue of "high level". There are compilers for high level la

Re: Python obfuscation

On 10 Nov 2005 08:40:17 -0800, Ben Sizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Martelli wrote: > > > This is (a minor) one of the many reasons that make webservices the way > > of the future (hey, even *MSFT* noticed that recently, it seems...). > > But they are not suitable for all applications, and p

  1   2   >