Distributing closed source modules

[Fuzzyman]

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