Python obfuscation

[Mike Meyer]

aleax at mail.comcast.net (Alex Martelli) writes:
> Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> 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, worthy of being
> deployed on a server, does include disaster planning (and recovery
> plans, in particular) as a routine part of server-side deployment
> (regular backups with copies off-site, etc etc).

To recap, I asked the question "how do provide software that is
protected but doesn't require special treatment in disaster recovery
and preparedness planning?"  I didn't raise the issue of server
deployment in light of this, but had earlier pointed it out as a good
solution to the general issue of copy protection. This resulted in my
beinng asked if I prefered your solution to an alternative that
involved local storage.

Anything on your server doesn't require any special treatment in my
planning. I might want to check what you promise to provide and how
well you live up to those promises as part of evaluating your service,
but that's a different issue. So "Put the software on a server and let
them run it there" is a valid answer to my question.

> So, I may perhaps be misunderstanding what you're saying about "my
> solution"...?

I hope I clarified what I meant.

  <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.