Python Portability--Not very portable?

[Peter Otten]

W. eWatson wrote:

> I can't respond to otten directly, since he uses gmane. Here's my
> response.
> 
> W. eWatson wrote:
> 
>  >>> >>> I would think there are some small time and big time Python
> players who
>  >>> >>> sell executable versions of their programs for profit?
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Yes. What's your point?
>  > > That someone must know how to distribute them without having the
>  > > source code ripped off.
> Ott wrote?
> Yes, but he won't tell for fear of getting ripped off of his knowledge.
> 
> 
> Who won't tell? 

The the guy who knows how to distribute the source code without having it 
ripped off... 

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