Windows installer from python source code without access to source code

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 at 10:34, Jim Schwartz <jschwar at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Yea. You’re right. I probably need a lawyer someday. Thanks.
>

If your needs are basic, you shouldn't need a lawyer. Copyright law
and treaties DO protect you. But it's important to be aware that no
amount of legal protection - whether you hire a lawyer or not, and
whether you identify copyright and license or not - will stop people
from copying your code. NOTHING will stop people from copying your
code if they have access to it. All you can do is discourage them.

So that brings us back to the original question: Why protect your
*source code* specifically? There are two extremes available to
everyone:

1) Distribute the source code. Let everyone see it. Stick a license on
it that permits them to use it, modify it, distribute modified
versions. Set your code free and let it be used.

2) Don't distribute the program *at all*. Don't distribute the source
OR the binary. Instead, permit people to *access* the program - which,
in today's world, usually means a web service.

Both of these are very popular and work well. I don't have access to
the Gmail source code but I'm using the service. I don't have access
to the Twitch.tv source code but I'm using the service. Meanwhile, I
have Python programs running on a Debian system using the Linux
kernel, invoked using bash, served from an ext4 mass storage device,
etc, etc. I have the binary code for all of these, and I'm legally
guaranteed access to the source if I want it, so there's no incentive
to steal it.

The middle ground of "distribute binaries but stop people from
accessing the source" is a much narrower use-case, and I would say
that it's not actually a single use-case but a family of them, each
with different needs and requirements. So it's essential to know what
you're actually trying to protect, and why.

ChrisA