From: "Tim Harig" <user...@ilthio.net>
On 2011-01-18, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
On 1/18/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
Whether or not you actually agree with that economic reality is
irrelevant. Those who fund commerical projects do; and, any
developement
tool which violates the security of the source is going to find itself
climbing an uphill battle in trying to gain market penetration with
commericial software producers.
Of course. When I submit or commit patches, I am doing it mostly for
hobby, educational, and scientific users, and maybe website makers (who
make site I can visit). If commercial users piggyback on top, ok. I do
not know how many developers, if any, are after such market penetration.
You kind of over-extended the intentions of my comment. It does not apply
to open source software in general. I agree that open source authors are
not interested in the quantitative value of market penetration. However,
I
am betting that most authors of developement tools would like to be able
to
use their tools on the job.
I am sure that more software developers would love to develop using
Python as part of their job. For some this is a reality; but, many more
are stuck using their employer's choice of language. One of the factors
that employers consider, when they choose a language, if they produce
retail software is that the process of compiling will sufficiently
obfiscate their code.
--
True. But aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
Can they be easily decompiled?
Octavian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
