Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On 4 June 2010 13:47, Iain Carlin wrote: > Which is where escrow agreements come in in the software world. > > In my previous job as a contractor, we had an escrow agreement with our > customers. Source code was held in escrow by a third party. If we went out > of business they handed over the source. Damn, should have read ahead. > > That protected both the customer and the supplier. > > On 4 June 2010 13:04, Michael Minutillo wrote: >> >> If I buy a car that was built by a couple of guys at the local garage I'd >> like to know I could take it to a different mechanic when they go out of >> business or raise their prices. >> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Anthony wrote: >>> >>> Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you >>> the blueprints... >>> >>> Client always gets what they pay for..which is usually a function piece >>> of >>> software(code not always included) that helps them run their business... >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >>> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >>> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi >>> Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM >>> To: ozDotNet >>> Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >>> >>> Hi Anthony, >>> >>> Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal >>> practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume >>> that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid >>> for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Arjang >>> >>> >>> On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: >>> > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give >>> > it >>> > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >>> > [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >>> > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo >>> > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM >>> > To: ozDotNet >>> > >>> > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source >>> code. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >>> >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >>> compiled >>> >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, >>> pretty >>> >> much everything was obfuscated. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I >>> > would >>> > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As >>> > there >>> > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds >>> more >>> > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a >>> > single client. For the client: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if >>> > things >>> go >>> > wrong they get fixed >>> > >>> > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can >>> > fix >>> > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. >>> > >>> > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in >>> > trouble. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you >>> > have >>> > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. >>> > If >>> > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or >>> something >>> > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only >>> > you >>> > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler >>> > wrote: >
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On 4 June 2010 13:25, Anthony wrote: > Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you > the blueprints... If you asked a car manufacturer to design a car to your specifications, they might. Consider racing teams being a better car analogy to software in this case (are we now /. to be using car analogies?) rather than going and buying a Falcon. > > Client always gets what they pay for..which is usually a function piece of > software(code not always included) that helps them run their business... Then there's the putting codebase into an escrow system, where the customer only gets the code in the event of bankruptcy, etc. > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Hi Anthony, > > Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal > practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume > that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid > for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. > > Kind Regards > > Arjang > > > On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: >> I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it >> out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway >> >> >> >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >> On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo >> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM >> To: ozDotNet >> >> Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> >> >> >> Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source > code. >> >> >> >>> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >>> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what > compiled >>> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, > pretty >>> much everything was obfuscated. >> >> >> >> In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would >> expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there >> is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds > more >> likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a >> single client. For the client: >> >> >> >> If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things > go >> wrong they get fixed >> >> If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix >> issues or pass them on to someone to fix. >> >> If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in >> trouble. >> >> >> >> If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have >> an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If >> you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or > something >> (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you >> (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. >> >> >> >> As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler >> wrote: >> >>> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't >>> it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something > I'm >>> not sure it's a great idea. >> >> >> >> That's a pretty weird point of view. >> >> >> >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, > pretty >> much everything was obfuscated. >> >> >> >> Dylan. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > - >> >> To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local > council >> office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, >> visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au >> >> This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named >> recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, >> distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited > without >> the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately >> if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. >> Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the > sender >> and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. >> maile 3_1_0 >> >> >> -- >> Michael M. Minutillo >> Indiscriminate Information Sponge >> Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com > > > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On 4 June 2010 12:53, Arjang Assadi wrote: > What is SCO? I *think* that's a whimsical question, sort of a '"where are they now" kind of thing. Now I've pre-empted any possible 'swoosh responses' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM > > On 4 June 2010 12:52, mike smith wrote: >> And if you're SCO >> >> Step 3 - don't profit >> Step 4 - go broke >> >> -- >> Meski > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Which is where escrow agreements come in in the software world. In my previous job as a contractor, we had an escrow agreement with our customers. Source code was held in escrow by a third party. If we went out of business they handed over the source. That protected both the customer and the supplier. On 4 June 2010 13:04, Michael Minutillo wrote: > If I buy a car that was built by a couple of guys at the local garage I'd > like to know I could take it to a different mechanic when they go out of > business or raise their prices. > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you >> the blueprints... >> >> Client always gets what they pay for..which is usually a function piece of >> software(code not always included) that helps them run their business... >> >> -Original Message- >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >> ] >> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi >> Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM >> To: ozDotNet >> Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> >> Hi Anthony, >> >> Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal >> practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume >> that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid >> for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Arjang >> >> >> On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: >> > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give >> it >> > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway >> > >> > >> > >> > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: >> ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >> > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo >> > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM >> > To: ozDotNet >> > >> > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> > >> > >> > >> > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source >> code. >> > >> > >> > >> >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >> compiled >> >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, >> pretty >> >> much everything was obfuscated. >> > >> > >> > >> > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would >> > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As >> there >> > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds >> more >> > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a >> > single client. For the client: >> > >> > >> > >> > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things >> go >> > wrong they get fixed >> > >> > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can >> fix >> > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. >> > >> > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in >> > trouble. >> > >> > >> > >> > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you >> have >> > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. >> If >> > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or >> something >> > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only >> you >> > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. >> > >> > >> > >> > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler >> > wrote: >> > >> >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept >> isn't >> >> it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something >> I'm >> >> not sure it's a great idea. >> > >> > >> > >> > That's a pretty weird point of view. >> > >> > >> > >> > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >> compiled >> > code
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
If I buy a car that was built by a couple of guys at the local garage I'd like to know I could take it to a different mechanic when they go out of business or raise their prices. On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Anthony wrote: > Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you > the blueprints... > > Client always gets what they pay for..which is usually a function piece of > software(code not always included) that helps them run their business... > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Hi Anthony, > > Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal > practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume > that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid > for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. > > Kind Regards > > Arjang > > > On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it > > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > > To: ozDotNet > > > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source > code. > > > > > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what > compiled > >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, > pretty > >> much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As > there > > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds > more > > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > > single client. For the client: > > > > > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things > go > > wrong they get fixed > > > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > > trouble. > > > > > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have > > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If > > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or > something > > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you > > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > > wrote: > > > >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't > >> it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something > I'm > >> not sure it's a great idea. > > > > > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what > compiled > > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, > pretty > > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local > council > > office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you > prefer, > > visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited > without > > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender > immediately > > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your > system. > > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the > sender > > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > > maile 3_1_0 > > > > > > -- > > Michael M. Minutillo > > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com > > > -- Michael M. Minutillo Indiscriminate Information Sponge Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Anthony wrote: > Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you > the blueprints... > > That is true for software too - sometimes. A car is one of thousands of identical vehicles on sale. Each purchaser owns the car but not the blueprint. This is equivalent to creating a software app and selling it out of a box to all comers. BUT, sometimes software is like building a house - it is designed just how the client wants it and is individual. When I buy a house, I certainly expect the architect to supply all relevant plans. So, are you building an application to sell in a box, or are you making something specifically for one client?
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Well i treat software like a car. When you buy a car they don't give you the blueprints... Client always gets what they pay for..which is usually a function piece of software(code not always included) that helps them run their business... -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Hi Anthony, Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. Kind Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesnt ask for the code then i dont give it > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty >> much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go > wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > wrote: > >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't >> it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm >> not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > - > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council > office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, > visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
RE: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Well, I specifically didn't mention Contractors, as this is generally a "work for hire" situation, but it can be a grey area. It seems one of the delineating issues (apart from whatever may be written into your contract) is whether you use your client's tools and equipment, or whether you work on your own. I've contracted in both ways. It usually pays to be explicit about it. In my (admittedly not very vast) experience, small companies usually don't even consider these issues themselves unless you bring it up. Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Simon Haigh Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 9:34 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! I always thought that being a contractor is similar to being an employee and therefore the codebase would belong to the person/company who employed you (unless otherwise specified). Would that be correct? If not, I'm potentially sitting on a goldmine. :-) -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Tusler Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 09:21 AM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Disclaimer: IANAL Employee - Any code you write is the property of your employer. Consultant - Any code you write is your property unless you explicitly assign ownership to your client. Company - Any software you sell, the codebase remains your property, not the property of your customer, unless there is a specific license agreement indicating otherwise. For what its worth, when I was consulting, I used to assign code to my customer explicitly, so that they could freely engage other developers to work on it at a later date. If you are working on T&M or are working fixed price, I don't think it matters. What matters is the arrangement that you have made between yourself and your customer/client/employer. Here's an article on the US perspective. It mentions the concept of a "work for hire" agreement, which is where you cross the line between employee and consultant: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5034783.html Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Hi Anthony, Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. Kind Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give > it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >> compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly >> language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I > would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire > solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets > used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom > software that is developed for a single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if > things go wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can > fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be > in trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes > wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an > invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece > of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) > can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > wrote: > &g
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
What is SCO? On 4 June 2010 12:52, mike smith wrote: > And if you're SCO > > Step 3 - don't profit > Step 4 - go broke > > -- > Meski
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
genius! :) On 4 June 2010 11:19, Jason Finch wrote: > Different approach, > > Don't obfuscate your code, give them the entire source code. > Then attach a restrictive usage license. > > Then hope that they ignore the license and intergrate your code into their > critical systems. > Then audit their site a few years on, determine if your license has been > breached and have some interesting discussions over litigation or > retrospective licensing fees. > > Isn't that how the big boys do it these days? > >
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On 4 June 2010 11:19, Jason Finch wrote: > Different approach, > > Don't obfuscate your code, give them the entire source code. > Then attach a restrictive usage license. > > Then hope that they ignore the license and intergrate your code into their > critical systems. > Then audit their site a few years on, determine if your license has been > breached and have some interesting discussions over litigation or > retrospective licensing fees. > > Isn't that how the big boys do it these days? > > And if you're SCO Step 3 - don't profit Step 4 - go broke -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Different approach, Don't obfuscate your code, give them the entire source code. Then attach a restrictive usage license. Then hope that they ignore the license and intergrate your code into their critical systems. Then audit their site a few years on, determine if your license has been breached and have some interesting discussions over litigation or retrospective licensing fees. Isn't that how the big boys do it these days?
RE: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
> What do I own and what don't I own? I don't have an answer for you there. I remember at one point I was so "fluent" in purchasing systems, I could bang one out in an afternoon (well, the core of it anyway.) Each system was produced individually, on-site, with clients, using a pattern that I had basically memorised. If you were to run a code comparison tool on the different systems, they would be over 60% identical, probably enough to warrant suspicion that they were plagiarised. I had different agreements with each customer, but for the most part, they were keeping the code for themselves. So each had their own unique, but eerily similar, purchasing system. I have no idea how the ownership issues might have worked out if that one had ever got into a courtroom. Dylan. - To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. maile 3_1_0
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
> > Also now that Red Gate have acquired both Reflector and Smart Assembly > they’re in a unique position in the obfuscation market. > It's fair to say they have both ends of the market covered. Craig.
Re: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Yes, it's around the $200 per hour. I guess it's all relative. I know that, given the source code, I could make the changes just as quickly as the contractor. My hourly rate is nothing like the $ he charges, and we wouldn't have to wait for his availablility to make the changes. So in terms of turn-around and cost we would be better off. On 4 June 2010 10:05, Liam McLennan wrote: > Hi Iain, > > Curious what you are classing as exorbitant. Are we talking > $200? > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Iain Carlin wrote: > >> On 4 June 2010 09:18, Arjang Assadi wrote: >> >>> Thank you Dylan, >>> >>> Simon, I don't understand the code for the work done for a specific >>> customer(s), can be a gold mine. I am not sure what owning the code >>> means, anyone and everyone (competent programmer) can reproduce the >>> same effect with some variation. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Arjang >>> >>> >> Because if the system is complex enough the customer is locked in to you >> for support and enhancements. >> >> We have a system where I work that was developed by a contractor and >> enhanced over the years by the same contractor (who was assigned the IP >> rights by my employer - bad mistake on their part). >> >> To 'reproduce' the code would take months of work at great cost for us. It >> is cheaper just to pay him for minor enhancements, even though his hourly >> rate is exorbitant. >> >> For him it's a gold mine. >> > > > > -- > Liam McLennan. > > l...@eclipsewebsolutions.com.au > http://www.eclipsewebsolutions.com.au >
Re: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Hi Iain, Curious what you are classing as exorbitant. Are we talking > $200? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Iain Carlin wrote: > On 4 June 2010 09:18, Arjang Assadi wrote: > >> Thank you Dylan, >> >> Simon, I don't understand the code for the work done for a specific >> customer(s), can be a gold mine. I am not sure what owning the code >> means, anyone and everyone (competent programmer) can reproduce the >> same effect with some variation. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Arjang >> >> > Because if the system is complex enough the customer is locked in to you > for support and enhancements. > > We have a system where I work that was developed by a contractor and > enhanced over the years by the same contractor (who was assigned the IP > rights by my employer - bad mistake on their part). > > To 'reproduce' the code would take months of work at great cost for us. It > is cheaper just to pay him for minor enhancements, even though his hourly > rate is exorbitant. > > For him it's a gold mine. > -- Liam McLennan. l...@eclipsewebsolutions.com.au http://www.eclipsewebsolutions.com.au
Re: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
On 4 June 2010 09:18, Arjang Assadi wrote: > Thank you Dylan, > > Simon, I don't understand the code for the work done for a specific > customer(s), can be a gold mine. I am not sure what owning the code > means, anyone and everyone (competent programmer) can reproduce the > same effect with some variation. > > Kind Regards > > Arjang > > Because if the system is complex enough the customer is locked in to you for support and enhancements. We have a system where I work that was developed by a contractor and enhanced over the years by the same contractor (who was assigned the IP rights by my employer - bad mistake on their part). To 'reproduce' the code would take months of work at great cost for us. It is cheaper just to pay him for minor enhancements, even though his hourly rate is exorbitant. For him it's a gold mine.
RE: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
I suppose this is where we get into the discussion about the differences between Code base and Intellectual Property. I suspect that while the code is mine, the IP that is contained in it probably still belongs to the client. Not that the issue would ever arise because I've always believed that as I was a contractor, both belong to the client anyway. Just wanted to clarify the position of a "contractor" after Dylans email. Although I think I have an interesting example where I wrote a program as a contractor and (as far as I'm concerned) have no rights to either the code or the IP. I subsequently (5 years later) wrote a second program under a different agreement (joint collaboration between myself and the IP owner) which uses similar IP which I do have joint-rights to. What do I own and what don't I own? Simon -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 09:48 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Thank you Dylan, Simon, I don't understand the code for the work done for a specific customer(s), can be a gold mine. I am not sure what owning the code means, anyone and everyone (competent programmer) can reproduce the same effect with some variation. Kind Regards Arjang On 4 June 2010 09:34, Simon Haigh wrote: > I always thought that being a contractor is similar to being an employee and > therefore the codebase would belong to the person/company who employed you > (unless otherwise specified). Would that be correct? > > If not, I'm potentially sitting on a goldmine. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On > Behalf Of Dylan Tusler > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 09:21 AM > To: 'ozDotNet' > Subject: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Disclaimer: IANAL > > Employee - Any code you write is the property of your employer. > > Consultant - Any code you write is your property unless you explicitly assign > ownership to your client. > > Company - Any software you sell, the codebase remains your property, not the > property of your customer, unless there is a specific license agreement > indicating otherwise. > > For what its worth, when I was consulting, I used to assign code to my > customer explicitly, so that they could freely engage other developers to > work on it at a later date. > > If you are working on T&M or are working fixed price, I don't think it > matters. What matters is the arrangement that you have made between yourself > and your customer/client/employer. > > Here's an article on the US perspective. It mentions the concept of a "work > for hire" agreement, which is where you cross the line between employee and > consultant: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5034783.html > > Dylan. > > > > -Original Message----- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On > Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Hi Anthony, > > Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What > is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they > would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, > it belongs to them. > > Kind Regards > > Arjang > > > On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: >> I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give >> it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway >> >> >> >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >> On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo >> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM >> To: ozDotNet >> >> Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> >> >> >> Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. >> >> >> >>> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >>> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >>> compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly >>> language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. >> >> >> >> In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I >> would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire >> solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets >> used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being u
Re: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Thank you Dylan, Simon, I don't understand the code for the work done for a specific customer(s), can be a gold mine. I am not sure what owning the code means, anyone and everyone (competent programmer) can reproduce the same effect with some variation. Kind Regards Arjang On 4 June 2010 09:34, Simon Haigh wrote: > I always thought that being a contractor is similar to being an employee and > therefore the codebase would belong to the person/company who employed you > (unless otherwise specified). Would that be correct? > > If not, I'm potentially sitting on a goldmine. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On > Behalf Of Dylan Tusler > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 09:21 AM > To: 'ozDotNet' > Subject: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Disclaimer: IANAL > > Employee - Any code you write is the property of your employer. > > Consultant - Any code you write is your property unless you explicitly assign > ownership to your client. > > Company - Any software you sell, the codebase remains your property, not the > property of your customer, unless there is a specific license agreement > indicating otherwise. > > For what its worth, when I was consulting, I used to assign code to my > customer explicitly, so that they could freely engage other developers to > work on it at a later date. > > If you are working on T&M or are working fixed price, I don't think it > matters. What matters is the arrangement that you have made between yourself > and your customer/client/employer. > > Here's an article on the US perspective. It mentions the concept of a "work > for hire" agreement, which is where you cross the line between employee and > consultant: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5034783.html > > Dylan. > > > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On > Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Hi Anthony, > > Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What > is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they > would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, > it belongs to them. > > Kind Regards > > Arjang > > > On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: >> I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give >> it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway >> >> >> >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com >> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >> On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo >> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM >> To: ozDotNet >> >> Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> >> >> >> Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. >> >> >> >>> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >>> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >>> compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly >>> language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. >> >> >> >> In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I >> would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire >> solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets >> used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom >> software that is developed for a single client. For the client: >> >> >> >> If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if >> things go wrong they get fixed >> >> If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can >> fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. >> >> If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be >> in trouble. >> >> >> >> If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you >> have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes >> wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an >> invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece >> of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) >> can maintain. >> >> >> >> As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. &g
RE: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
I always thought that being a contractor is similar to being an employee and therefore the codebase would belong to the person/company who employed you (unless otherwise specified). Would that be correct? If not, I'm potentially sitting on a goldmine. :-) -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Tusler Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 09:21 AM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Disclaimer: IANAL Employee - Any code you write is the property of your employer. Consultant - Any code you write is your property unless you explicitly assign ownership to your client. Company - Any software you sell, the codebase remains your property, not the property of your customer, unless there is a specific license agreement indicating otherwise. For what its worth, when I was consulting, I used to assign code to my customer explicitly, so that they could freely engage other developers to work on it at a later date. If you are working on T&M or are working fixed price, I don't think it matters. What matters is the arrangement that you have made between yourself and your customer/client/employer. Here's an article on the US perspective. It mentions the concept of a "work for hire" agreement, which is where you cross the line between employee and consultant: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5034783.html Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Hi Anthony, Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. Kind Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give > it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >> compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly >> language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I > would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire > solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets > used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom > software that is developed for a single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if > things go wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can > fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be > in trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes > wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an > invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece > of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) > can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > wrote: > >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept >> isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or >> something I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what > compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly > language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > -- > --- > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council,
Code Ownership WAS: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Disclaimer: IANAL Employee - Any code you write is the property of your employer. Consultant - Any code you write is your property unless you explicitly assign ownership to your client. Company - Any software you sell, the codebase remains your property, not the property of your customer, unless there is a specific license agreement indicating otherwise. For what its worth, when I was consulting, I used to assign code to my customer explicitly, so that they could freely engage other developers to work on it at a later date. If you are working on T&M or are working fixed price, I don't think it matters. What matters is the arrangement that you have made between yourself and your customer/client/employer. Here's an article on the US perspective. It mentions the concept of a "work for hire" agreement, which is where you cross the line between employee and consultant: http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5034783.html Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:38 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Hi Anthony, Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. Kind Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give > it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what >> compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly >> language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I > would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire > solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets > used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom > software that is developed for a single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if > things go wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can > fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be > in trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes > wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an > invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece > of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) > can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > wrote: > >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept >> isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or >> something I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what > compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly > language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > -- > --- > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local > council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if > you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited > without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender > immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from > your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the > sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
We use Smart Assembly and it seems to work pretty well, haven't run into any problems so far. Also now that Red Gate have acquired both Reflector and Smart Assembly they're in a unique position in the obfuscation market. Paul. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Cooney Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 8:11 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Eazfuscator is OKaccording to the reverse-engineering forums pretty much all the .NET obfuscators can be broken, but they seemed to rate SmartAssembly (not free) the highest. Joseph On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:53 AM, .net noobie wrote: http://www.babelfor.net <http://www.babelfor.net/> Protect software components realized with Microsoft .NET Framework in order to protect intellectual property and makes reverse engineering difficult. Supports .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010 I have never used it, just saved the link for a rainy day :) from this blog post http://www.andybeaulieu.com/Home/tabid/67/EntryID/198/Default.aspx Obfuscating Silverlight (for free) On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > > I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler wrote: > > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > - > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com -- Joseph Cooney http://jcooney.net
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Hi Anthony, Please forgive my ignorance but my question is what is normal practice? What is meant by work? When quoting hourly rate, I assume that at the end they would get everything and since I have been paid for the time to produce it, it belongs to them. Kind Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > >> After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time >> immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled >> code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty >> much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go > wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler > wrote: > >> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't >> it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm >> not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > - > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council > office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, > visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Interesting position. Your situation is obviously different to ours, but when we write code for clients we always hand over the source code either at the end of the job, or upon request. This is understood from the start. I can't imagine doing it any other way. On 3 June 2010 20:11, Anthony wrote: > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Minutillo > *Sent:* Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > > *Subject:* Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source > code. > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go > wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have > an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If > you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something > (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you > (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler < > dylan.tus...@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't > it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm > not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > > - > > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council > office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, > visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com >
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Eazfuscator is OKaccording to the reverse-engineering forums pretty much all the .NET obfuscators can be broken, but they seemed to rate SmartAssembly (not free) the highest. Joseph On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:53 AM, .net noobie wrote: > http://www.babelfor.net > > *Protect software components realized with Microsoft .NET Framework in > order to protect intellectual property and makes reverse engineering > difficult.* > * * > *Supports .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010* > > > I have never used it, just saved the link for a rainy day :) > > > from this blog post > > http://www.andybeaulieu.com/Home/tabid/67/EntryID/198/Default.aspx > Obfuscating Silverlight (for free) > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it > out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > > To: ozDotNet > > > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source > code. > > > > > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would > expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there > is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more > likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a > single client. For the client: > > > > > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things > go wrong they get fixed > > > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix > issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in > trouble. > > > > > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you > have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. > If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or > something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that > only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler < > dylan.tus...@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > > > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept > isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something > I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > > > > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local > council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you > prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > > maile 3_1_0 > > > > > > -- > > Michael M. Minutillo > > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com > > -- Joseph Cooney http://jcooney.net
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
http://www.babelfor.net *Protect software components realized with Microsoft .NET Framework in order to protect intellectual property and makes reverse engineering difficult.* * * *Supports .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010* I have never used it, just saved the link for a rainy day :) from this blog post http://www.andybeaulieu.com/Home/tabid/67/EntryID/198/Default.aspx Obfuscating Silverlight (for free) On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > > I assume that if the client doesn’t ask for the code then i don’t give it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway > > > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a single client. For the client: > > > > If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go wrong they get fixed > > If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. > > If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in trouble. > > > > If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. > > > > As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler < dylan.tus...@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. > > > > Dylan. > > > > > > - > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > > -- > Michael M. Minutillo > Indiscriminate Information Sponge > Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
I assume that if the client doesn't ask for the code then i don't give it out. I would increase my fee if they want the code anyway From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Michael Minutillo Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:07 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a single client. For the client: If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go wrong they get fixed If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in trouble. If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler wrote: > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm not sure it's a great idea. That's a pretty weird point of view. After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. Dylan. - To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at <http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/> www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. maile 3_1_0 -- Michael M. Minutillo Indiscriminate Information Sponge Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Well most clients I have dealt with in the past end up with the source code. > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. In the form of a product that is true. But if that were the case I would expect the OP would have wanted to obfuscate the entire solution. As there is a single binary to be obfuscated (and it gets used a lot) it sounds more likely that it is being used in custom software that is developed for a single client. For the client: If they purchase a library then they get a support contract so if things go wrong they get fixed If they use an open source library then they get the code so they can fix issues or pass them on to someone to fix. If the developer hands them a library which is neither they could be in trouble. If you are selling a product with support then this is OK because you have an agreement with the client that you'll fix anything that goes wrong. If you were to have a falling out with the client over an invoice or something (it happens) then they effectively have a piece of software that only you (someone they no longer wish to do business with) can maintain. As a client I would consider that an unacceptable risk. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Dylan Tusler < dylan.tus...@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au> wrote: > > That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept > isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something > I'm not sure it's a great idea. > > That's a pretty weird point of view. > > After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time > immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled > code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty > much everything was obfuscated. > > Dylan. > > > > > - > > To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council > office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, > visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au > > This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named > recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, > distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without > the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately > if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. > Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender > and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. > maile 3_1_0 > > -- Michael M. Minutillo Indiscriminate Information Sponge Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
> That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't it? > Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm not > sure it's a great idea. That's a pretty weird point of view. After all, "clients" have been accepting obfuscated code since time immemorial already! (Well, at least since the 1980s.) That's what compiled code is! Unless you wanted to reverse engineer to assembly language, pretty much everything was obfuscated. Dylan. - To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. maile 3_1_0
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
That is potentially a pretty dangerous risk for a client to accept isn't it? Unless it contains some kind of proprietary algorithm or something I'm not sure it's a great idea. Also, doesn't VS come with a free version of dotfuscator community edition? On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Anthony wrote: > I have a project which i always reference in any project i develop. This > includes routines, utilities and tasks i use very oftenit has no > secrets > but don't want to make it easy to decompile. Maybe i am just paranoid? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of David Kean > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:32 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Wrote below in a hurry, bad grammar and wording. > > I didn't mean to indicate that a .NET binary (it is a binary format) cannot > be decompiled - I meant to ask, why do you want to prevent users from > decompiling your code? What are you trying to prevent? State secrets? > People > from copying your code? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of David Kean > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Why are you looking at obfuscating you're binary? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Anthony > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:02 PM > To: 'ozDotNet' > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net > project. > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Sam Lai > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell > me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will > cost me my entire life savings :) > > On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > regards > > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Michael M. Minutillo Indiscriminate Information Sponge Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
If it is written in VB.net nobody will look at it. :) ducks and covers! Regards Arjang On 3 June 2010 13:41, Anthony wrote: > I have a project which i always reference in any project i develop. This > includes routines, utilities and tasks i use very oftenit has no secrets > but don't want to make it easy to decompile. Maybe i am just paranoid? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of David Kean > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:32 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Wrote below in a hurry, bad grammar and wording. > > I didn't mean to indicate that a .NET binary (it is a binary format) cannot > be decompiled - I meant to ask, why do you want to prevent users from > decompiling your code? What are you trying to prevent? State secrets? People > from copying your code? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of David Kean > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:07 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Why are you looking at obfuscating you're binary? > > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Anthony > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:02 PM > To: 'ozDotNet' > Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net > project. > -Original Message- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Sam Lai > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell > me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will > cost me my entire life savings :) > > On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: >> .NET Obfuscator Software..free! >> >> >> >> Is your website being IntelliXperienced? >> regards >> Anthony (*12QWERNB*) >> >> Is your website being IntelliXperienced? >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
I have a project which i always reference in any project i develop. This includes routines, utilities and tasks i use very oftenit has no secrets but don't want to make it easy to decompile. Maybe i am just paranoid? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Kean Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:32 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Wrote below in a hurry, bad grammar and wording. I didn't mean to indicate that a .NET binary (it is a binary format) cannot be decompiled - I meant to ask, why do you want to prevent users from decompiling your code? What are you trying to prevent? State secrets? People from copying your code? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Kean Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:07 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Why are you looking at obfuscating you're binary? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:02 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > >
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Wrote below in a hurry, bad grammar and wording. I didn't mean to indicate that a .NET binary (it is a binary format) cannot be decompiled - I meant to ask, why do you want to prevent users from decompiling your code? What are you trying to prevent? State secrets? People from copying your code? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Kean Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:07 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Why are you looking at obfuscating you're binary? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:02 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > >
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Vb.net dotnet2 is not in a binary format...anyway..think i have now found a few.. Open Source .NET Obfuscators Free PDF Tools Merge .NET Assemblies into Single Assembly OpenLayers: Free Maps for the Web JD Another Good Java Decompiler Dylan..that was pretty cool! -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Tusler Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:09 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=.net+obfuscation+free Cheers, Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:02 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > > - To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. maile 3_1_0
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=.net+obfuscation+free Cheers, Dylan. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 1:02 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > > - To find out more about the Sunshine Coast Council, visit your local council office at Caloundra, Maroochydore, Nambour or Tewantin. Or, if you prefer, visit us on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and or publication of this email message is prohibited without the express permission of the author. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your system. Unless otherwise stated, this email represents only the views of the sender and not the views of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. maile 3_1_0
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Why are you looking at obfuscating you're binary? -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:02 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > >
RE: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Oops..after some free .NET Obfuscator Software for my winform vb.net project. -Original Message- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lai Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 12:53 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free! Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > >
Re: .NET Obfuscator Software..free!
Er, Anthony - even spam is more useful than this email; at least they tell me where I can buy, hope and pray for the penis enlargement pills that will cost me my entire life savings :) On 3 June 2010 12:47, Anthony wrote: > .NET Obfuscator Software..free! > > > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > regards > Anthony (*12QWERNB*) > > Is your website being IntelliXperienced? > > > >
