Re: hide python code !
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:35:37 -0700 enigmadude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # Slawomir Nowaczyk wrote: # On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:35:27 -0700 # enigmadude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # # # 2. I've never done this, but you might be able to encrypt or otherwise # # turn you modules into binary form, and then use a clever import # # hook. # # Please observe that whatever the clever import hook is, it actually # needs to know the way to *decrypt* the module (secret key or # whatever). It means that if somebody decompiles the importing code, he # can just as well decompile the hidden one. Please do not top-post... # I'm pretty sure that just because someone is familiar with the PGP # sources, for example, doesn't mean that they have the necessary keys to # access other people's data across the internet. Also, I'm pretty sure I # know how a prison door lock works, but if I'm behind bars and don't # have the key, I'm still screwed. # # I believe the same things applies here. Just because you can see the # import code, depending upon what it does, if it requires (for example) # a key in order to decrypt the binary data before the modules can be # loaded, then no matter how much you understand the import code, the # data itself (that is the binary encrypted modules) is still useless to # you. Not really. The thing is, whatever data is actually required to perform the decryption, *must* be available in the importing code... as this code needs to -- by definition -- be able to decrypt the binaries into a form understandable by the CPU. After all, the code is supposed to actually work. As far as your analogy goes, you *do* have a key to the prison door, because you are *expected* to be able to let yourself out. -- Best wishes, Slawomir Nowaczyk ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) War doesn't determine who's right, war determines who's left. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:39:10 -0700, danielx wrote: Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:00:16 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. That's an utterly pointless and foolish analogy. (1) If a thief breaks into your house and steals your TV, you no longer have a TV. If a developer sees your code, you still have your code, *even if they subsequently copy it*. You haven't lost your code, it is just no longer secret. Since secrecy is rarely valuable in and of itself, you've lost nothing. But haven't you lost your control over the code? If you were trying to sell a program (regardless of whether this is a good way to make money from it), hasn't your ability to do so been undercut? This is the loss. Maybe so. And if a competitor creates a better product than yours, hasn't your ability to sell your program been undercut too? Either scenario has NOTHING to do with thieves breaking into your house and locks on doors. The analogy is bogus. Undercutting your ability to sell a product is not theft, and compiling source code to machine code is not analogous to a lock on the door. Yes, I've heard all the stories about valuable algorithms and the like. Some of them might even be true. But for 99+% of code, spending even one cent to keep it secret is just wasting money. That may be true, but for someone who has determined that the hiding the code would be best, it would seem to be quite a good investment. Whether it seems to be a good investment is quite different from whether it *is* a good investment. If they ask me for advice, I'll tell them that they're almost certainly wasting their time, that their algorithm almost certainly isn't as valuable as they think, and that if they disagree, well, Python supports .pyc files, there are tools like py2exe which will put their Python code inside an exe file, there is a Python obfuscator, and a few other tricks. If none of those things are good enough for them, then Python is not the language they want to be using. As for the rest of your post, it is mostly irrelevant. However, I will answer one last point: [snip] Even if we don't take the twice figure literally, I imagine that most of us would agree that the amount that the bar can be raise is considerable and not insignificant. I dispute that most of us agree that the bar can be raised a considerable amount. It is my position that in the real world, as opposed to the fantasies of amateur programmers, compiling code is virtually NO BARRIER to your competitors understanding your algorithm. Perhaps you would like to consider how it is that black-hat hackers and virus writers can analyse Microsoft Windows for vulnerabilities and security holes *without access to the source code*? (And by the way: your suggestion that Microsoft has very few workers is wrong. Microsoft has approximately 60,000 employees, and that almost certainly doesn't include the many sub-contractors they hire. http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/microsoft.html ) -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
danielx wrote: But we have only considered the economics of such a decision. Even if there is no market value to a work, a person has an understandable desire to exercise the rights of ownership over a work, given the amount of personal investment one makes in producing it. There are other motivations, too. An author might wish that their work convey a particular message and that others should not be able to make derived works which distort or contradict that message. However, there are various established principles of fair use which limit the author's control over such derived works. [...] I think the above idea is frequently missed in discussions about copyrights/patents in the open source world. There, the focus seems to be on the marketability granted by protections (legal or physical). The post I am responding to illustrates this focus. Do we believe an author forfeits ownership of a work merely by sharing it? As a matter of conscience, I don't believe the answer can be imposed on anyone. Every person must answer this for him or herself. As we've mentioned above, one crucial issue is control over published works and over the potentially related works of others. With software, such control is mediated by the licence which is often prominent, even unavoidable when using proprietary software; thus, people using or distributing software should be aware of the licence which applies to the work. In contrast, works in areas such as popular music are not prominently labelled with licensing information if you're listening to that music playing on the radio, television, in a public space, and so on. This apparent promiscuity with such works leads people to believe that they are freely exchangeable and that the author is not exercising control, even if that isn't really the case due to the framework established by the recording industry for broadcasters. So, people perceive an apparent lack of control as some kind of lack of ownership, that the work has, by being shared in an apparently unconditional way, become part of their common culture - a sentiment or an understanding that can presumably be traced back throughout the history of human culture itself. At the opposite end of the spectrum of control, when mechanisms of control are used to restrict the distribution of derived works or the production of coincidentally related works, is it unfair that people wish to disregard such apparently counter-intuitive mechanisms? An interesting example in popular culture was the legal argument about whether silence constitutes an original work (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2133426.stm), but things like patents affect the ability of others to create works in a fashion that can be much harder to predict. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
1. Re: hide python code ! (enigmadude)
Actually the reason you want to have one layer of encryption isn't to prevent someone from understanding what you wrote, it's so that if some company decides to acquire your code, they can't claim that you had it in the public domain. I think even the most pathetic encryption can serve this purpose. -ronny -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:39:10 -0700, danielx wrote: Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:00:16 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. That's an utterly pointless and foolish analogy. (1) If a thief breaks into your house and steals your TV, you no longer have a TV. If a developer sees your code, you still have your code, *even if they subsequently copy it*. You haven't lost your code, it is just no longer secret. Since secrecy is rarely valuable in and of itself, you've lost nothing. But haven't you lost your control over the code? If you were trying to sell a program (regardless of whether this is a good way to make money from it), hasn't your ability to do so been undercut? This is the loss. Maybe so. And if a competitor creates a better product than yours, hasn't your ability to sell your program been undercut too? Creating a better product is a legitimate activity (that's what the market system is trying to promot after all (not saying the market system is right, but it is relevant since many people believe in it)). The whole question is whether copying your code is legitimate. Drawing an analogy from art and clearly patent-able products, it seems software might fall into the same category of protectable products. Again, this is the question at hand. Either scenario has NOTHING to do with thieves breaking into your house and locks on doors. The analogy is bogus. Undercutting your ability to sell a product is not theft, and compiling source code to machine code is not analogous to a lock on the door. Yes, I've heard all the stories about valuable algorithms and the like. Some of them might even be true. But for 99+% of code, spending even one cent to keep it secret is just wasting money. That may be true, but for someone who has determined that the hiding the code would be best, it would seem to be quite a good investment. Whether it seems to be a good investment is quite different from whether it *is* a good investment. If they ask me for advice, I'll tell them that they're almost certainly wasting their time, that their algorithm almost certainly isn't as valuable as they think, and that if they disagree, well, Python supports So it's your opinion against the author's, no? And the decision is up to the author, and not you, no? .pyc files, there are tools like py2exe which will put their Python code inside an exe file, there is a Python obfuscator, and a few other tricks. If none of those things are good enough for them, then Python is not the language they want to be using. That seems good, but you also seem to have something against the whole idea of stronger protections for Python. I don't think loose protections has to be an inherent feature of Python. As for the rest of your post, it is mostly irrelevant. However, I will answer one last point: [snip] Even if we don't take the twice figure literally, I imagine that most of us would agree that the amount that the bar can be raise is considerable and not insignificant. I dispute that most of us agree that the bar can be raised a considerable amount. It is my position that in the real world, as opposed to the fantasies of amateur programmers, compiling code is virtually NO BARRIER to your competitors understanding your algorithm. Anyone willing to take a good survey? Until then, I think we can just disagree over that point. Perhaps you would like to consider how it is that black-hat hackers and virus writers can analyse Microsoft Windows for vulnerabilities and security holes *without access to the source code*? Yes, but wouldn't it be much easier for those vulnerabilities to be discovered if the code were released? Black-hats also have to advantage that MS announces vulnerabilities for them, which they take advantage of during the period where people are patching their windows. (And by the way: your suggestion that Microsoft has very few workers is wrong. Microsoft has approximately 60,000 employees, and that almost certainly doesn't include the many sub-contractors they hire. http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/microsoft.html ) I'd say that's not a large number (I was more or less aware that ms has ten's of thousands of emploees), but obviously you'd disagree with that... -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: danielx wrote: But we have only considered the economics of such a decision. Even if there is no market value to a work, a person has an understandable desire to exercise the rights of ownership over a work, given the amount of personal investment one makes in producing it. There are other motivations, too. An author might wish that their work convey a particular message and that others should not be able to make derived works which distort or contradict that message. However, there are various established principles of fair use which limit the author's control over such derived works. [...] I think the above idea is frequently missed in discussions about copyrights/patents in the open source world. There, the focus seems to be on the marketability granted by protections (legal or physical). The post I am responding to illustrates this focus. Do we believe an author forfeits ownership of a work merely by sharing it? As a matter of conscience, I don't believe the answer can be imposed on anyone. Every person must answer this for him or herself. As we've mentioned above, one crucial issue is control over published works and over the potentially related works of others. With software, such control is mediated by the licence which is often prominent, even unavoidable when using proprietary software; thus, people using or distributing software should be aware of the licence which applies to the work. In contrast, works in areas such as popular music are not While I agree with most of your post, I think the point should be made that eula's don't hold up very well in US courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability prominently labelled with licensing information if you're listening to that music playing on the radio, television, in a public space, and so on. This apparent promiscuity with such works leads people to believe that they are freely exchangeable and that the author is not exercising control, even if that isn't really the case due to the framework established by the recording industry for broadcasters. So, people perceive an apparent lack of control as some kind of lack of ownership, that the work has, by being shared in an apparently Extremely interesting point! This should really motivate people to answer the question I posed earlier: Does an author of software forfeit his rights to the code if he shares his program (ie, reliquishes _complete_ protection over the code)? Let's say this happens: I want to sell some software, but I'm affraid people will just copy it. So I prototype it in Python (or whatever programming language) and never release the program. Based on that, I design a chip (I know this is nearly impossible, but we are doing a mental experiment), which does exactly the same thing. First of all, the chip can be reverse engineered (of course, with MUCH greater difficulty than the equivalent code). Should I still be worried that my invention will be copied? A second point to consider: The chip is patentable (I think this is the case legally, as well as in the court of public opinion), so what about the equivalent code? unconditional way, become part of their common culture - a sentiment or an understanding that can presumably be traced back throughout the history of human culture itself. At the opposite end of the spectrum of control, when mechanisms of control are used to restrict the distribution of derived works or the production of coincidentally related works, is it unfair that people wish to disregard such apparently counter-intuitive mechanisms? An interesting example in popular culture was the legal argument about whether silence constitutes an original work (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2133426.stm), but things like patents affect the ability of others to create works in a fashion that can be much harder to predict. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On 2006-08-17 16:27:46, danielx wrote: A second point to consider: The chip is patentable (I think this is the case legally, as well as in the court of public opinion), No. A chip is not patentable. In your scenario, the /idea/ behind the chip's functionality may be patentable, but for a patent it doesn't matter whether the idea is realized as a custom chip or as software running on a standard computer. Differently from copyright (which is about a specific form), patents are about ideas. They must have a realization (ie. you must be able to show that it can work), but the patent encompasses all realizations of the described idea. (It may of course be non-trivial to determine whether a given modification has been described in the patent or not...) Gerhard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
danielx wrote: [The suggestion that works apparently given away unconditionally become part of common culture.] Extremely interesting point! This should really motivate people to answer the question I posed earlier: Does an author of software forfeit his rights to the code if he shares his program (ie, reliquishes _complete_ protection over the code)? Well, although some software may be used without the user being particularly aware of the licence, licences such as the GPL are defined in terms of distribution. The authors of that licence perhaps realised that grounding such an agreement in terms of the usage or performance of a work may be susceptible to the misunderstandings which seem to have plagued the music industry. Listening to music over the radio is in practice an involuntary act, whereas recording and redistributing the music is something that one actively has to do. The apparent difference between broadcast popular music and software is that software typically arrives with a licence (or one is typically forced to view such a licence before downloading it), and that redistributing software is an act where any later argument that one was not aware of the licence would be a less credible defence. Of course, copyright laws may state that a work without a licence is strongly owned by the author in that redistribution is prohibited, but as I noted earlier this seems to have been perceived as counter-intuitive, especially where the work is widely performed for free. Let's say this happens: I want to sell some software, but I'm affraid people will just copy it. So I prototype it in Python (or whatever programming language) and never release the program. Based on that, I design a chip (I know this is nearly impossible, but we are doing a mental experiment), which does exactly the same thing. I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion. First of all, the chip can be reverse engineered (of course, with MUCH greater difficulty than the equivalent code). Should I still be worried that my invention will be copied? It used to be said that the first people to buy the latest games console were the competition. A second point to consider: The chip is patentable (I think this is the case legally, as well as in the court of public opinion), so what about the equivalent code? This is why people are very worried about the scope of patents gradually expanding from areas where companies have sought some kind of incentive for investment in manufacturing, for example, to areas where patents have actually been forbidden in the past, such as in computer software. Sadly, there's a kind of misguided attitude amongst law-makers (particularly certain visionaries in the European Union) who think they're encouraging innovation when unquestioningly accepting arguments that if technology A is patentable and if technology B is like technology A, then technology B should be patentable, rather than considering that patents on technology A should also be forbidden. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:00:16 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. That's an utterly pointless and foolish analogy. (1) If a thief breaks into your house and steals your TV, you no longer have a TV. If a developer sees your code, you still have your code, *even if they subsequently copy it*. You haven't lost your code, it is just no longer secret. Since secrecy is rarely valuable in and of itself, you've lost nothing. But haven't you lost your control over the code? If you were trying to sell a program (regardless of whether this is a good way to make money from it), hasn't your ability to do so been undercut? This is the loss. Yes, I've heard all the stories about valuable algorithms and the like. Some of them might even be true. But for 99+% of code, spending even one cent to keep it secret is just wasting money. That may be true, but for someone who has determined that the hiding the code would be best, it would seem to be quite a good investment. Besides, these kinds of decisions are made case by case. We would not throw a dice to see whether some code should be released or not. Of course, these kinds of statistics _should_ moderate any decision, but I don't think you can expect that 99+% will make sense to most (intelligent) people. But we have only considered the economics of such a decision. Even if there is no market value to a work, a person has an understandable desire to exercise the rights of ownership over a work, given the amount of personal investment one makes in producing it. It's reall just a form of acknowledgement (you may consider an alternative form of acknowledgement more rewarding, but we are talking about the author, not you). Considering the investment justificiation, I find it difficult to deny an author the right to his or her own work (the right to a work, of course, implies the option to protect it). I think the above idea is frequently missed in discussions about copyrights/patents in the open source world. There, the focus seems to be on the marketability granted by protections (legal or physical). The post I am responding to illustrates this focus. Do we believe an author forfeits ownership of a work merely by sharing it? As a matter of conscience, I don't believe the answer can be imposed on anyone. Every person must answer this for him or herself. (2) Compiling code to machine language isn't like locking your door. Compiling code doesn't prevent me from seeing your code or your algorithm, If a house is locked, it can still be entered (without the key). The point is not that it is impossible to break in, but that it is more difficult. it just means I see it written in machine language instead of C. If I know how to read machine code, or if I have a decompiler, then I can read it, no problems at all. Would you argue that Python source code hides your I know how to read asm, but if you say anyone can read asm just as easily as one can read Python or even C, then you must be referring to a machine. algorithm because it is inscrutable to people who can't read and understand Python? Surely not. So why do you argue that compiled code is hidden merely because it is inscrutable to people who don't know how to download a decompiler off the Internet? It's all a matter of degree. The question of plausibility is always relevant. (3) Compiling code is certainly not like installing a burglar alarm. When I decompile your code, no alarms ring and you are not notified. That's pretty nit-picky... I find it strange that people (at least on c.l.py) often equate 'imperfect protection' with 'pointless protection'. Nonsense. Can I remind you that the Original Poster *explicitly* rejected using Python's imperfect code-hiding technique (distribute only the compiled .pyc files) because they can be disassembled, but failed to realise that EXACTLY the same argument holds for compiled C code? Let me make it clear with a better analogy than your locked door one: the O.P. says I don't want people to look through the windows of my Python house. I thought about hanging curtains, but people with thermal imaging equipment can see right through the walls. Can I hang vertical blinds in Python like my C programmer friends? The answers are: (1) No, Python uses curtains. If you want vertical blinds, use another language. (2) Even if you hang vertical blinds, it isn't going to stop people with thermal imaging equipment from seeing into your house and copying your algorithm, just like they can with Python. The all-or-nothing attitude makes no sense. If you can halve the number of people who can deduce your algorithm, that helps. If you can double the time it takes for those people to deduce it, that also helps. If it took you months of RD, the value of even
Re: hide python code !
I'm pretty sure that just because someone is familiar with the PGP sources, for example, doesn't mean that they have the necessary keys to access other people's data across the internet. Also, I'm pretty sure I know how a prison door lock works, but if I'm behind bars and don't have the key, I'm still screwed. I believe the same things applies here. Just because you can see the import code, depending upon what it does, if it requires (for example) a key in order to decrypt the binary data before the modules can be loaded, then no matter how much you understand the import code, the data itself (that is the binary encrypted modules) is still useless to you. In any case, everyone is correct in that any program can be reverse engineered, just like any vehicle can be car-jacked. The point is to have an at least rudimentary deterrent that makes it not worth their while. Someone who's smart enough to crack a scheme like this is probably a smarter programmer than the person who wrote the code in the first place, and so has no need to be stealing newbie's code. In any case, I prefer that people get over their greed and paranoia and just keep Python code open. I agree with most people here. I'm not an expert programmer, and many people I know aren't either, but for some reason the whole intellectual property boogeyman keeps making programmers believe that they have to hide even every example of a linked list or sort function. Geez. Just keep the sources open people. Slawomir Nowaczyk wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:35:27 -0700 enigmadude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # 2. I've never done this, but you might be able to encrypt or otherwise # turn you modules into binary form, and then use a clever import # hook. Please observe that whatever the clever import hook is, it actually needs to know the way to *decrypt* the module (secret key or whatever). It means that if somebody decompiles the importing code, he can just as well decompile the hidden one. -- Best wishes, Slawomir Nowaczyk ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Children are natural mimics, who act like their parents despite every effort to teach them good manners. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? Use Pyrex in order to build C-Modules from the critical parts of your software. --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Interesting ... but you are not a member of this community. Right? --Armin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On 2006-08-15 05:40:31, Armin Steinhoff wrote: First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Interesting ... but you are not a member of this community. Right? You know how to read a thread, right? :) Gerhard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: Armin Steinhoff wrote: Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? Use Pyrex in order to build C-Modules from the critical parts of your software. --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Interesting ... but you are not a member of this community. Right? --Armin Hi thanx for your answers . i read all of your replys carefully ... i am an open source Programmer ! i love to distribute my sources and use other ideas ! but asking a question is't reason of using it ! i want to find a way to hide python source codes ! can we do it ? how ? but i dont want to use it this is a question that i must be answer to a friend ! Then the answer could be a question: can we hide any source/binary ? Hardware tokens (ex: smart cards) are used just for that purpose. So as long as you distribute a PC with your package and are certain it cannot be tempered with (the correct O/S, administrative rights, encrypted partitions .) ... but I do not think there is such a PC out there. You might want to read this: http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/ www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/files/ccintroduction.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria Philippe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Gerhard Fiedler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-08-14 20:48:45, Damjan wrote: I think you increase your chances of Microsoft not even being in the same room with your software 100-fold if you release it under.. say GPL. ... and have the money to run a law suit? Patents, licenses etc are only as strong as the money that backs them, mostly. I guess that's an advantage of GPL: there's a foundation (with much better funding than you could raise as an individual) which will gladly fight for GPL, both in the courts and in the arena of public opinion -- I believe that, so, far, they've won every single fight they've picked, by just the joint threat of lawsuits and public shaming campaigns. It just isn't worth Microsoft's while to take the public-relations hit of such a fight: much cheaper for them to re-implement your ideas than to copy your GPL'd code. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: Successful software businesses are not merely founded on the process of having ideas and implementing them - they might also need to be effective at delivering those ideas and going through the whole process again and again. Writing a neat utility for Windows is not by itself the foundation of a successful business - other factors are critical, whether they be continuous improvements, service, support, or a number of other things. Yes, but this was never about 'successful software businesses' as such. I'm not saying anyone deserves to earn a living just because they created something, but that it is useful for them to be able to reduce the ways in which others with more resources can replicate that creation. You don't even need to be a 'successful' business to kill a competitor, just to have more money in the bank for as long as the competition exists. (eg. MS vs Netscape, Creative vs Aureal.) So, if we decide to ignore people waving pieces of paper around which make some claim to an idea or some way of solving some problem, instead investigating the actual code, others have pointed out already that if you provide just a binary and there exist people who want to know what you've done, those people will find it out whether you make it easy for them or not. Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. I find it strange that people (at least on c.l.py) often equate 'imperfect protection' with 'pointless protection'. The all-or-nothing attitude makes no sense. If you can halve the number of people who can deduce your algorithm, that helps. If you can double the time it takes for those people to deduce it, that also helps. If it took you months of RD, the value of even imperfect protection rises. Now, if we sidestep the issue of decompiling binaries and cast the affected work as some kind of service, the question can now be expressed as whether you should expect to be rewarded forever for providing such a service. But what is 'forever'? Is it a single service for one customer that persists forever? Or is it a service that will be invoked many times by different customers forever? Since these are completely different scenarios, the answer is it depends. such issues could possibly increase competitive pressure rather than enhance any supposed competitive advantage if people felt that the market wasn't providing enough in the way of choice in that area. I'm not interested in whether it's a sound business decision or not. I'm just interested in the developer's right and/or ability to make that call. I'm not saying I agree with extending the copyright period, however I do think you can't just compare it to 'a day at work'. It's a totally different set of circumstances which requires a different set of rules to both encourage artists to continue creating while benefitting society in the long run too. For some of those musicians (ie. probably not Sir Cliff Richard), it probably was a day at work for which they were badly paid, whilst others (eg. Sir Cliff Richard) went on to make quite a bit of money. Of course, one can always argue that the result of this particular kind of day at work is something that can be enjoyed again and again, but then you should consider the issue of why the person working at the car factory doesn't get paid royalties every time you turn the key in the ignition (even if it's just $0.0001 each time). There's a key distinction to be made here, at least legally. Session musicians do work for hire - they're paid by the hour/day/whatever, and typically have no copyright to the work they perform on. They are analogous to the person at the car factory. Any royalties they receive - typically none - would be from the contractual agreement and nothing to do with copyright. On the other hand, writing musicians/composers typically will be paid absolutely nothing for their original creation. They never get paid for it as such, but they can (and typically do) yield the copyright to a publishing company in return for an agreed royalty rate on sales of the reproduced item. They don't so much get paid forever for a service rendered long ago, they just have their payment spread out over an indefinite period of time, and that is dependent on people buying that item. This is no different from me investing my own time and money into manufacturing 10,000 cars and selling them between now and 50 years from now. The major difference is that replicating creative work is typically much cheaper and easier than replicating automobiles, hence the existence of various laws safeguarding intellectual property, as without such laws there would be little incentive to create any such works that were non-trivial. No-one is going to pay you up front for it, so you need a way of protecting future potential income. Since that future income
Re: hide python code !
Ben Sizer wrote: Paul Boddie wrote: Successful software businesses are not merely founded on the process of having ideas and implementing them - they might also need to be effective at delivering those ideas and going through the whole process again and again. Writing a neat utility for Windows is not by itself the foundation of a successful business - other factors are critical, whether they be continuous improvements, service, support, or a number of other things. Yes, but this was never about 'successful software businesses' as such. If success is defined as staying in business whilst making a profit, then the issue is inseparable from being successful. As the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative who charges a small fee for your product, isn't the goal at least to cover your costs? If you're making software purely to contribute to society, where the money isn't important, what relevance does this have to you increasing your chances of survival 10-fold? Few people contribute to society whilst deliberately obscuring the thing they're trying to contribute. I'm not saying anyone deserves to earn a living just because they created something, but that it is useful for them to be able to reduce the ways in which others with more resources can replicate that creation. You don't even need to be a 'successful' business to kill a competitor, just to have more money in the bank for as long as the competition exists. (eg. MS vs Netscape, Creative vs Aureal.) While that is often true, I've already noted several disadvantages that can outweigh pure financial superiority in such large businesses. So, if we decide to ignore people waving pieces of paper around which make some claim to an idea or some way of solving some problem, instead investigating the actual code, others have pointed out already that if you provide just a binary and there exist people who want to know what you've done, those people will find it out whether you make it easy for them or not. Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. Despite the pictures various people seem intent on painting, most contributions to this thread have focused on the tradeoffs involved in securing algorithms via compilation, obfuscation, and so on. Analogies about houses and alarms fail to capture the sophistication of the matter, especially considering the different views on what your belongings in the context of writing software for profit actually are. I find it strange that people (at least on c.l.py) often equate 'imperfect protection' with 'pointless protection'. The all-or-nothing attitude makes no sense. If you can halve the number of people who can deduce your algorithm, that helps. If you can double the time it takes for those people to deduce it, that also helps. If it took you months of RD, the value of even imperfect protection rises. Imperfect protection isn't pointless but it comes at a cost. Perhaps Skype's elaborate protection scheme gave that company such an advantage over its competitors that having the scheme described publicly has had little impact on its market position. However, such work doesn't just happen at zero cost, and where people decide to roll their own rather than purchase some kind of system to do the job, it can be quite a distraction (both strategically and financially) from just focusing on the rest of the business. Now, if we sidestep the issue of decompiling binaries and cast the affected work as some kind of service, the question can now be expressed as whether you should expect to be rewarded forever for providing such a service. But what is 'forever'? Is it a single service for one customer that persists forever? Or is it a service that will be invoked many times by different customers forever? Since these are completely different scenarios, the answer is it depends. That a continuous stream of possibly different people keep demanding your service and rewarding you for having provided it. The real, non-computing world exhibits an abundance of services, of course, and the area where the right to profit from providing a service becomes controversial is where monopolies are providing such services. Technical protections (reinforced by strict legislation) and patents also serve to impose monopolies, which is why people feel so strongly about such matters. [...] I'm not interested in whether it's a sound business decision or not. I'm just interested in the developer's right and/or ability to make that call. Of course the developer can make that call. The intention was to inform such developers that yes, there are ways of protecting your trade secrets, but that it's better to understand the tradeoffs than to rely totally on some potentially flawed solution. [Cliff Richard's day at work] On the
Re: hide python code !
On 2006-08-15 12:04:18, Alex Martelli wrote: It just isn't worth Microsoft's while to take the public-relations hit of such a fight: much cheaper for them to re-implement your ideas than to copy your GPL'd code. Exactly. So by publishing the ideas as GPL code, the author presents them not only the ideas very clearly and well documented, but also an example implementation. If there was some RD work involved, it may be a better thing (in terms of protection) not to publish it. The protection from GPL is pretty much worthless if the worth is more in the principle than it the execution. Gerhard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman wrote: Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir You can distribute the compiled byte-code files (*.pyc) which are harder to turn back into source code. There was a product called decompyle which could do it, but although there is a version floating around which works for Python 2.4 I've never heard of anyone getting it to work. Import hooks and encrypted source are a good option. Py2exe embeds the byte-code file for your main script into the executable which is also pretty good. All of these make it hard enough to deter most people who will ever want to abuse your source code. Until you have *lots* of users this is probably enough. I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... I'm I've compained about this before, but I'd say people apply that response to alot of other things too here on this mailing list. *** Earlier in this thread, people were making alot of noise about Bayazee trying to protect the code while it seemed he was part of an open source group. He never mentioned that he intended to hide any code produced for this open source group; indeed, he never mentioned any code he wished to hide at all. People must have been inferring that if one is part of an open source group, that all work one produces is for the group and must therefore be open source. Otherwise, people might have been thinking that being a member of an open source group makes you an open source evangelist. If the latter is true (and these cases are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive), then those who were so vocal in pointing out the appearant discrepency must have been projecting their own views on Bayazee. I'm not sure if this needs to be said, but just because someone posts on comp.lang.python does not mean he or she believe (or even should believe) the same things as you! My last statement applies to a few other things I've read around here, but I'm going to be done for now... Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:00:16 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Yes, in much the same way that there is no point ever locking your doors or installing burglar alarms, as a determined thief will eventually steal your belongings. That's an utterly pointless and foolish analogy. (1) If a thief breaks into your house and steals your TV, you no longer have a TV. If a developer sees your code, you still have your code, *even if they subsequently copy it*. You haven't lost your code, it is just no longer secret. Since secrecy is rarely valuable in and of itself, you've lost nothing. Yes, I've heard all the stories about valuable algorithms and the like. Some of them might even be true. But for 99+% of code, spending even one cent to keep it secret is just wasting money. (2) Compiling code to machine language isn't like locking your door. Compiling code doesn't prevent me from seeing your code or your algorithm, it just means I see it written in machine language instead of C. If I know how to read machine code, or if I have a decompiler, then I can read it, no problems at all. Would you argue that Python source code hides your algorithm because it is inscrutable to people who can't read and understand Python? Surely not. So why do you argue that compiled code is hidden merely because it is inscrutable to people who don't know how to download a decompiler off the Internet? (3) Compiling code is certainly not like installing a burglar alarm. When I decompile your code, no alarms ring and you are not notified. I find it strange that people (at least on c.l.py) often equate 'imperfect protection' with 'pointless protection'. Nonsense. Can I remind you that the Original Poster *explicitly* rejected using Python's imperfect code-hiding technique (distribute only the compiled .pyc files) because they can be disassembled, but failed to realise that EXACTLY the same argument holds for compiled C code? Let me make it clear with a better analogy than your locked door one: the O.P. says I don't want people to look through the windows of my Python house. I thought about hanging curtains, but people with thermal imaging equipment can see right through the walls. Can I hang vertical blinds in Python like my C programmer friends? The answers are: (1) No, Python uses curtains. If you want vertical blinds, use another language. (2) Even if you hang vertical blinds, it isn't going to stop people with thermal imaging equipment from seeing into your house and copying your algorithm, just like they can with Python. The all-or-nothing attitude makes no sense. If you can halve the number of people who can deduce your algorithm, that helps. If you can double the time it takes for those people to deduce it, that also helps. If it took you months of RD, the value of even imperfect protection rises. Fine. But you haven't demonstrated how to do that. You're just plucking figures out of the air. Anyone can do that: I claim that going to the trouble of hiding code with (say) py2exe reduces the number of people who can deduce your algorithm by 0.1%, and increases the time it takes them by 0.01%. Who is to say that my figures are not as good or better than yours? Do you really think that (say) Microsoft has got neither decompilers nor people who can operate them? -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:16:26 -0700, Fuzzyman wrote: What you can do with Python is almost certainly *good enough* for most people who ask this question - and that fact never seems to be included in the 'reality' propogated by the knee jerk reactionists... :-p The Original Poster *explicitly* stated that he was aware of the .pyc files, and rejected that strategy because .pyc files can be decompiled. He was asking for something which can't be decompiled, which is not possible since machine code can also be decompiled -- in fact, there are probably lots more disassemblers and decompilers for C than there are for Python. I'd rather educate him so he stops wasting his time rather than reinforce his ignorance by pretending that there are ways of distributing code without it also being decompilable. You suggested that it does harm to Python to give developers a realistic understanding of what Python is capable of, and that it's better to give them a misleading answer. I reject that idea utterly. -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:18:12 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, And imagine that you found a money-tree in your back yard... How about a more likely scenario? Imagine you're using a boring, run-of-the-mill algorithm, the same as 99.9% of all software out there, and that it's neither non-obvious nor innovative in any way at all. Statistically, I'd say it is ten thousand times more likely that this is the case than that the algorithm is at all valuable. Everybody thinks their algorithm is special. They almost never are. Even this is more likely than the semi-mythical algorithm that needs to be kept secret: the reason you (generic you) want to keep your software secret is because you've copied source code -- from books, from your friends, from Open Source projects, maybe even from stolen copies of Windows source code you've downloaded from the darker corners of the Internet, and you don't want people to know. That's more likely than you hitting upon an amazing new innovative AND valuable algorithm. Valuable algorithms are rare. Most software is not valuable for the algorithm, which is hidden in the source code, but for the functionality, which is obvious. Algorithms are a dime a dozen. It may not matter if some console game or other doesn't work after 20 years... Certainly; yet this is a valid example of software that requires a degree of protection since some of the algorithms employed truly are 'worth stealing'. Yes, and for every algorithm worth stealing, there are ten thousand that aren't. Play the odds, and you too will poo-poo the idea that some random developer on Usenet has discovered a valuable innovative algorithm. More likely he's just ashamed of his code, or wants to hide backdoors in it. -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: Ben Sizer wrote: Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, and charged a small fee for your product. Now imagine you were practically forced to make your algorithm obvious - a couple of months later, Microsoft bring out a freeware version and destroy your business in an instant. Sure, they and others can (and have) done that with closed-source products, but you increase your chances of survival 10-fold if the key algorithms are not obvious. This point is fairly comprehensively answered in the following article: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/apple_eats_whiners.html I don't believe so. That talks about copying of ideas, which is quite distinct from copying of implementations. The distinction may be meaningless in your typical desktop app where implementation is usually obvious from the interface. However in more high-tech systems such as multimedia or AI, the same is far from true. I read an article where various aging popular musicians were lobbying the British government to extend the period of copyright beyond 50 years because their first works would soon fall into the public domain and that they'd no longer earn royalties on those works. But in what percentage of the many other jobs that exist do you still get paid for a day at work that happened over 50 years ago? However, in most of those jobs you get paid properly at the time. Aside from the 1% of musicians who are pop stars, musicians generally do not. I'm not saying I agree with extending the copyright period, however I do think you can't just compare it to 'a day at work'. It's a totally different set of circumstances which requires a different set of rules to both encourage artists to continue creating while benefitting society in the long run too. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:18:12 -0700, Ben Sizer wrote: Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, And imagine that you found a money-tree in your back yard... How about a more likely scenario? Imagine you're using a boring, run-of-the-mill algorithm, the same as 99.9% of all software out there, and that it's neither non-obvious nor innovative in any way at all. Statistically, I'd say it is ten thousand times more likely that this is the case than that the algorithm is at all valuable. Everybody thinks their algorithm is special. They almost never are. I work in game development, where new algorithms and processes are being discovered all the time. Sure, they're not going to cure cancer or end poverty but there are most definitely some algorithms devised by many developers which other companies have no idea how to emulate until years down the line; long enough for the first company to enjoy a little commercial benefit based on their individual implementation. Valuable algorithms are rare. Most software is not valuable for the algorithm, which is hidden in the source code, but for the functionality, which is obvious. Algorithms are a dime a dozen. True, however, most is not all, and I think it's unfair to categorise all software as being so trivial. Yes, and for every algorithm worth stealing, there are ten thousand that aren't. Play the odds, and you too will poo-poo the idea that some random developer on Usenet has discovered a valuable innovative algorithm. More likely he's just ashamed of his code, or wants to hide backdoors in it. Play the odds, and pretty much everything is unlikely. Of all the names in the world, what was the chance of this language being called Python? Yet these things occasionally happen. I have no opinion on why the original poster wants to hide code, only an opinion on there definitely being a few applications where it is very useful. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Ben Sizer wrote: Paul Boddie wrote: Ben Sizer wrote: Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, and charged a small fee for your product. Now imagine you were practically forced to make your algorithm obvious - a couple of months later, Microsoft bring out a freeware version and destroy your business in an instant. Sure, they and others can (and have) done that with closed-source products, but you increase your chances of survival 10-fold if the key algorithms are not obvious. This point is fairly comprehensively answered in the following article: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/apple_eats_whiners.html I don't believe so. Well, it talks about competing against some large business who will eventually emulate your work. The advantage of small businesses competing against anyone with a fairly rigid schedule and an arguably non-agile internal organisation is that there will be a certain amount of time before that large business firstly gets round to dismantling your product (as opposed to that of the other small competitors), secondly manages to produce something which does more or less the same thing, and thirdly is able to bring it to market with the same level of quality/branding that its customers expect. Successful software businesses are not merely founded on the process of having ideas and implementing them - they might also need to be effective at delivering those ideas and going through the whole process again and again. Writing a neat utility for Windows is not by itself the foundation of a successful business - other factors are critical, whether they be continuous improvements, service, support, or a number of other things. That talks about copying of ideas, which is quite distinct from copying of implementations. The distinction may be meaningless in your typical desktop app where implementation is usually obvious from the interface. However in more high-tech systems such as multimedia or AI, the same is far from true. Well, let's say that algorithms are a step up from mere ideas, and let's also say that actual code is a step up from mere descriptions of algorithms (since actual code serves to verify the behaviour of those algorithms). The article I mention states that people shouldn't expect to be rewarded forever for dreaming up some idea, and I extend that point by stating that people shouldn't expect to be rewarded forever for describing an algorithm - both of these things being patentable in various permissive patent regimes, which (in conjunction with a few other factors) really is quite harmful for anyone actually doing work in any of the affected lines of work. So, if we decide to ignore people waving pieces of paper around which make some claim to an idea or some way of solving some problem, instead investigating the actual code, others have pointed out already that if you provide just a binary and there exist people who want to know what you've done, those people will find it out whether you make it easy for them or not. Now, if we sidestep the issue of decompiling binaries and cast the affected work as some kind of service, the question can now be expressed as whether you should expect to be rewarded forever for providing such a service. This brings in a number of issues that are suddenly more apparent than in the case where the end-user has some binary - notably the issue of control over the activity that the service performs - and such issues could possibly increase competitive pressure rather than enhance any supposed competitive advantage if people felt that the market wasn't providing enough in the way of choice in that area. I read an article where various aging popular musicians were lobbying the British government to extend the period of copyright beyond 50 years because their first works would soon fall into the public domain and that they'd no longer earn royalties on those works. But in what percentage of the many other jobs that exist do you still get paid for a day at work that happened over 50 years ago? However, in most of those jobs you get paid properly at the time. Aside from the 1% of musicians who are pop stars, musicians generally do not. The article I read was in the paper edition of the newspaper in question, but here's a fairly similar electronic version: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/29/nroyal29.xmlsSheet=/news/2006/03/29/ixhome.html I don't doubt that sessions musicians are paid badly, but multiplying every musician's income by a certain factor doesn't necessarily represent a just solution to that issue. I'm not saying I agree with extending the copyright period, however I do think you can't just compare it to 'a day at work'. It's a totally different set of circumstances which requires a different set of rules to both encourage artists to continue creating while benefitting society in
Re: hide python code !
Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, and charged a small fee for your product. Now imagine you were practically forced to make your algorithm obvious - a couple of months later, Microsoft bring out a freeware version and destroy your business in an instant. Sure, they and others can (and have) done that with closed-source products, but you increase your chances of survival 10-fold if the key algorithms are not obvious. I think you increase your chances of Microsoft not even being in the same room with your software 100-fold if you release it under.. say GPL. -- damjan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On 2006-08-14 20:48:45, Damjan wrote: I think you increase your chances of Microsoft not even being in the same room with your software 100-fold if you release it under.. say GPL. ... and have the money to run a law suit? Patents, licenses etc are only as strong as the money that backs them, mostly. Gerhard -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bayazee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ThnaX for Your Answers ... i am an open source programmer ... ! and i never like to write a closed source app or hide my codes ! it just a question that i must answer/solve it! one of site ( www.python.ir ) users asked this question ! but unfortunately i have't any solution to it ! so i ask it here to know your concepts ... so sorry for my inferior question but i realy want to know a way to do it(if it possible) ! and it is't mean that i want to do it ! Best Regard's I disagree with the respondents who have told you it's impossible. While I can't make time now to answer your question fully, I recommend that you read up on Pyrex and py2exe. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! It's just the same with java byte-code or machine code. FWIW, I had a cracked (and localised) copy of Steinberg's Cubase midi sequencer v1.1 *before* v1.0 was publicly available in France... And believe me, they had made their best to protect the software (dongle etc...). The only secure way to protect critical code is to not distribute it - make it run on your own server, and require the application to access the server. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Steven D'Aprano wrote: (snip) If you really want something which compiles to machine code, then Python is not the language for you. Use another language. But that won't protect your software from piracy anyway. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
John Machin wrote: If you want to distribute obfuscated code, consider writing it in perl :-) LOL That's really strong protection. Machine code is too easy to reverse engineer. :) Regards, Rob -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:35:27 -0700 enigmadude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # 2. I've never done this, but you might be able to encrypt or otherwise # turn you modules into binary form, and then use a clever import # hook. Please observe that whatever the clever import hook is, it actually needs to know the way to *decrypt* the module (secret key or whatever). It means that if somebody decompiles the importing code, he can just as well decompile the hidden one. -- Best wishes, Slawomir Nowaczyk ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Children are natural mimics, who act like their parents despite every effort to teach them good manners. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Cameron Laird wrote: Steven D'Aprano wrote: Hiding source code is incompatible with Open Source software. You can hide code, or be Open Source, but not both. [...] I also disagree with your characterization of Open Source. I don't know which part of the open source movement would tolerate the hiding of source code whilst simultaneously calling the resulting software open source, but I'd imagine they'd have a hard time justifying their open source label. Of course, it is possible to be the First Iranian Open Source Community in terms of consuming open source software rather than producing it, so perhaps that's what the questioner intended to communicate in their signature. [...] Myself, I just marvel at the different worlds in which we live. *My* experience has to do with how tough it is to deploy and maintain correct, working stuff, even with teams of seasoned pros. The thought that users will routinely reverse-engineer our applications, and ... well, I marvel. I've previously mentioned a very interesting paper which not only described the reverse engineering of the Skype protocol and software but also described how to make interoperating Skype clients. Given that the well-financed developers spent a lot of time introducing various protection measures (encryption, verification, etc.) and yet someone can write the aforementioned stuff up in a paper, I'd recommend an upgrade to any business plan which relies on obfuscation to prevent unauthorised use or modification. Indeed, I'd recommend that any such entrepreneur think twice about starting a traditional proprietary software business in this day and age. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir You can distribute the compiled byte-code files (*.pyc) which are harder to turn back into source code. There was a product called decompyle which could do it, but although there is a version floating around which works for Python 2.4 I've never heard of anyone getting it to work. Import hooks and encrypted source are a good option. Py2exe embeds the byte-code file for your main script into the executable which is also pretty good. All of these make it hard enough to deter most people who will ever want to abuse your source code. Until you have *lots* of users this is probably enough. I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: [snip..] I've previously mentioned a very interesting paper which not only described the reverse engineering of the Skype protocol and software but also described how to make interoperating Skype clients. Given that the well-financed developers spent a lot of time introducing various protection measures (encryption, verification, etc.) and yet someone can write the aforementioned stuff up in a paper, I'd recommend an upgrade to any business plan which relies on obfuscation to prevent unauthorised use or modification. Indeed, I'd recommend that any such entrepreneur think twice about starting a traditional proprietary software business in this day and age. How many users did skype have before that happened... Several orders of magnitude above what is required to earn a living from selling a few programs I suspect. Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman wrote: Bayazee wrote: can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! [...] You can distribute the compiled byte-code files (*.pyc) which are harder to turn back into source code. As the man said, and I've seen various proprietary software companies do just that. There was a product called decompyle which could do it, but although there is a version floating around which works for Python 2.4 I've never heard of anyone getting it to work. I've got decompyle to work in the recent past (about a year or so ago) - the trick was to find the Debian package and to make some minor adjustments to the code to work with whatever breakage the 2.3 - 2.4 upgrade caused. [...] I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Well, given the pace of technological development and the disregard in some environments for perpetual backward compatibility, how much of your infrastructure would you implement in vendor-supplied binaries, especially when the vendor is a one man plus dog operation? When the binaries don't work on your newly-upgraded system and the vendor is on holiday (possibly for good), it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction any more. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! All of these make it hard enough to deter most people who will ever want to abuse your source code. Until you have *lots* of users this is probably enough. I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... I think the reaction is based mostly in reality...an honest answer: If you give people the program, then you also give them the ability to reverse engineer it. It's as simple as that. No matter how dongled, obfuscated, compiled, encrypted, etc. At some point the code actually has to be executed/interpreted, and at that point, it can be intercepted. Thus, by telling them that they don't really want to do it, the list is conveying the futility of attempting to strive for the goal. Obfuscation may be a shallow speedbump, and for some folks, better than nothing. However, it's better to have a good relationship with your customers and know that they will adhere to licensing conditions, rather than to try and strong-arm them into behaving a particular way. My %s%0.2f % (currency_marker, 0.02) on the matter. :) -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: Fuzzyman wrote: Bayazee wrote: can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! [...] You can distribute the compiled byte-code files (*.pyc) which are harder to turn back into source code. As the man said, and I've seen various proprietary software companies do just that. There was a product called decompyle which could do it, but although there is a version floating around which works for Python 2.4 I've never heard of anyone getting it to work. I've got decompyle to work in the recent past (about a year or so ago) - the trick was to find the Debian package and to make some minor adjustments to the code to work with whatever breakage the 2.3 - 2.4 upgrade caused. [...] I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Well, given the pace of technological development and the disregard in some environments for perpetual backward compatibility, how much of your infrastructure would you implement in vendor-supplied binaries, especially when the vendor is a one man plus dog operation? When the binaries don't work on your newly-upgraded system and the vendor is on holiday (possibly for good), it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction any more. If you distribute applications with py2exe then your application is no longer dependent on the installed version of Python. The question keeps getting asked because a lot of new programmers are looking to create programs that they will sell. A lot of these will be good programmers, and some of the software will be successful. Telling them 'you can't do that with Python', does no good to Python itself. In fact what you can do with Python is not a lot worse than most other languages, and almost certainly *good enough* for this sort of thing. Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Tim Chase wrote: can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! All of these make it hard enough to deter most people who will ever want to abuse your source code. Until you have *lots* of users this is probably enough. I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... I think the reaction is based mostly in reality...an honest answer: If you give people the program, then you also give them the ability to reverse engineer it. It's as simple as that. [snip..] But until your number of users gets beyond quite a high level, it's just extremely likely that any of your individual users will have that sort of ability - or anyone else will have the motivation to do it. What you can do with Python is almost certainly *good enough* for most people who ask this question - and that fact never seems to be included in the 'reality' propogated by the knee jerk reactionists... :-p Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman wrote: Paul Boddie wrote: [Skype paper] I'd recommend an upgrade to any business plan which relies on obfuscation to prevent unauthorised use or modification. Indeed, I'd recommend that any such entrepreneur think twice about starting a traditional proprietary software business in this day and age. How many users did skype have before that happened... Several orders of magnitude above what is required to earn a living from selling a few programs I suspect. The point was that dreaming up exotic protection schemes for closed source software is quite possibly only the highest priority in either a highly traditional shrinkwrapped proprietary software business (where the evidence - my spam folder - suggests that the protection is only a marginally effective deterrent) or in some kind of proprietary software plus services business where you don't want people tampering with your infrastructure (where the evidence suggests that anyone determined enough will force you to continually focus on that protection scheme over the long-term). So, if the questioner just wants to sell a few programs, they might want to either consider different business models than those traditionally envisaged, or they might want to be aware that fancy protection is most likely to be a long-term investment yielding moderately disappointing results, and that their energy is best directed elsewhere. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Tim Chase wrote: [snip] However, it's better to have a good relationship with your customers and know that they will adhere to licensing conditions, rather than to try and strong-arm them into behaving a particular way. Don't forget that distributing your source code is more of a gift to your competitors (and potential competitors) than it is to your customers... Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml My %s%0.2f % (currency_marker, 0.02) on the matter. :) -tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman wrote: Paul Boddie wrote: Fuzzyman wrote: I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Note your choice of words: don't really want to do it. [...] If you distribute applications with py2exe then your application is no longer dependent on the installed version of Python. But there are numerous other things that might stop whatever binary it is from working over longer periods of time. Besides, py2exe executables don't exactly exhibit various typical benefits of normal Python programs such as being able to run on more than one platform, unless you recommend that everyone runs those applications in some kind of Windows virtualisation solution. The question keeps getting asked because a lot of new programmers are looking to create programs that they will sell. A lot of these will be good programmers, and some of the software will be successful. Telling them 'you can't do that with Python', does no good to Python itself. But many people admit that solutions do exist, notably py2exe and other tools which do very similar things but for more than one platform (and have done so for at least a decade). Now you did say that people are being made to feel that they don't really want to do it, but that's a very different thing from being told that they can't do that with Python. Personally, I'd rather people chose not to do such things with Python, for various reasons including the inability of the end-user to study or fix bugs in the code or to take advantage of various well-known benefits of the Python language, library and runtime. But I do admit that they at least can achieve some level of obfuscation or protection for such endeavours (and a suitably-phrased Web search will provide established solutions for doing just that). Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
John Machin wrote: Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from [1] users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir ^^[2] [1] and [2] don't seem to be compatible. I suppose all of you who have commented about this, are sitting in the free world . But there are countries (like .ir) where the government has totally different ideas of 'freedom'. So taking the freedom to write something can be very dangerous at times. Fortunately most of those guys which intercept every email and check every web server are not so smart to reverse engineer everything in a short time since they have to check thousands of pieces of information each day. Let's make their work a bit harder! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: Fuzzyman wrote: I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Well, given the pace of technological development and the disregard in some environments for perpetual backward compatibility, how much of your infrastructure would you implement in vendor-supplied binaries, especially when the vendor is a one man plus dog operation? When the binaries don't work on your newly-upgraded system and the vendor is on holiday (possibly for good), it doesn't look like a knee-jerk reaction any more. It's worth remembering that there is a massive amount of software that has nothing to do with 'infrastructure', that won't need to be maintained, or upgraded. Examples include most retail software for the home or small office, and most entertainment software. Developers of such software often have understandable reasons for making it inconvenient to examine the algorithms at a high level. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman wrote: Tim Chase wrote: [snip] However, it's better to have a good relationship with your customers and know that they will adhere to licensing conditions, rather than to try and strong-arm them into behaving a particular way. Don't forget that distributing your source code is more of a gift to your competitors (and potential competitors) than it is to your customers... I believe Eric Raymond has argued that if your competitors are spending their time trying to work out how to adapt to using your software, that is time they aren't spending competing with you. So long as you make regular releases of your software you can ensure that they are always at least one step behind you. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Ben Sizer wrote: It's worth remembering that there is a massive amount of software that has nothing to do with 'infrastructure', that won't need to be maintained, or upgraded. Examples include most retail software for the home or small office, and most entertainment software. Developers of such software often have understandable reasons for making it inconvenient to examine the algorithms at a high level. It may be the case that certain kinds of applications can go on working forever on whatever hardware they were intended to run, right until the point when the hardware ceases to function correctly or when the end-user gets bored of it, or envious of the neighbour's hardware, or for whatever other reason. However, I've seen plenty of evidence of home or small office software which arrives as a binary, employs its own proprietary format, runs on now-legacy hardware and whose users are now high-and-dry with respect to accessing their old documents. Sure, developers of such software may not want their competitors to find out how their products work - certain companies also like to file patents for that added anticompetitive edge, should their competitors even consider figuring out the not-so-magic formula - but as end-users of software ourselves, we don't have to share such an understanding of their motivations, especially when such motivations directly conflict with our own: with respect to the above evidence, our own motivations are to have a reasonable level of control over the tools to manage our own data. It may not matter if some console game or other doesn't work after 20 years, although I think it's actually something of a shame given that such artifacts, no matter how apparently trivial they are, are actually part of our culture and shouldn't be so readily discarded and forgotten, but when your own data is not easily accessible within a much shorter timeframe, the scandal is (at least to me) so much more obvious. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Paul Boddie wrote: Ben Sizer wrote: It's worth remembering that there is a massive amount of software that has nothing to do with 'infrastructure', that won't need to be maintained, or upgraded. Examples include most retail software for the home or small office, and most entertainment software. Developers of such software often have understandable reasons for making it inconvenient to examine the algorithms at a high level. Sure, developers of such software may not want their competitors to find out how their products work - certain companies also like to file patents for that added anticompetitive edge, should their competitors even consider figuring out the not-so-magic formula - but as end-users of software ourselves, we don't have to share such an understanding of their motivations, especially when such motivations directly conflict with our own: with respect to the above evidence, our own motivations are to have a reasonable level of control over the tools to manage our own data. I think you're possibly being a bit idealistic here. I use and endorse open source and open formats wherever possible but I don't believe we would have the same degree of diversity of software available if everything was open. Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, and charged a small fee for your product. Now imagine you were practically forced to make your algorithm obvious - a couple of months later, Microsoft bring out a freeware version and destroy your business in an instant. Sure, they and others can (and have) done that with closed-source products, but you increase your chances of survival 10-fold if the key algorithms are not obvious. The only other way to protect against that would be a software patent, and I disagree with their existence on the grounds that it punishes those who discover the techniques independently. It may not matter if some console game or other doesn't work after 20 years... Certainly; yet this is a valid example of software that requires a degree of protection since some of the algorithms employed truly are 'worth stealing'. They can usually be replicated in time, but that may be months and allows the original company to have a deserved commercial advantage. ...although I think it's actually something of a shame given that such artifacts, no matter how apparently trivial they are, are actually part of our culture and shouldn't be so readily discarded and forgotten... Thankfully we have emulators for most platforms, and hopefully litigation won't kill those off. ...but when your own data is not easily accessible within a much shorter timeframe, the scandal is (at least to me) so much more obvious. I think it's quite possible to have a closed binary but an open document format, thus allowing the user to migrate away at any point while still preserving any 'secrets' in the implementation. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Let's clarify the question: Dear Python programmers: please tell me for free how I can hide my code from you and others like you. This question has nothing to do with preventing blind copying of distributed software, whether in source or binary form. tjr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Ben Sizer wrote: Imagine if you were the single-person developer of a small application that did something quite innovative, and charged a small fee for your product. Now imagine you were practically forced to make your algorithm obvious - a couple of months later, Microsoft bring out a freeware version and destroy your business in an instant. Sure, they and others can (and have) done that with closed-source products, but you increase your chances of survival 10-fold if the key algorithms are not obvious. This point is fairly comprehensively answered in the following article: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/apple_eats_whiners.html The only other way to protect against that would be a software patent, and I disagree with their existence on the grounds that it punishes those who discover the techniques independently. And that's not all. Even if you accept the granting of patents for mathematical or scientific processes (which I don't), it's hard to justify people privatising the commons by building on the freely available knowledge which made their own work possible whilst holding a monopoly which not only prevents others from building on that work, but also, as you say, from building anything similar independently or otherwise from the starting point of that prior knowledge. [...] Thankfully we have emulators for most platforms, and hopefully litigation won't kill those off. Hopefully, yes. But the wider issue is that of ownership of culture and whether such a concept makes sense. When you're having some popular music involuntarily pumped into your consciousness through multiple channels of the media, do you not have the right to say that since you've heard the song in question umpteen times, and that the rights holder was quite happy to have the work broadcast on the radio, on television, in the shopping mall, at the airport, and so on, that you should then be able to record the song, play it back whenever, however and how often you like, or perhaps remix it, parody it, cover it, or play it backwards at your leisure? The stuff about patents, small companies supposedly innovating and popular culture intersect quite nicely around things like copyright expiry. I read an article where various aging popular musicians were lobbying the British government to extend the period of copyright beyond 50 years because their first works would soon fall into the public domain and that they'd no longer earn royalties on those works. But in what percentage of the many other jobs that exist do you still get paid for a day at work that happened over 50 years ago? [...] I think it's quite possible to have a closed binary but an open document format, thus allowing the user to migrate away at any point while still preserving any 'secrets' in the implementation. That's the point of view held by certain software vendors, but many vendors have sadly failed to resist the temptation to lock users in completely, using every available technique to make it almost impossible to migrate. And then the end-users are faced with migrating away from obsolescence. It doesn't matter if it's a Fortune 500 company or just some individual whose data is at risk: putting the competitive advantage of the vendor before that data is plainly unethical. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Unless you have some very specific (patent-prone) algo in your code, I do not think you really have an issue there: *.pyc is enough to disturb most people. The real danger I see is a company trying to copy your concept as the real IP (assuming the above is true) is in your specifications ... which can be re-designed from looking at your application: I buy one legal copy of your stuff, put a few smart guys on the deal and come up with a competitive application some time later (I've seen companies do that). Philippe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Terry Reedy wrote: Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I never understand the knee-jerk reaction on this mailing list to answer people who ask this question by telling them they don't really want to do it... Let's clarify the question: Dear Python programmers: please tell me for free how I can hide my code from you and others like you. And categorising their intent in this way is likely to make many genuine coders cross Python off their list and go and see if the Ruby community is any friendlier... Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml This question has nothing to do with preventing blind copying of distributed software, whether in source or binary form. tjr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul Boddie wrote: Well, given the pace of technological development and the disregard in some environments for perpetual backward compatibility, how much of your infrastructure would you implement in vendor-supplied binaries, especially when the vendor is a one man plus dog operation? The question keeps getting asked because a lot of new programmers are looking to create programs that they will sell. Sell the software is in no way dependent on hide the source code: businesses across the globe sell software that doesn't have the source code hidden, often *with* source code. Indeed, as Paul Boddie points out, hiding the source code from one's customers, and refusing them permission to take the software to someone else to improve it, is increasingly becoming a way to *reduce* the willingness of people to buy one's software. All this seems worth pointing out to any new programmers whom you posit are looking to create programs that they will sell. -- \ I always wanted to be somebody. I see now that I should have | `\ been more specific. -- Lily Tomlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry Reedy wrote: Let's clarify the question: Dear Python programmers: please tell me for free how I can hide my code from you and others like you. And categorising their intent in this way I don't see how this categorises intent at all. It's clarifying what the question means. Dear Python programmers -- the message was to comp.lang.python. please tell me for free -- they have asked a question, and clearly expect an answer without further remuneration requirements or other payment. how I can hide my code -- this is exactly what they've asked. The only thing I can see in there you might object to is the you and others like you. Here, you is Python programmers. By hiding the source code to their programs, they will hide it from any Python programmers. Any one of their customers may want improvements to the program that they (the author) may not be motivated to work on, for whatever reason. No shame in that -- and no categorisation of intent. The customer can then ask any other Python programmer to make the improvements, offering whatever consideration is agreeable to both parties. If the source code is hidden, its *hidden from the Python programmer* and others like them. Nowhere in this has intent of the author been categorised. It makes clear some of the consequences of the proposed course of action. -- \ I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. -- Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Hi, ThnaX for Your Answers ... i am an open source programmer ... ! and i never like to write a closed source app or hide my codes ! it just a question that i must answer/solve it! one of site ( www.python.ir ) users asked this question ! but unfortunately i have't any solution to it ! so i ask it here to know your concepts ... so sorry for my inferior question but i realy want to know a way to do it(if it possible) ! and it is't mean that i want to do it ! Best Regard's -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: Hi, ThnaX for Your Answers ... i am an open source programmer ... ! and i never like to write a closed source app or hide my codes ! it just a question that i must answer/solve it! one of site ( www.python.ir ) users asked this question ! but unfortunately i have't any solution to it ! so i ask it here to know your concepts ... so sorry for my inferior question but i realy want to know a way to do it(if it possible) ! and it is't mean that i want to do it ! Best Regard's Is there such a thing as inferior questions ? only fools do not ask questions, you clearly do not qualify ... heads up !!! Philippe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On 2006-08-12, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only thing I can see in there you might object to is the you and others like you. Here, you is Python programmers. By hiding the source code to their programs, they will hide it from any Python programmers. And hiding Python code from non-Python programmers is sort of moot. ;) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... I see TOILET at SEATS... visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
hide python code !
hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from [1] users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir ^^[2] [1] and [2] don't seem to be compatible. Really the only way to keep your code secret is not to distribute it -- provide the functionality from a web server. If you want to distribute obfuscated code, consider writing it in perl :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
hi in compiled languages when we compile a code to an executable file it convert to a machine code so now we cant access to source ... but in python we easily open the program executable(ascii) file and read source i meen than any way to protect my code or convert it to executable witch can not be decompiled (python code) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi in compiled languages when we compile a code to an executable file it convert to a machine code so now we cant access to source ... but in python we easily open the program executable(ascii) file and read source i meen than any way to protect my code or convert it to executable witch can not be decompiled (python code) I know what you mean. However consider this: There is no such thing as an executable which cannot be decompiled; if the code can be executed, then anybody with read access to the code can disassemble/decompile/whatever it -- there is no theoretical difference between disassembling an .exe file and decompiling a .pyc file. What's in a .pyc file is just the machine code for a virtual machine ... Consider changing your business plan: write crappy software, charge heaps for support -- it's not a novel idea :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:03:51 -0700, Bayazee wrote: hi in compiled languages when we compile a code to an executable file it convert to a machine code so now we cant access to source ... There are disassemblers for machine code. If somebody really wants to see how your code works, they can do it. but in python we easily open the program executable(ascii) file and read source Yes. That is by design. i meen than any way to protect my code or convert it to executable witch can not be decompiled (python code) In your first email, you wrote: First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Hiding source code is incompatible with Open Source software. You can hide code, or be Open Source, but not both. What makes you think that your code is so special that it is worth stealing? Do you have incredible secret algorithms that nobody has ever seen before? Or are you just so ashamed of it that you don't want people to see it? Or maybe you've copied other people's code, and you don't want them to see that? What are you hiding? Whatever your reasons for hiding the source code, there are things which you can do to obfuscate Python code which will make it difficult for people to get to the source code. Google for python obfuscate for links. But I'm guessing that, if you hide your source code, most people will wonder what you are hiding and avoid your program. If you really want something which compiles to machine code, then Python is not the language for you. Use another language. -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
I don't think you're the first person that has wondered about this. But you might have some options: 1. If you are running it on Windows only, use py2exe to wrap it up as an executable. 2. I've never done this, but you might be able to encrypt or otherwise turn you modules into binary form, and then use a clever import hook. I know zipimport in the standard lib gives you more control over importing zip files, but I don't think it can handle encrypted ones. 3. Write a custom module importer in C using Python's API so you can encrypt your modules any way you want as long as you know how to use C to decrypt them again. There's probably a thousand other ways if you're clever enough (e.g. write it in Jython and package it as .jar files). As long as your program sticks closer to pure Python, the easier it will be. If you're using a lot of open source modules to help you out, you might want to double-check their licensing to see if what you're doing is allowed anyway. Bayazee wrote: hi can we hide a python code ? if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! do you have any idea about this ...? --- First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee wrote: hi in compiled languages when we compile a code to an executable file it convert to a machine code so now we cant access to source ... It can still be disassembled and reverse engineered. but in python we easily open the program executable(ascii) file and read source i meen than any way to protect my code or convert it to executable witch can not be decompiled (python code) How do you reconcile this desire with being part of First Iranian Open Source Community? I am not hostile, just curious. BTW, John Machin's suggestion of presenting your code as a web service is a good one. Peace, ~Simon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:03:51 -0700, Bayazee wrote: hi in compiled languages when we compile a code to an executable file it convert to a machine code so now we cant access to source ... There are disassemblers for machine code. If somebody really wants to see how your code works, they can do it. but in python we easily open the program executable(ascii) file and read source Yes. That is by design. i meen than any way to protect my code or convert it to executable witch can not be decompiled (python code) In your first email, you wrote: First Iranian Open Source Community : www.python.ir Hiding source code is incompatible with Open Source software. You can hide code, or be Open Source, but not both. What makes you think that your code is so special that it is worth stealing? Do you have incredible secret algorithms that nobody has ever seen before? Or are you just so ashamed of it that you don't want people to see it? Or maybe you've copied other people's code, and you don't want them to see that? What are you hiding? Whatever your reasons for hiding the source code, there are things which you can do to obfuscate Python code which will make it difficult for people to get to the source code. Google for python obfuscate for links. But I'm guessing that, if you hide your source code, most people will wonder what you are hiding and avoid your program. If you really want something which compiles to machine code, then Python is not the language for you. Use another language. . . . Oh, Pyrex URL: http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/python/Pyrex/version/Doc/About.html on you. I'll be more explicit. If Bayazee or others *truly* want to write in Python, or something very close to it, and end up with machine code, there *are* existing techniques, and I recommend Pyrex among them. I also disagree with your characterization of Open Source. On the other hand, your conclusion that Python probably will never make the we-want-obfuscation-without-much-understanding-of-what-it-is crowd happy probably is correct. Myself, I just marvel at the different worlds in which we live. *My* experience has to do with how tough it is to deploy and maintain correct, working stuff, even with teams of seasoned pros. The thought that users will routinely reverse-engineer our applications, and ... well, I marvel. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: hide python code !
Bayazee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: can we hide a python code ? Sure; don't distribute it to anyone. Then they can't run the program or inspect it or anything. if i want to write a commercial software can i hide my source code from users access ? You can write commercial software and sell it without hiding the source code. we can conver it to pyc but this file can decompiled ... so ...!! Indeed. So? -- \ For of those to whom much is given, much is required. -- | `\ John F. Kennedy | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
