hide python code !

[Philippe Martin]

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

[Fuzzyman]

Re: hide python code !


Terry Reedy wrote:

"Fuzzyman" <fuzzyman@gmail .comwrote in message
news:1155300852 .497741.73230@7 4g2000cwt.googl egroups.com...

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

[Ben Finney]

Re: hide python code !

"Fuzzyman" <fuzzyman@gmail .comwrites:

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

[Ben Finney]

Re: hide python code !

"Fuzzyman" <fuzzyman@gmail .comwrites:

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.pytho n.

"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

[Bayazee]

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

[Philippe Martin]

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

[Grant Edwards]

Re: hide python code !

On 2006-08-12, Ben Finney <bignose+hate s-spam@benfinney. id.auwrote:

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

[Cameron Laird]

Re: hide python code !

In article <1155344981.894 548.280730@m73g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com>,
Bayazee <bayazee@gmail. comwrote:

>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
>unfortunatel y 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.

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[Ben Sizer]

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/20...s_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

[Ben Sizer]

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

[Paul Boddie]

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/20...s_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...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 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).

Paul

[Damjan]

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

[Gerhard Fiedler]

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