[Python-ideas] I have an encrypted python module format: .pye

[Chris Kaynor]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> Mike Graham wrote:
> > I would point out: a) It can be worse than no security for the same
> > reason a cotton bulletproof jacket is worse than no bulletproof
> > jacket: it lures you into a false sense of security, and b) The
> > original post asked for a non-obscure, non-secure solution.
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >> If you look into legal ways of protecting physical property you'll
> >> find that having locks, fences etc. is often necessary for legal
> >> protection to apply. That's why so often you'll find "no trespassing"
> >> signs (in Holland these even have a specific reference to the law on
> >> them).
> >
> > This is very true, but I think I might be missing something about your
> > point. Are there places where intellectual property has similar laws
> > or policies?
>
> Yes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
>
> Take e.g. the EU directive text:
>
> "...the expression 'technological measures' means any technology, device or component that, in the
> normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts..."
>
> "Technological measures shall be deemed 'effective' where the use of a protected work or other
> subjectmatter is controlled by the rightsholders through application of an access control or
> protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other
> subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."

As I read it, the text of the law quoted above would mean that just
releasing the pyc files would be enough, as would running the source
though an obfuscator.

>
> There's an important difference between "security by obscurity" and
> "protection by obscurity". The first is very hard to achieve. The second
> is made easy by laws and regulations (because the first doesn't work out
> too well in practice).

Chris