Protect Python Source

[TuxTrax]

"David Brown" <david at no.westcontrol.spam.com> wrote in message news:<aptuq0$uec$1 at news.netpower.no>...
> "TuxTrax" <TuxTrax at fortress.tuxnet.net> wrote in message
> 
> >
> > Your comments reveal a thoughtful and curious approach that is quite
>  healthy.
> > It also reveals a world view that has in large part been shaped by the
> > philosophies of proprietary software companies.
> >
> > Is a python compiler available for linux? I don't know. I do know that no
> > Linux users I know would even consider using one. It would never cross our
> > minds to make our source closed to others. This is where the whole open
>  source
> > software movement takes a completely different world view. In open source
> > software, you retain the right to make a profit from your work, while
>  still
> > granting others the right to copy, distribute, modify and view the source
> > code. Just a year ago, this whole concept was horrifying to me. I could
> > not concieve of allowing others to have free access to my source code. As
> > a Long time windows user, I had some un-learning to do. But unlearn I did.
> > I started thinking in terms of the advantages of open source. First, it
>  keeps
> > you honest; you write your best code because you know that your peers are
> > going to be seeing it all over the world. Second, with open source, once
> > you release it, other programmers may modify it helping it to become more
> > than you ever could have made it on your own (unless you choose to forbid
> > the modification of your code, but that's another subject). Third, the
> > distribution of your product using the open source community, has no
>  equal,
> > and will cost you nothing. You can provide support to your users via
> > that same community at little or no cost to you, and support is the number
> > one ongoing cost that software developers get saddled with. You can use
> > the resources of such organizations as the free software foundation to
> > defend your copyright (don't let the "free" in FSF throw you; you can
>  still
> > market your product using the GPL licence).
> >
> > And finally, you get to give something back. This is a philosophical point
> > for me, but giving something back to the community that you benefit from,
> > whether it be your local community, or the computer community, is very
> > important for us as people. It is a common and refreshing view that you
> > will find in the open source world, and one reason that I left the
> > windows world for good. But thats a soapbox for another time. <grin>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mathew
> >
> 
> I think you are making the mistake many "born again" open-source advocates
> make, and one that many anti-open-source people also make.  There is plenty
> of place in the world for both open and closed source software. 

Indeed this is true. Did I leave you with the impression that I was
saying
anything against closed source? The fact is I happen to agree with
you, but
shamelessly took an oppotunity to pitch the case for open source since
the OP seemed not to have considered it.

> In some situations, one is far better than the other

OK.

> in some cases either will do
> the job.  Saying that everything should be open source is as bad as saying
> everything should be closed source.  It's a common misunderstanding about
> Linux ("Software companies should not write for Linux because then they
> would have to give away all their source code...").

And it is a common misconception (perpetuated by some proprietary
software houses) that open_source == zero_profit. The fact is, open
sourcing the program will not negatively impact the profitablility of
the product. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but such
companies as red hat have proven the business model.

At any rate, I don't believe I said everything should be open source.
I did not intend to imply it.

> Consider, for example, the program I am writing at the moment.  It is in
> Python - a language whose licence is very clear in stating that all
> Python-licenced code can be used in open and closed source software (keeping
> copyright messages intact).  The program provides a gui for an embedded
> motor controller card, and our customer is paying good money for me to write
> the program.  He intends to sell the cards on to his customers, with this
> controller program to go with it.  In the future, he will want a bigger
> version of the program (supporting several cards simultaneously).  He may
> well want to charge his customers for that software upgrade.  He certainly
> won't want his customers to have full access to the code - they may modify
> it for use with other supplier's motor cards. 

fine. Then make a license agreement that forbids the modification of
the code for use with other brands of motor control equipment. That
has nothing to do with open sourcing it. When you open source your
code, you provide greater value to your customers, because you give
them the power to meet future needs as they expand, by applying the
same codebase to new hardware/software platforms. They can also see
and verify that the code is not filled with bugs/backdoors.

> This is not a program for
> which either myself or my customer will gain any benifits from releasing it
> as open source - no one is going to be making improvements to it that will
> benifit us. 

see above

> However, there are certainly *parts* of the program that could
> be released seperately.  For example, I may seperate out the graphing parts
> of the gui into a nice, modular graph widget.  That could easily be released
> as open source (Python licence), for the benifit of others and for our own
> benifit - if people like it, they will contribute improvements which I can
> then use.  If I make any changes or improvements to the pyserial module that
> I am using, then I certainly will pass those changes back to the community.
> But by the time I get as far as making distribution copies of the program,
> I'll be making two sorts of packages - py2exe packages for easy installation
> on Windows machines, and .pyc byte-code files for use on Linux (and for
> Windows users who already have Python).
> 
> I fully agree that there are often direct benifits from making your own
> software open source.  There is also the personal satisfaction factor - I
> have not written much that could be of direct benifit to others (my job is
> embedded systems development - you need our company's hardware to run our
> software), but I have enjoyed the feeling I get from the few direct
> contributions I have made.  But there are many reasons to write closed
> source code as well.  You do not speak for the Linux-using community when
> you say that writing closed source is against your principles.  From a
> user's viewpoint, open source is definitely an advantage - just like lower
> cost, better documentation or more functionality is an advantage.  But from
> the writer or sellers viewpoint, it is a mixed blessing which must be
> considered sensibly - just like the selling price, the level of
> documentation and the functionality of the software.  The aim of all
> businesses is to make money - preferably by providing good products and
> services to their customers.  If that end can be best achieved by openning
> their software, great.  If it is best achieved by closing their software,
> then that's the way it is.

Thank you for your thoughts. The OP was asking about securing code and
I wanted to impress two things:

1) you can't secure your code

2) open source is not a bad thing, it is, in fact, a very good option.

cheers,

Mathew