Protect Python Source

[Ira Baxter]

Perhaps obfuscation of source code would be a choice.
You build using "clear-text" source code, then
offer obfuscated source code to your users?
Advantages: easy.
Disadvantages: Reverse engineering is possible.
(But then, that's true of any solution.  We're arguing
about the amount of effort to do it).

We can build obfuscators for essentially any language.
Haven't done it yet for Python, but we already
have a Python parser, which is most of the battle.

See http://www.semdesigns.com/Products/Formatters/ObfuscatorExample.html
for an example.

--
Ira D. Baxter, Ph.D., CTO   512-250-1018
Semantic Designs, Inc.      www.semdesigns.com

"hotjava" <hotjava at pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:mailman.1036202583.7965.python-list at python.org...
> Hi Guys,
>
> The intention of my post is not to start a 'comparison war' between open
> source and close source.
>
> I agree with David Brown with his reply that each has its own merits.
>
> Let us not hog up the mailing list with 'which is better' as this will be
a
> very long discussion.
>
> I think I have found what I wanted from Armin Steinhoff's reply. His
> suggestion is to use pyrex to translate my 'critical' python source to C
> and build it as a library module. But I do not know why he did not suggest
> me to use pyrex to translate my full python source to C. Nevertheless,
this
> idea seems workable.
>
> Now I will have to decide to have:
> a. fully closed apps
> b. fully open apps
> c. partial open and closed source apps
>
> Looks like c. is the best.
>
> thanks.
>
>