Python obfuscation

Mike Meyer mwm at mired.org
Wed Nov 16 21:32:47 CET 2005


"Ben Sizer" <kylotan at gmail.com> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> "Ben Sizer" <kylotan at gmail.com> writes:
>> > In my
>> > case, providing a free download of any lost executables or data upon
>> > presentation of a legitimate license key should be adequate.
>> My special handling for such
>> things - and *especially* for entertainment software, where the media
>> gets handled by children - is "Return that POS."
> That's funny, I could have sworn that a few messages above you
> suggested I "Try Alex's solution, and put the data on a network server
> that goes through whatever authentication you want it to."
> Are you claiming therefore that it's more acceptable to you to have to
> access the data remotely every time you use the software than once per
> install?

Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster
recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the
question. It may be unacceptable for *other* reasons, but it beats
dictating a disaster recovery plan for your software to the end user
hands down on that basis.

>> Worse yet, you play
>> semantic games so you can claim not to be violating fair use rights in
>> the process.
> No, I am just pointing out that you are mixing up the concept of an
> actual 'right' such as one embodied in a state's constitution, with an
> implied 'right' that is just an exemption from committing an offence.
> The term 'right' does not even appear in the relevant part of US
> copyright law, except to state that it is a limitation on the copyright
> holder's rights.

You're still just playing semantic games. The common usage is "fair
use rights." If you mean "... without infringing on the end users
rights, except for fair use rights", then you should say that.

    <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.



More information about the Python-list mailing list