Python Portability--Not very portable?

W. eWatson wolftracks at
Fri Aug 6 19:35:38 CEST 2010

On 8/6/2010 9:03 AM, Peter Otten wrote:
> Seriously, I try to make a joke once in a while, usually with devastating
> results. The idea you were meant to take away was that once you start
> thinking about a protection scheme there is always a next step until you
> reach the point where your software, say, is completely safe, but also
> completely unusable. Had Guido started the language in that mindset there
> would be no Python for you to worry about its ripp-off safety.
>> Why would I send you the py code, for example, if I
>> wanted to protect it because of its importance?
> Because if you think again you may find that it's not as important as you
> think?
>> I'd put it in exe form
>> and send it and allow you to input data to produce the desired result of
>> the program.
> There is no analog in python, and if you cannot concentrate on your honest
> customers the only option that offers reasonable "safety" would be to turn
> your application into web service.
> Peter
So you think Python is part of open software in terms of distributing a 
"product"? So I should stick to C, where one can distribute programs w/o 
revealing code details, and having a customer compile the code?  It's 
been awhile since I've used Linux or Unix, but I think there's a lot of 
commercial code out there dependent upon it, and the users do not have 
to compile anything.

More information about the Python-list mailing list