obviscating python code for distribution

[Ben Finney]

Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 2011-05-16, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler at tysdomain.com> writes:
> >
> >> I'm putting lots of work into this. I would rather not have some
> >> script kiddy dig through it, yank out chunks and do whatever he
> >> wants. I just want to distribute the program as-is, not distribute
> >> it and leave it open to being hacked.
> >
> > How do these arguments apply to your code base when they don't apply
> > to, say, LibreOffice or Linux or Python or Apache or Firefox?
>
> One obvious way that those arguments don't apply is that the OP didn't
> put lots of work into LibreOffice, Linux, Python, Apache or Firefox

Yet the copyright holders *did* put lots of effort into those works
respectively. So the arguments would apply equally well; which is to
say, they don't.

> > How is your code base going to be harmed by having the source code
> > available to recipients, when that demonstrably doesn't harm
> > countless other code bases out there?
>
> The owner of something is free to determine how it is distributed --
> he doesn't have any obligation to prove to you that some particular
> method of distribution is harmful to him or anybody else.

Note that I didn't say anything about obligation or harm to persons. I
asked only about the code base and the distribution thereof.

In the meantime, Tyler has come back to us with arguments that *do*
differentiate between the above cases and his own. So thanks, Tyler, for
answering the questions.

-- 
 \        “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for |
  `\      peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of |
_o__)                                peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 |
Ben Finney