/.../ The real issue is "how to map wxWindows C++ classes to Pike classes". I do not really want to write a C wrapper for the classes. <<grin>>
Have you taken a look at the GTK glue (src/post_modules/GTK)? It's autogenerated from spec files.
All one may hope for is to slow down a dedicated hacker. Most people are not hackers and not many people who have sufficient knowledge to hack software are dedicated.
Distributing byte code would be much more of an obstacle than encryption. With encryption, the cracker would only have to locate the code that does the decryption, which would be pretty simple especially since Pike is open source. If he only gets the byte code he would have to reverse engineer all of it. It wouldn't be just a one-time task to crack the encryption; he would have to work for every piece of the code he wants to see.
The downside with the byte code is that it's more work to bring that to a state where it works well for distribution (i.e. is less platform and pike version dependent).
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-05-18 22:04: Subject: Re: introduce myself
Niels,
On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 02:25, Niels Möller (med röd bil) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
but I will probably arrange to encrypt the pike scripts that are part of my applications.
I'll try to discourage you from doing that (or at least make you clarify what you want to achieve). Which of course doesn't mean that you can't do it if you really want to.
I must say that this is the smallest of the issues that I am facing just now. The real issue is "how to map wxWindows C++ classes to Pike classes". I do not really want to write a C wrapper for the classes. <<grin>>
- Technically, it is not possible to do what you want: Everything needed to run the program must be distributed to the user's computer, which you don't trust. Including any needed decryption keys. It's just a matter of stubbornness to extract the keys.
All one may hope for is to slow down a dedicated hacker. Most people are not hackers and not many people who have sufficient knowledge to hack software are dedicated.
- People interested in running or distributed unlicensed copies of the program (sometimes called "pirates") don't need to decrypt it. And technical tricks like dongles, license servers usually annoy your legitimate users, while being worked around by people that use the program without a license.
I hate dongles.
- As for people (competitors) copying parts of the *source* code for use in their own programs, without any license to do that. Is that a real problem? I've never seen anything like that during the few years I did proprietary software development. It sounds like a very dangerous thing to do. It get's *even* more dangerous if you use a programming environment (like Pike) where the source code is usually distributed to customers.
In the final analysis, the only reason that a compeditor would steal from me would be to save time. There will not be anything patentable in this software.
- For most software, paying customers aren't very interested in breaking your license. For instance, as far as I'm aware, Roxen never had any problems with "Roxen Platform"-customers that did things they weren't licensed to.
They bought the licence so that someone else will fix bugs and provide enhansements.
- Source availability can be useful for customers (even if it's a traditional proprietary license, no "free software" stuff), as it makes local patches and bug-fixes possible, for instance, as a part of a support issue.
I use Visual Slick Edit (an excellent product) to edit text. It uses a C like macro language to implement the entire user interface. The source code for just about everything is provided with the package. Looking at that part of the product is just about the last thing that I want to do because of the time it would take.
Cheers, Charles T.
Happy hacking, /Niels
/ Niels Möller (med röd bil)
Previous text:
2003-05-16 22:38: Subject: introduce myself
Hello everyone!
My name is Charles Tilbury and I currently reside in Portland, Oregon, USA. I have been working on developing my own language for several months now, only to discover that Pike is almost exactly what I was trying to make! I only wish I had found out about it earlier.
I need a fast interpreted language with GUI support for Unix, Windows, and Mac/OS. I am planning to make commercial applications in the area of EDA and embedded software developement tools such as JTAG debuggers. I want to use a GUI compatability suite such as wxWindows to allow portability to my chosen platforms.
If I use Pike, I will write the wxWindows/Pike binding and release it under the Pike licensing scheme, but I will probably arrange to encrypt the pike scripts that are part of my applications.
This is a very large undertaking that I will be working on with no help. I want to the sure before I start that:
- The maintainers of Pike are at least not against a project like this.
- That if I decide to write books about Pike and/or the wxWindows binding to
it, that no one has any real objection to it.
I would be very interested in hearing your comments.
Highest Regards, Charles Tilbury
/ Brevbäraren
/ Brevbäraren