It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
encrypted and this would be useful. Heck, I might even consider using
Ruby more often even though Ruby is rather slow.
If you're really worried about it, write it in a compiled language or just write hard to read code.
A password protected zip wouldn't make software anyone can use would it?
Protecting your source code is silly. Real, hardcore hackers can decompile or recreate or hack what you make.
Real customers will pay if it is not free. Why? Because they can't write it.
···
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Ruby Maniac wrote:
It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
encrypted and this would be useful. Heck, I might even consider using
Ruby more often even though Ruby is rather slow.
Have you thought about how the user would run such a package? I mean, you
could give them the password, but...
-mental
···
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:00:05 +0900, Ruby Maniac <rubymaniac@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
encrypted and this would be useful.
Password is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.
Look folks, my goal is to distribute Ruby code in a manner that hides
the source code from the end-user and encryption makes this useful.
Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps. Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source. I prefer closed source that
allows people to handle EXE's that contain no source or as in the case
of Ruby encrypted source.
···
On Sep 26, 7:50 am, MenTaLguY <men...@rydia.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:00:05 +0900,RubyManiac <rubyman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passwordedZIP
> Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
> encrypted and this would be useful.Have you thought about how the user would run such a package? I mean, you
could give them the password, but...-mental
Competitors can reverse engineer and they will.
I have no problem with hard-core hackers decompiling my code. Give
them enough code to decompile and they can spend days, weeks, months
or years doing just that. Give them encrypted code and they can
figure out how to break the encryption but this is one more step they
must deal with before they get to see the source code.
Another thing to consider is the fact that if you cannot prove you
took steps to keep casual users away from your source code you cannot
also claim later that your code was not released into the public
domain even when such code had license agreements tied to it.
···
On Sep 25, 8:50 pm, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:00 PM,RubyManiac wrote:
> It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passwordedZIP
> Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
> encrypted and this would be useful. Heck, I might even consider using
>Rubymore often even thoughRubyis rather slow.If you're really worried about it, write it in a compiled language or
just write hard to read code.
A password protectedzipwouldn't make software anyone can use would it?Protecting your source code is silly. Real, hardcore hackers can
decompile or recreate or hack what you make.
Real customers will pay if it is not free. Why? Because they can't
write it.
Quoth Ruby Maniac:
···
On Sep 26, 7:50 am, MenTaLguY <men...@rydia.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:00:05 +0900,RubyManiac <rubyman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passwordedZIP
> > Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
> > encrypted and this would be useful.
>
> Have you thought about how the user would run such a package? I mean, you
> could give them the password, but...
>
> -mentalPassword is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.Look folks, my goal is to distribute Ruby code in a manner that hides
the source code from the end-user and encryption makes this useful.Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps. Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source. I prefer closed source that
allows people to handle EXE's that contain no source or as in the case
of Ruby encrypted source.
As Charles (of JRuby fame and fortune) mentioned earlier, JRuby can in many
cases 'compile' ruby code down to Java .class files, which are hard to
reverse to anything resembling ruby (or even java, for that matter). You
should be able to make this work for your little problem.
--
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/
That's manifestly untrue. Otherwise it would be impossible to
enforce Open Source licenses.
-mental
···
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:50:03 +0900, Ruby Maniac <rubymaniac@gmail.com> wrote:
Another thing to consider is the fact that if you cannot prove you
took steps to keep casual users away from your source code you cannot
also claim later that your code was not released into the public
domain even when such code had license agreements tied to it.
Password is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.
So, yes, you're giving the user the password. 
But it's probably better
described as obfuscation than encryption, realistically.
Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps.
I'll give you credit for that -- it's a more realistic goal than the
usual.
Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source.
Honestly, I don't think being a fan of Open Source for the sake
of Open Source is a good thing either. But I am a fan of Open
Source for the sake of the people who have to deal with my
software.
-mental
···
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:45:03 +0900, Ruby Maniac <rubymaniac@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently the JRuby compiler is ready...
But still, code obfuscation is just silly in most cases.
You don't trust your clients? What could you possibly have that is so valuable that hasn't been written before?
Your other option is to develop a system like BaseCamp. You sell a subscription. You host it. They pay to use it.
They never see your precious.
JVM bytecode is pretty easy to translate into Java, actually, but Ruby
would probably be a little harder. Distributing .jars of compiled Ruby
is probably a reasonable solution.
-mental
···
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:55:24 +0900, Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> wrote:
As Charles (of JRuby fame and fortune) mentioned earlier, JRuby can in
many cases 'compile' ruby code down to Java .class files, which are hard to
reverse to anything resembling ruby (or even java, for that matter). You
should be able to make this work for your little problem.
Quoth MenTaLguY:
> As Charles (of JRuby fame and fortune) mentioned earlier, JRuby can in
> many cases 'compile' ruby code down to Java .class files, which are hard
to
> reverse to anything resembling ruby (or even java, for that matter). You
> should be able to make this work for your little problem.JVM bytecode is pretty easy to translate into Java, actually, but Ruby
would probably be a little harder. Distributing .jars of compiled Ruby
is probably a reasonable solution.-mental
It's easy to translate into java that will compile back to that bytecode, but
that doesn't necessarily make it easy to read.
Regards,
···
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:55:24 +0900, Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> wrote:
--
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/