On 5/23/06, Kris <kris / alternativefocusmedia.com> wrote:
> It would be a layer of protection that would at least prevent casual
> attacks.

Casual attacks aren't your worry. Trust me on this. If you treat your
users like you trust them, you will usually be rewarded. If you don't,
you'll get exactly what you deserve because users don't like being
treated prima facie like probable criminals. This isn't 100% accurate,
but it's close enough.

> > That's the source of the resistance you perceive. Most of us don't
> > want or need what you describe.
> Because you dont want it you resist its development..

No. We don't resist, we don't need. There's a difference. You're
welcome to develop this sort of thing yourself. Just understand that
merely hiding code isn't going to help you at all.

> > Actually I remember *someone* making an obfuscator of some kind 3-4
> > years ago... I played with it awhile and couldn't break it. Others
> > could, though. Or I could given a few hours.
> >
> > The best suggestion yet was to keep the code off the client machine
> > and make a web service. That is relatively secure.
> But that makes huge limits on profit. My feeling is web software can't
> be sold like desktop software is. Either boxed or a pre-installed
> server.

No, web software can't be sold like desktop software. It can be sold
as a subscription service (which is what my company does). We also
sell our software to companies who want to implement their own version
of it, and we are usually required to place our souce code in escrow
in the event that we go under.

Think a little differently and you'll find different ways to profit.
Commercial software sales has bad margins anyway at this point.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca