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.

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.