Todd Benson wrote:
> I'm pretty much convinced that code obfuscation is not a good option
> for anyone.  But, it can -- and will continue to -- be done.  I will
> look at various tools and maybe change my mind.  I think I still won't
> understand the "real" economic reason behind such a thing.

It's pretty simple, as has already been mentioned: to raise the bar. If
you provide the source, then it'll require anyone with some basic
programming skills to circumvent product protection. If you employ
various methods to make it unreadable, it'll require much more skills to
do it.

The whole point is to make cracking more inconvenient than having to pay
for it. It doesn't have to be actually bulletproof (as it won't ever
be): good enough is good enough.

mortee