On 10/10/07, mortee <mortee.lists / kavemalna.hu> wrote:
> 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

I'm not sure.  I just care about self-interest getting out of control.
 That's about it.

You say it's pretty simple.  I think it's pretty complicated.  But,
we're talking about things that are unrelated to the ruby-talk forum,
so we may be booted?!

Cracking is always going to happen, and it sucks.  But I guess I hold
on to the idea (recently) that economically it doesn't help someone to
be scared.  It hurts more than hinders.

Todd