Python Portability--Not very portable?
in [Python]
|
Prev: Finding the version # of a module, and py moduleproblem
Next: Struggling to convert a mysql datetime object to a python stringof a different format
From: Peter Otten on 6 Aug 2010 11:14 W. eWatson wrote: >>> I would think there are some small time and big time Python players who >>> sell executable versions of their programs for profit? >> >> Yes. What's your point? > That someone must know how to distribute them without having the source > code ripped off. Yes, but he won't tell for fear of getting ripped off of his knowledge.
From: W. eWatson on 6 Aug 2010 11:27 I can't respond to otten directly, since he uses gmane. Here's my response. W. eWatson wrote: >>> >>> I would think there are some small time and big time Python players who >>> >>> sell executable versions of their programs for profit? >> >> >> >> Yes. What's your point? > > That someone must know how to distribute them without having the source > > code ripped off. Ott wrote? Yes, but he won't tell for fear of getting ripped off of his knowledge. Who won't tell? Why would I send you the py code, for example, if I wanted to protect it because of its importance? I'd put it in exe form and send it and allow you to input data to produce the desired result of the program.
From: Peter Otten on 6 Aug 2010 12:03 W. eWatson wrote: > I can't respond to otten directly, since he uses gmane. Here's my > response. > > W. eWatson wrote: > > >>> >>> I would think there are some small time and big time Python > players who > >>> >>> sell executable versions of their programs for profit? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. What's your point? > > > That someone must know how to distribute them without having the > > > source code ripped off. > Ott wrote? > Yes, but he won't tell for fear of getting ripped off of his knowledge. > > > Who won't tell? The the guy who knows how to distribute the source code without having it ripped off... Seriously, I try to make a joke once in a while, usually with devastating results. The idea you were meant to take away was that once you start thinking about a protection scheme there is always a next step until you reach the point where your software, say, is completely safe, but also completely unusable. Had Guido started the language in that mindset there would be no Python for you to worry about its ripp-off safety. > Why would I send you the py code, for example, if I > wanted to protect it because of its importance? Because if you think again you may find that it's not as important as you think? > I'd put it in exe form > and send it and allow you to input data to produce the desired result of > the program. There is no analog in python, and if you cannot concentrate on your honest customers the only option that offers reasonable "safety" would be to turn your application into web service. Peter
From: geremy condra on 6 Aug 2010 13:31 On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:00 AM, W. eWatson <wolftracks(a)invalid.com> wrote: > >>> I would think there are some small time and big time Python players who >>> sell >>> executable versions of their programs for profit? >> >> Yes. What's your point? > > That someone must know how to distribute them without having the source code > ripped off. I've never seen a code obfuscation scheme I thought did the job the whole way, including compiling C, and Python bytecode is significantly easier to turn back into something resembling the original source (YMMV, I suppose). Also, if you don't know about common tools like distutils, the odds are pretty good that it isn't your code itself that is valuable to you- you're probably more interested in protecting your idea about what the code should do. At least for now, that's outside of the scope of technical solutions- discuss it with a lawyer, not a programmer. >> >>> disutils. Sounds familiar. I'm pretty sure I was using Py2Exe, and >>> disutils >>> might have been part of it. >> >> distutils. >> >> http://docs.python.org/library/distutils.html > > I don't see ;how distutils is going to solve this problem. Are you > suggesting the program should be packaged? Why? I can just send it to him as > py code. distutils looks like it's for library modules, e.g., functions like > math. ....no. Distutils is handy because you could just bundle your dependencies and hand them an easy-to-install package, which would be a quick way to get everybody on the same page. Of course, depending on the licenses those dependencies are under you might want to do even more talking to a lawyer than I've previously suggested before you go about trying to sell that bundle- I'm sure you wouldn't want to 'rip off' great free projects like python and numpy. Geremy Condra
From: W. eWatson on 6 Aug 2010 13:35
On 8/6/2010 9:03 AM, Peter Otten wrote: .... > > Seriously, I try to make a joke once in a while, usually with devastating > results. The idea you were meant to take away was that once you start > thinking about a protection scheme there is always a next step until you > reach the point where your software, say, is completely safe, but also > completely unusable. Had Guido started the language in that mindset there > would be no Python for you to worry about its ripp-off safety. > >> Why would I send you the py code, for example, if I >> wanted to protect it because of its importance? > > Because if you think again you may find that it's not as important as you > think? > >> I'd put it in exe form >> and send it and allow you to input data to produce the desired result of >> the program. > > There is no analog in python, and if you cannot concentrate on your honest > customers the only option that offers reasonable "safety" would be to turn > your application into web service. > > Peter So you think Python is part of open software in terms of distributing a "product"? So I should stick to C, where one can distribute programs w/o revealing code details, and having a customer compile the code? It's been awhile since I've used Linux or Unix, but I think there's a lot of commercial code out there dependent upon it, and the users do not have to compile anything. |