Re: Embedding perl in Java

From: Shalini Joshi (shalinij1_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/27/04

  • Next message: Dale Henderson: "Re: Bokma" 
    Date: 26 Jun 2004 17:59:33 -0700

    Hey!

    Thanks a lot for the information.

    I appreciate it..

    Regards

    shalini
    Lincoln Yeoh <junkto@tm.net.my> wrote in message news:<qbkgd09p78sbef435f7kdj1pvptvqm3p4a@4ax.com>...
    > On 20 Jun 2004 23:00:25 -0700, shalinij1@yahoo.com (Shalini Joshi)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Hey!
    > >
    > >Yeah Ben, thanks again..i managed to use perlcc to produce an
    > >executable on the unix system. It didnt work on windows though(like it
    > >had been pointed out in the doc)so used the B module to produce the
    > >bytecode.
    > >
    > >Yeah will let my boss know about the source code hiding issues..thanks
    > >again.
    >
    > For windows - try par and for executable compression try upx
    >
    > http://search.cpan.org/~autrijus/PAR/lib/PAR.pm
    >
    > There are many commercial products that use perl. Often without
    > obfuscation. Whether people have the source code or not doesn't stop
    > them from copying your stuff and using it. I use UPX+PAR just coz it
    > bundles things up in a single convenient file and users do not need to
    > install perl. But some AV scanners[1] seem to take a bit longer to
    > scan stuff like this.
    >
    > It only makes it harder for people to figure out or extend/modify it.
    > It doesn't make it impossible.
    >
    > The people who don't pay and bother to figure out your source code
    > often aren't going to pay for it - they either have less need for it
    > (they're smart enough to write much of it themselves), or they aren't
    > going to pay for it anyway.
    >
    > Whereas the people who've already paid for it may regard having the
    > source code as a big plus. I'd personally prefer buying a program
    > that's easy to fix and modify, coz often programs outlast support from
    > the vendors that supply them.
    >
    > Given a suitably viral license it may be disadvantageous for people to
    > copy and reuse your code without permission. You may wish to consult
    > your lawyers about that.
    >
    > That said, I'm not too fond about these license things. What are the
    > limits of such things anyway? How valid are they? Someone should
    > implement a software license that requires users to howl at the moon
    > _publicly_ every month or brush their teeth after every meal.
    >
    > [1] I wonder how AV scanners deal with obfuscated polymorphic
    > perl/lisp/etc viruses/worms...

  • Next message: Dale Henderson: "Re: Bokma"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Embedding perl in Java
      ... For windows - try par and for executable compression try upx ... Whether people have the source code or not doesn't stop ... The people who don't pay and bother to figure out your source code ... I'm not too fond about these license things. ...
      (comp.lang.perl.misc)
    • Activation problems
      ... Here is an extract from articles issued by M$: ... The license for a retail version of Windows XP is in perpetuity. ... Regards ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
    • Re: Python programs always open source?
      ... no part of the library is in the source code of the Python program, ... Write your program in Python, and you can ignore the Python license ...
      (comp.lang.python)
    • Re: Windows server 2003 and Windows server 2003R2 license
      ... R2 requires an additional license. ... Best regards ... If i already have windows server 2003 license, ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
    • Re: VXD Tool for Windows XP
      ... I am trying to find out source code for the RegMon(Registry Monitor) Utility in Windows XP. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)