Feature request for RubyScript2Exe

[Ruby Maniac]

It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
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
Ruby more often even though Ruby is rather slow.

 

[John Joyce]

It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
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
Ruby more often even though Ruby is rather slow.

If you're really worried about it, write it in a compiled language or
just write hard to read code.
A password protected zip wouldn'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.

 

[MenTaLguY]

It would be nice if RubyScript2Exe was able to handle a passworded ZIP
Lib rather than not. This way any code placed into the .EXE would be
encrypted and this would be useful.

Have you thought about how the user would run such a package? I mean, you
could give them the password, but...

-mental

 

[Ruby Maniac]

Have you thought about how the user would run such a package? I mean, you
could give them the password, but...

-mental

Password is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.

Look folks, my goal is to distribute Ruby code in a manner that hides
the source code from the end-user and encryption makes this useful.

Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps. Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source. I prefer closed source that
allows people to handle EXE's that contain no source or as in the case
of Ruby encrypted source.

 

[Ruby Maniac]

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.

 

[Konrad Meyer]

--nextPart1531820.um5lHqyV5s
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Quoth Ruby Maniac:

=20
Password is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.
=20
Look folks, my goal is to distribute Ruby code in a manner that hides
the source code from the end-user and encryption makes this useful.
=20
Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps. Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source. I prefer closed source that
allows people to handle EXE's that contain no source or as in the case
of Ruby encrypted source.

As Charles (of JRuby fame and fortune) mentioned earlier, JRuby can in many=
=20
cases 'compile' ruby code down to Java .class files, which are hard to=20
reverse to anything resembling ruby (or even java, for that matter). You=20
should be able to make this work for your little problem.

=2D-=20
Konrad Meyer <[email protected]> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/

--nextPart1531820.um5lHqyV5s
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBG/VwqCHB0oCiR2cwRAmmAAKDRyJjuhKAjmD1AJzoouAJT4zT4SQCfQm2O
jnIQaX8Jpec7ypgj7gCT+Lo=
=4ZvB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1531820.um5lHqyV5s--

 

[John Joyce]

Apparently the JRuby compiler is ready...

But still, code obfuscation is just silly in most cases.
You don't trust your clients? What could you possibly have that is so
valuable that hasn't been written before?

Your other option is to develop a system like BaseCamp. You sell a
subscription. You host it. They pay to use it.
They never see your precious.

 

[MenTaLguY]

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.

That's manifestly untrue. Otherwise it would be impossible to
enforce Open Source licenses.

-mental

 

[MenTaLguY]

Password is kept within the EXE in an encrypted format hidden from the
user.

So, yes, you're giving the user the password. But it's probably better
described as obfuscation than encryption, realistically.

Some of you might not mind giving away your source code but I rather
like making people dig real hard to get my source code when I distro
my apps.

I'll give you credit for that -- it's a more realistic goal than the
usual.

Call me strange if you must but I am not a huge fan of Open
Source for the sake of open source.

Honestly, I don't think being a fan of Open Source for the sake
of Open Source is a good thing either. But I am a fan of Open
Source for the sake of the people who have to deal with my
software.

-mental

 

[MenTaLguY]

As Charles (of JRuby fame and fortune) mentioned earlier, JRuby can in
many cases 'compile' ruby code down to Java .class files, which are hard to
reverse to anything resembling ruby (or even java, for that matter). You
should be able to make this work for your little problem.

JVM bytecode is pretty easy to translate into Java, actually, but Ruby
would probably be a little harder. Distributing .jars of compiled Ruby
is probably a reasonable solution.

-mental

 

[Konrad Meyer]

--nextPart3783923.ACtsTH6R2R
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Quoth MenTaLguY:

d=20
to=20
=20
JVM bytecode is pretty easy to translate into Java, actually, but Ruby
would probably be a little harder. Distributing .jars of compiled Ruby
is probably a reasonable solution.
=20
-mental

It's easy to translate into java that will compile back to that bytecode, b=
ut=20
that doesn't necessarily make it easy to read.

Regards,
=2D-=20
Konrad Meyer <[email protected]> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/

--nextPart3783923.ACtsTH6R2R
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBG/XDFCHB0oCiR2cwRAhhLAKCyhDRDW7wrQQgK/zC0q3MjMh/uUACgzpWE
rmHujiI+Skfqv/cXQ+Y/G4k=
=EW29
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3783923.ACtsTH6R2R--