• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Private Frameworks
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Private Frameworks


  • Subject: Re: Private Frameworks
  • From: Alastair Houghton <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:13:19 +0000

On 15 Jan 2008, at 04:32, Kyle Sluder wrote:

On Jan 14, 2008 7:23 PM, John Stiles <email@hidden> wrote:
Typically if someone wants to obscure code, I've found that it's the
part of the code that is responsible for distinguishing the paying
users from the demo users. (e.g. shareware registrations, or product
registration keys, or checking the network to see if other copies of
the same app are active with the same license key).


Obfuscation will never secure your copy protection/licensing code.

On the contrary, it is the *only* way on current hardware to secure your copy protection and/or licensing code. Without obfuscation, your copy protection/licensing code will only hinder casual piracy, and only to the extent that casual pirates choose not to frequent piracy websites offering cracks. I put it to you that such websites are in practice quite popular...


It will only present a fun challenge to anyone who wants to crack it.

The goal with obfuscation is to make the challenge too hard to be fun, which is well within the bounds of possibility.


Anyway, John Stiles' suggestion of using #define is probably the best bet if preventing others from linking (easily) is the desired goal. It may well be, though, that simply not including the headers is enough to discourage linking with the framework; it really depends on what the framework is for.

On 15 Jan 2008, at 00:08, Timothy Reaves wrote:

NEWS FLASH: no one gives a damn about other peoples code (statistically
speaking). I wonder at all these companies and developers who are so
concerned someone might want to look at their code. Get over yourselves.
Your code isn't that interesting, and isn't that good!


The important part of your remark is the "statistically speaking" bit. On the average, what you say is true. However, there are very real situations where some code may have considerable commercial value. People *have* stolen code in the past (e.g. remember Microsoft and Stacker), and if there is enough money involved they will doubtless continue to do so in the future.

Also, as John Stiles' rightly says, some people take a pretty unhealthy interest in copy protection code.

Kind regards,

Alastair.

--
http://alastairs-place.net


_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: Philippe Casgrain <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: Stefan <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: "Kyle Sluder" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: John Stiles <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: "Timothy Reaves" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: John Stiles <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Private Frameworks (From: "Kyle Sluder" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Core Data performance advice... creating relationships.
  • Next by Date: Re: NSWindow and autorelease with dynamic binary
  • Previous by thread: Re: Private Frameworks
  • Next by thread: plugin that does not force rendering in a new NSView
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread