Is it possible to protect poker programs from decompiling?

[twobitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]


They are right.

A compiled AHK exe file contains two distinct (and seperable) parts - the optionally encrypted source code for the AHK script, and the run-time interpreter.

It is the AHK interpreter that is covered by the GPL, not the source code of your own scripts - that may be covered by whatever license the author wishes.



[/ QUOTE ]
To comply with the requirements of the GPL, the distributor of a compiled AHK must provide source dor the interpreter, that is all.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong, that is not all once you made the choice to join them. I will quote some relevant parts of the gpl below.

[ QUOTE ]
The use of a GPL interpreter to execute a program does not impart GPL requirements to the executed program, unlike compiling an executable statically linked against GPL sources, since while contained within the same file, the interpreter and the script are distinctly seperate entities.


dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, until you made the choice to join them into the exe. The GPL states that if I get an exe that is made even partially from GPLed code, I have the right to get the full sources used to make that GPL and then further redistribute those sources.


The GPL specifically states that if you distribute an executable that is derive from you must make available the original source and all the build scripts required to rebuild that executable. If I bought a compiled ahk script once I received it under the GPL I can ask for and should receive all source files needed to rebuild that exe file. Obviously that would have to include the source to the ahk script.

[ QUOTE ]


The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.



[/ QUOTE ]

This was the entire reason it was created was to prevent closed derivative works. Your claim about it be separable is not applicable once the choice was made to join them. While they are separate you do indeed have the right to pick whatever license you want for your code, once you join it you don't. What you seem to be trying to hit here is the clause about 'mere mere aggregation' which was meant to apply to the case of compilation copyrights. This exception is in place to allow gpled programs to be distributed with for example an OS CDROM. To allow the use they seem to want, they should not be using the GPL. They also must never accept or use any 3rd party code that is licensed under the GPL. If you read Stallmans write up about 'Why not to use the LGPL',more of the intent of the GPL becomes clear. Another interest thing to read is the way mysql uses the GPL with programs that only link to their client library.

Remeber
[ QUOTE ]

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.


[/ QUOTE ]


So the fact a part could stand alone is not relevant once you made the choice to join them.