Is it possible to protect poker programs from decompiling?

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw...

[ QUOTE ]
In v1.0.46.10+, the /NoDecompile switch (if present) prevents exe2ahk from being able to decompile the script even when the correct password is given. This provides an additional layer of protection that goes beyond having a long, elaborate password.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is much more likely to be a GPL violation if distributed (and the script source code refused upon request).

I am not yet convinced by Twobitplayer's arguments above - I think the opinions reached in the linked AHK forum thread hold true - when the script is separable (using exe2ahk), the combination of the interpreter and script in the same exe file is purely for convenience (as would be zipping together any two files) and does not constitute a GPL violation. But removal of the separation ability makes things a lot less clear cut.

Not that it really matters - as I said earlier, provision of source code need not preclude the profitability of a product, in some rare cases it may even improve it. Maybe the poker world (where people should treat very carefully what software they install on their systems) is one of these rare markets [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I've not read all of the thread or the linked pages, but I can't really see much difference between releasing an exe compiled using gcc and an AHK exe. OK, so the AHK exe includes an interpreter, but what if say a GPL version of the java compiler was made and it created a exe which ran on a byte-code machine which was included in the exe?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
Roland,
Nice find. Only issue is that I mentioned it 12 days ago. Way up near the top of the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I didn't see. No offence meant.

[TheIrishThug]

It's all good, just giving you a hard time.

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all good, just giving you a hard time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[twobitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I am not yet convinced by Twobitplayer's arguments above - I think the opinions reached in the linked AHK forum thread hold true - when the script is separable (using exe2ahk), the combination of the interpreter and script in the same exe file is purely for convenience (as would be zipping together any two files) and does not constitute a GPL violation. But removal of the separation ability makes things a lot less clear cut.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've not read all of the thread or the linked pages, but I can't really see much difference between releasing an exe compiled using gcc and an AHK exe. OK, so the AHK exe includes an interpreter, but what if say a GPL version of the java compiler was made and it created a exe which ran on a byte-code machine which was included in the exe?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a world of difference. I write my hello world program,and it uses OS installed libraries only. I run it through the gcc compiler,and distribute the exe. I am not distributing any gpled code. It is the distribution of GPLe d code that triggers the gpl, so if you are not distributing a binary form of GPLed code it is not triggered.

It is irrelevant if you can separate them later, all this is relevant is you have joined them and distributed the joined work. I have no idea where they pulled that idea from in the ahk forum but you will not find it in the GPL nor in any court cases on derivative works or compilation copyrights (at least in the US, maybe you UK guys have a difference here? Doubt it though since both are Berne convention signatories). Again if you link to a gpled library you have to distribute your code, and the gpl states to distribute a gpled as a binary you must at least offer to provide ALL sources needed to build the binaries. Clearly at this point you are distributing GPLed material, and I can not rebuild it without your ahk scripts source. Zero wiggle room here.



As for the semi-hypothetical java exe's, this is the reason why the rtl for gcj is not under the GPL. If it was, then yes, you would have to gpl a program you compiled and distributed with it. If you want to see another case of this issue look at the difference in cygwin vs. mingwin licensing for gcc compiled programs due to the cygwin.dll being gpled.

The GPL was designed to make any one who built on a GPLed work be forced to have to also give away their work. It is meant as a trojan horse. The public domain is the only real source of completely free software, with the MIT license being the next most free. The GPL is anything but free in any terms other then money and they are well aware of it, hence the sophomoric hand waving about libre, free as in beer and other distractions from the GPL in fact having many nonmonitary costs.


BTW, my current favorite license, due the FSFs history of taking public domain works and GPLing them is:

Use, modification and distribution is allowed without limitation, warranty, or liability of any kind, with the single exception that you may not distribute a derived work of this work under a license more restrictive than this and at the same time describe that work as "free software" in its documentation, source code, or license.

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

[twobitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]

exe file is purely for convenience (as would be zipping together any two files) and does not constitute a GPL violation. But removal of the separation ability makes things a lot less clear cut.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is also not purely for convenience as we are discussing it. It is for keeping your ahk source code private.

[jukofyork]

Roland - I just noticed your location! Are you studying here in the UK or just here for the easter holidays?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
Roland - I just noticed your location! Are you studying here in the UK or just here for the easter holidays?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I'm a full time UK student now. Will be sticking around for the next three years, maybe longer.
I'm sure I'll make it up to Leeds some time... one of my flatmate has some mates there, I bet we'll be heading there for a crazy weekend sooner or later [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'll let you know, maybe we can go for a pint or something.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Roland - I just noticed your location! Are you studying here in the UK or just here for the easter holidays?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I'm a full time UK student now. Will be sticking around for the next three years, maybe longer.
I'm sure I'll make it up to Leeds some time... one of my flatmate has some mates there, I bet we'll be heading there for a crazy weekend sooner or later [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'll let you know, maybe we can go for a pint or something.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool, but Leeds is a bit of a [censored] hole really (was very industrial at one time). York is nice though - if you get chance you should visit York (if you haven't already). It's got history going right back to the time of the Romans, etc. Only problem is that it's such an expensive place to live compared to most of the other northern cities... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]