From: <jo...@cy...> - 2003-08-13 23:17:37
|
This is an interesting question, does anyone have an answer to this?<br> <br> Jose<BR><BR><br> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [Webware-discuss] executing .pyc files<BR>From: "=?Windows-1250?B?SmFyb3OzYXcgWmFiaWWzs28=?="<BR><web...@ap...><BR>Date: Fri, August 08, 2003 6:37 pm<BR>To: web...@li...<BR><BR>Can WebKit execute .pyc files?<BR><BR>I changed Aplication.config as following:<BR><BR>'ExtensionsToIgnore': ['.pyo', '.py~', '.psp~', '.html~', '.bak'],<BR>'ExtensionCascadeOrder':['.py', '.pyc', '.psp', '.tmpl', '.html'],<BR>'FilesToHide': ['.*','*~', '*.bak', '*.config', '__init__.*', '*.pyo'],<BR><BR>But it does NOT work because WebKit couldn't execute .pyc files. :( Is<BR>there any way to change its behaviour? I would like to prepare CD-ROM<BR>version of my application. It is based on WebKit http server and<BR>servlet so I would like to delete all source .py files and use only<BR>.pyc version.<BR><BR>And another question. Can OneShotAdapter use sessions like heavy-duty<BR>mod_webkit version?<BR><BR>--<BR>JZ<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-------------------------------------------------------<BR>This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including<BR>Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.<BR>Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.<BR>http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Webware-discuss mailing list<BR>Web...@li...<BR>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss </BLOCKQUOTE> |
From: Geoffrey T. <gta...@na...> - 2003-08-14 15:34:55
|
Why don't you just run from the .py files? Even if the directory is read-only it should still work -- it just won't write out the .pyc files. Maybe you're trying to hide the source code by using .pyc files? - Geoff -----Original Message----- From: jo...@cy... [mailto:jo...@cy...] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:11 PM To: web...@ap... Cc: web...@li... Subject: RE: [Webware-discuss] executing .pyc files This is an interesting question, does anyone have an answer to this? Jose -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Webware-discuss] executing .pyc files From: "=?Windows-1250?B?SmFyb3OzYXcgWmFiaWWzs28=?=" <web...@ap...> Date: Fri, August 08, 2003 6:37 pm To: web...@li... Can WebKit execute .pyc files? I changed Aplication.config as following: 'ExtensionsToIgnore': ['.pyo', '.py~', '.psp~', '.html~', '.bak'], 'ExtensionCascadeOrder':['.py', '.pyc', '.psp', '.tmpl', '.html'], 'FilesToHide': ['.*','*~', '*.bak', '*.config', '__init__.*', '*.pyo'], But it does NOT work because WebKit couldn't execute .pyc files. :( Is there any way to change its behaviour? I would like to prepare CD-ROM version of my application. It is based on WebKit http server and servlet so I would like to delete all source .py files and use only .pyc version. And another question. Can OneShotAdapter use sessions like heavy-duty mod_webkit version? -- JZ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list Web...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list Web...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss |
From: Chad W. <ch...@wo...> - 2003-08-14 16:58:29
|
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0400, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > Maybe you're trying to hide the source code by using .pyc files? BINGO! He's counting on code obfuscation through bytecode. There's very few other explainations for this. Now, as to the reasons why he'd want to obfuscate, there could be a few explainations, but the most obvious is commercialization of his software. Since the WebWare copyright license is not GPL, this seems to be a legitimate use of WebWare. Good luck! --=20 Chad Walstrom <ch...@wo...> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ |
From: Aaron H. <aaron@MetroNY.com> - 2003-08-14 17:53:49
|
There is an example somewhere about how to modify import so that you can import encrypted files. I used it once to import a config file that had a username/pass in it. But of course I had the encrpytion keys in another python file somewhere. The plan was for the application to request a set of keys from my server each time it runs. I never got it to work. -Aaron Chad Walstrom wrote: >On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0400, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > > >>Maybe you're trying to hide the source code by using .pyc files? >> >> > >BINGO! He's counting on code obfuscation through bytecode. There's >very few other explainations for this. Now, as to the reasons why he'd >want to obfuscate, there could be a few explainations, but the most >obvious is commercialization of his software. Since the WebWare >copyright license is not GPL, this seems to be a legitimate use of >WebWare. Good luck! > > > -- -Aaron http://www.MetroNY.com/ "I don't know what's wrong with my television set. I was getting C-Span and the Home Shopping Network on the same station. I actually bought a congressman." - Bruce Baum |
From: Edmund L. <el...@in...> - 2003-08-14 19:51:32
|
Chad Walstrom wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0400, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > >>Maybe you're trying to hide the source code by using .pyc files? > > > BINGO! He's counting on code obfuscation through bytecode. There's > very few other explainations for this. Now, as to the reasons why he'd > want to obfuscate, there could be a few explainations, but the most > obvious is commercialization of his software. Since the WebWare > copyright license is not GPL, this seems to be a legitimate use of > WebWare. Good luck! Not necessarily. I can think of one other reason--he may not want users to be able to change the code locally, so creating a local fork that would eventually be impossible to update. ...Edmund. |
From: Chad W. <ch...@wo...> - 2003-08-14 22:16:33
|
Prescript: Quit CC'ing me. I am on the list. On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:52:00PM -0400, Edmund Lian wrote: > Not necessarily. I can think of one other reason--he may not want > users to be able to change the code locally, so creating a local fork > that would eventually be impossible to update. I think you're stretching a bit here. Preventing code forks for the sake of maintenance is plainly naieve. It implies that the source code is or can be available to those that ask. Only those people that are interested are even going to look at it anyway. The majority of end-users wouldn't know the difference, so obfuscating code for their sake is a null op. Regardless, if a fork happens, it either succeeds or dies. Why suppress a potentially useful development because of some deep-seeded need to stroke an ego, to be a control-freak. If you're going to give the software away, why not give it "free" as in "libre", not just free as in beer? Besides, there have been a number of very successful forks. One to note is the gcc and egcs fork. Each project realized that although the reason the fork happened, their code was taking convergent paths. Aside from being grossly off-topic, this ground has been covered many times by more literate people than me. Check out Eric S. Ramond's site or Richard M. Stallman's. Google if you need URL's. --=20 Chad Walstrom <ch...@wo...> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ |
From: Edmund L. <el...@in...> - 2003-08-15 01:56:04
|
Chad Walstrom wrote: > Prescript: Quit CC'ing me. I am on the list. Sure, no problem. It's just that the practice I've observed on this list seems to be to reply to the person directly, and CC the list. > I think you're stretching a bit here. Preventing code forks for the > sake of maintenance is plainly naieve. It implies that the source code > is or can be available to those that ask. Only those people that are > interested are even going to look at it anyway. The majority of > end-users wouldn't know the difference, so obfuscating code for their > sake is a null op. No, I don't think I'm stretching here. I'm actually facing this situation. I have an app that the user has full access to because I don't intend to, and cannot restrict access to the box--it's their box. Some of the code is OK for them to touch, but some isn't. Basically, there are parts of the code base that are specific to them, and parts that are shared across all users. The problem then, is how to allow them to feel free to fiddle with their customized bits, but also stop a fork of the common code. I could tell them to not touch it, but if they do, it's going to be hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. So it isn't a case of locking away the entire application from them, but stopping them from inadvertently forking critical parts of the code. ...Edmund. |
From: Chad W. <ch...@wo...> - 2003-08-15 14:24:21
|
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:51:28PM -0400, Edmund Lian wrote: > The problem then, is how to allow them to feel free to fiddle with > their customized bits, but also stop a fork of the common code. Can you explore using a Content Management System to allow them to selectively import code specifict to their modules, but restrict them from importing the critical core modules? Along those lines, can you implement a $HOME/.application search path for "plugins"? Really, I understand that you feel a well-defined developer/user policy is not enough control for your situation. So be it. ;-) Ha! On one extreme, you could always use SOAP for controlling the core application API. Though, that's probably more work than just distributing byte code. *shrug* Well, I don't envy your situation. I hope it works out. --=20 Chad Walstrom <ch...@wo...> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ |
From: Geoffrey T. <gta...@na...> - 2003-08-14 17:35:41
|
Chad Walstrom wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:40:25AM -0400, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: >> Maybe you're trying to hide the source code by using .pyc files? > > BINGO! He's counting on code obfuscation through bytecode. There's > very few other explainations for this. Now, as to the reasons why > he'd want to obfuscate, there could be a few explainations, but the > most obvious is commercialization of his software. Since the WebWare > copyright license is not GPL, this seems to be a legitimate use of > WebWare. Good luck! Certainly legitimate -- I have no problem with it. But isn't there a tool that decompiles .pyc files? (called Decompyle I believe) If so, then it wouldn't be a very effective method of obfuscation. - Geoff |
From: <web...@ap...> - 2003-08-14 00:25:00
|
W czwartek 14 sierpnia 2003 o godz. 01:10:59 jo...@cy... <jo...@cy...> napisał(a): >> Can WebKit execute .pyc files? > > This is an interesting question, does anyone have an answer to this? I think, I found the answer. Although WebKit can download only .py files, all other (dependend) modules can (and are) loaded from .pyc version. So, if my all pages are managed by only one index.py file (which only reload different templates) the solution is to change its name to e.g. main.py and change content of index.py to "from index import *". In this way, only this source will be revealed. All other modules can by in compiled version. -- JZ |