Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amQuoteI can see your point, but your faith in the generosity of users is, I suspect, exaggerated. Your previous suggestion of a developer tip jar would be unlikely to garner more than a few BTC. I'm basing this opinion on what my experience with PGP Club and GPG instruction in other threads and via PMs.And simultaneously I don't expect anyone pays for your software. If they are not able to audit it they will have no idea if they can trust it and if they can audit it they would just do it themselves. So in the end you will make more with a tip jar than you would with software that people are either too afraid to run or know how to make themselves. Hmmm, that's the only cogent argument against my current business model. I'll think about it.Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amQuoteThere's nothing in the GPL which prevents selling the code under that license. In fact, here's the part of the FAQ which relates to it:Which might be a valid point, if we were debating about the GPL instead of what is best practice for the people on this forum. As it stands, I couldn't give less of a fuck what license you give the code. My mistake, I thought Pine was talking about open source as in open source, not "open source" as in "do it my way or I'll make false accusations about you in a public forum."Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amQuoteI can understand that concern too and I share it. There have been calls for SR's source code to be released for similar reasons, but that's not too likely either.It is completely apples and oranges to compare server and client side code (especially client side code that isn't even contained in a browser). The security implications of SR being run by the feds are far less than the implications of running a python script from the feds. Uh-huh. So you've got a vendor account and inspected all the code that the vendor's see?Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amQuoteIt's possible to compile Python code as a Windows executable, but that's not what this is. I did it once years ago and it turned a script that was a few Kb in size into something like 1.5Mb. Ridiculous. I'd rather just install Python, if it's not already installed, and run the code.I've never bothered trying to reverse engineer the bytecode from any of my scripts, but I believe it's usually pretty straight forward. I think it might be possible to obscure it, but I can't remember because I've never been interested in doing that.It is possible to make a windows executable out of a Ruby script as well, but it contains the actual script and a ruby interpreter inside of it ;). Neat trick, but wouldn't it be enormous every time?The Python version just compiles in C and Python code from all the modules and libs, linked to the relevant DLLs to run on Windows.Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amI have no real idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same thing with python. Yeah I also think it is pretty straight forward to reverse engineer bytecode, but I was trying to imagine what a close source python program would look like.Yeah, I'm not sure what that would be either. So I Googled it and found this (clearnet, obviously):http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4352866/how-can-i-make-closed-source-portable-python-applicationApparently it can be done, but there are still no guarantees that it won't be reverse engineered. I can't be bothered actually looking into how to obscure code.Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 amI don't know Python A pity, oh well, I'm sure someone else who does will turn up eventually.Quote from: kmfkewm on September 06, 2012, 04:09 ambut I do know Ruby and even the .exe's contain the source code in them, they are a cheap gimmick that packages an interpreter and the script into a single executable file.It is a cheap gimmick, especially since it could still be executing something else. That's why I like the idea of the source being the entire program.