6 ms·

My understanding is that the proposals being bandied about to do source code protection involve compiling the JS code into binary, so it's analogous to the prot

My understanding is that the proposals being bandied about to do source code protection involve compiling the JS code into binary, so it's analogous to the protection offered by writing native code rather than mere minification/obfuscation or JIT bytecode stuff. Obviously no compilation process offers 100% protection, but it would be enough for most people's purposes if it occupied a space that was more secure (or more obfuscated) than Java, but less so than, say, C++.

penagwin 10y ago
Disclaimer: I started that github issue for source code protection with Electron. To add to this since other people will come commenting, yes I know that if somebody REALLY wants to they can get to the code (although I'd argue that Denuvo worked for a while). However there is a huge difference between having hard to read code that needs to be decompiled and unobfuscated to code that is in plain text! Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!).
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!). And what's so bad about that? The copyright law of the EU even was written with the intention that someday everyone would have the source code to everything, and everyone — even your grandparents — could modify any application, because the source would be in freaking text files!
  - theprotocol 10y ago
    Every project has different requirements. It's not for you to say whether something is good or not for others. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but while I personally love open source, I tire of the evangelism of its virtues.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      So, you’re advocating that you should be able to sell products that are impossible to repair, impossible to modify, with 0 days warranty period, and then expect people to accept that? I’m sorry, but there’s a reason we don’t allow that for physical things either. > Every project has different requirements. That might be. But that doesn’t change the problem I mentioned above.
      - theprotocol 10y ago
        Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem. It's certainly debatable and far from settled, contrary to the definitive character of your indignation. And it's far more nuanced than your ungenerous characterization of it - this is part product, part intellectual property. What's great is you are free to exercise your philosophy in your products, and if you're right, then that will make your products superior. I don't feel the need to utterly destroy my ideological "enemies" to the point that I need closed source software to die, just because I believe in open source. Nor can I claim to have an indisputable moral high ground that just goes without saying.
        debaserab2 10y ago
        Wow, I think you just articulated something that I've definitely felt, but have a hard time explaining – I feel like I am some kind of traitor to open source software for feeling this way.
        sametmax 10y ago
        Morality is arbitrary, neither point of view is more valid than the other one. Take your text, and replace FOSS with berries and closed source with banana, and you'll feel even more right. Do it with freedom and slavery, you'll feel so wrong.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        In isolation I agree with you, but software does not exist in isolation. It exists in market places, on pacemakers, in airplanes, on voting machines and everywhere else. Right now the default way to release "of the shelf" products is without source code. It is not a real business decision for many, so they default to what everyone else does. For no real reason, then they defend this with lobbyist and lawyers. This includes airplanes, pacemakers, etc... I really do think closed source software should be illegal, because I think that is the only way that I will be able to verify there are no issues something I use, like a medical device. I cannot verify my grandmother's pacemaker and if there is a bug she dies. Currently, the source code doesn't need to be shared with her or me, just because its a trade secret. Why should a trade secret be more important than the lives of users of a product. But its not just the one life threatening extreme. Look at the Vizio TV news for the past few weeks. These entertainment should be about as innocuous as possible. Vizio has enough data to know the political leanings of 90% of Vizio TV owners. How would you feel if they sold that to people in a political party that opposes you? This is software on entertainment devices, and it has this kind of power. To make it worse, they got away with it for 18 months before anyone figured it out. They might have gotten away with entirely if they used a bit of encryption. Forget the virtues of open source, I firmly believe closed source software is not compatible with the basic freedoms required the long term for any democracy.

penagwin 10y ago

Disclaimer: I started that github issue for source code protection with Electron. To add to this since other people will come commenting, yes I know that if somebody REALLY wants to they can get to the code (although I'd argue that Denuvo worked for a while). However there is a huge difference between having hard to read code that needs to be decompiled and unobfuscated to code that is in plain text! Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!).

kuschku 10y ago
> Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!). And what's so bad about that? The copyright law of the EU even was written with the intention that someday everyone would have the source code to everything, and everyone — even your grandparents — could modify any application, because the source would be in freaking text files!
- theprotocol 10y ago
  Every project has different requirements. It's not for you to say whether something is good or not for others. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but while I personally love open source, I tire of the evangelism of its virtues.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    So, you’re advocating that you should be able to sell products that are impossible to repair, impossible to modify, with 0 days warranty period, and then expect people to accept that? I’m sorry, but there’s a reason we don’t allow that for physical things either. > Every project has different requirements. That might be. But that doesn’t change the problem I mentioned above.
    - theprotocol 10y ago
      Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem. It's certainly debatable and far from settled, contrary to the definitive character of your indignation. And it's far more nuanced than your ungenerous characterization of it - this is part product, part intellectual property. What's great is you are free to exercise your philosophy in your products, and if you're right, then that will make your products superior. I don't feel the need to utterly destroy my ideological "enemies" to the point that I need closed source software to die, just because I believe in open source. Nor can I claim to have an indisputable moral high ground that just goes without saying.
      - debaserab2 10y ago
        Wow, I think you just articulated something that I've definitely felt, but have a hard time explaining – I feel like I am some kind of traitor to open source software for feeling this way.
      - sametmax 10y ago
        Morality is arbitrary, neither point of view is more valid than the other one. Take your text, and replace FOSS with berries and closed source with banana, and you'll feel even more right. Do it with freedom and slavery, you'll feel so wrong.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        In isolation I agree with you, but software does not exist in isolation. It exists in market places, on pacemakers, in airplanes, on voting machines and everywhere else. Right now the default way to release "of the shelf" products is without source code. It is not a real business decision for many, so they default to what everyone else does. For no real reason, then they defend this with lobbyist and lawyers. This includes airplanes, pacemakers, etc... I really do think closed source software should be illegal, because I think that is the only way that I will be able to verify there are no issues something I use, like a medical device. I cannot verify my grandmother's pacemaker and if there is a bug she dies. Currently, the source code doesn't need to be shared with her or me, just because its a trade secret. Why should a trade secret be more important than the lives of users of a product. But its not just the one life threatening extreme. Look at the Vizio TV news for the past few weeks. These entertainment should be about as innocuous as possible. Vizio has enough data to know the political leanings of 90% of Vizio TV owners. How would you feel if they sold that to people in a political party that opposes you? This is software on entertainment devices, and it has this kind of power. To make it worse, they got away with it for 18 months before anyone figured it out. They might have gotten away with entirely if they used a bit of encryption. Forget the virtues of open source, I firmly believe closed source software is not compatible with the basic freedoms required the long term for any democracy.