Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml

From: Daniel Ortmann (ortmann@vnet.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2000 - 22:46:06 MET DST

  • Next message: didier@fecit.fr: "about partial functions"

    Sirs,

    With the intent of furthering the practical commercial use of O'Caml, or at
    least eliminating some possible objections to its use ... I submit the
    following observations and questions for your consideration:

    I have asked myself "How might companies object to Objective Caml?"

    The thought occurs to me that companies may wish to:
    - develop and sell byte-compiled O'Caml modules
    - develop and sell applications which use dynamically loaded modules
    - protect their actual source code

    Because of the well-thought regularity of O'Caml bytecode, the ease of viewing
    (for example) emacs elisp bytecode in emacs, and the unusual numbers of bright
    people working with O'Caml ...

    ... it occurs to me that companies may be concerned about the ease of "reverse
    engineering" their byte compiled software modules and thus object to Objective
    Caml.

    So.

    How can companies protect their bytecode, at least their modules, from reverse
    engineering?

    1) The idea occurs to me that O'Caml might support various standard encryption
       modules using different types of encryption techniques (DES, PGP, etc).
    2) Perhaps user encryption could also be supported.
    3) Perhaps the encryption modules should be composeable, multiple modules
       being used to derive another module.
    4) What about using public/private keys and key management?
    5) Should this be integrated with licensing? What licensing techniques are
       available on Windows? Mac? Unix? Other? (O'Caml WILL get big
       commercially, and WILL need to address this eventually.)
    6) What things should be visible non-encrypted in cmi/cmo/other files?
    7) Should such encryption be available via marshalling? If not, might some
       needs be common?

    Philosophically speaking, earning money and protecting the rewards of hard
    work are not bad a priori. There *will* be an exchange of value; that
    exchange may be either with or without "concern for your fellow man". In
    fact, one way of looking at a dollar bill is as a type of "certificate of
    service to your fellow man". 

    --
Daniel Ortmann, IBM Circuit Technology, Rochester, MN 55901-7829
ortmann@vnet.ibm.com or ortmann@us.ibm.com and 507.253.6795 (external)
ortmann@rchland.ibm.com and tieline 8.553.6795 (internal)
ortmann@isl.net and 507.288.7732 (home)

    "The answers are so simple, and we all know where to look,
but it's easier just to avoid the question." -- Kansas

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 20:27:47 MET DST