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

From: Max Skaller (maxs@in.ot.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 00:15:57 MET DST

Next message: Max Skaller: "Re: pb with ocamldep"

Previous message: Don Syme: "RE: Problems with ocamlopt under windows?"
In reply to: Daniel Ortmann: "Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Daniel Ortmann wrote:

> ... 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.

I actually don't think this is a problem, although I'm not sure.
If it were, the solution would be to embed the runtime and bytecodes
inside an executable, and encrypt the bytecode. In that case,
being able to run the bytecodes _from a memory image_ rather than a disk
file would be the only real requirement. Configuring licence servers
etc should be left to the producer of the product.

Because the whole of the ocaml system is open,
all of this is already possible. If there is a problem here,
it is the lack of availability of consultancy from ocaml experts
to assist in the embedding task.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home

Next message: Max Skaller: "Re: pb with ocamldep"
Previous message: Don Syme: "RE: Problems with ocamlopt under windows?"
In reply to: Daniel Ortmann: "Reverse-Engineering Bytecode: A Possible Commercial Objection To O'Caml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 22:31:33 MET DST