Encoding scripts: Contrary to the spirit of open source?
Moderator: General Moderators
Encoding scripts: Contrary to the spirit of open source?
On all the web-boards I've noticed more and more people wanting to encode their PHP scripts.
The more I think about this the more I see it as anathema to the whole idea of open source. We have a right to earn a living, and to that end charge what the market will bear for our talents and expertise.
Encoding a script may possibly ensure the source code is secure, however, it also makes the end-user beholden to the developer. Am I going to buy the latest best-seller, only to find I need a decoder to read the final chapter?
Script encoding is a waste of time and money, inhibits healthy competition and slows the development of software in general. If you're a talented developer you won't need encoding. If you're talent is marginal it would be wise to note:...somewhere some developer is working on a better, faster, cheaper version of the same thing.
Only the strong survive.
The more I think about this the more I see it as anathema to the whole idea of open source. We have a right to earn a living, and to that end charge what the market will bear for our talents and expertise.
Encoding a script may possibly ensure the source code is secure, however, it also makes the end-user beholden to the developer. Am I going to buy the latest best-seller, only to find I need a decoder to read the final chapter?
Script encoding is a waste of time and money, inhibits healthy competition and slows the development of software in general. If you're a talented developer you won't need encoding. If you're talent is marginal it would be wise to note:...somewhere some developer is working on a better, faster, cheaper version of the same thing.
Only the strong survive.
Last edited by phpPete on Mon Aug 26, 2002 3:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't like the choices so I'm not voting.
Yes script encoding is against the spirit of Open Source, but nothing says that all PHP apps must be OS. While I may be a OS advocate and GPL or BSD-like most of what I write, that doesn't mean I have a problem with other people wanting to protect their code. I respect their choice because I expect them to respect mine.
Compiled languages give the developer the choice of open-source or closed. Script encoding gives the same choice to interpreted languages. Choice is good, even it just highlights why one is better
Yes script encoding is against the spirit of Open Source, but nothing says that all PHP apps must be OS. While I may be a OS advocate and GPL or BSD-like most of what I write, that doesn't mean I have a problem with other people wanting to protect their code. I respect their choice because I expect them to respect mine.
Compiled languages give the developer the choice of open-source or closed. Script encoding gives the same choice to interpreted languages. Choice is good, even it just highlights why one is better
- hob_goblin
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 978
- Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 9:53 pm
- Contact:
- twigletmac
- Her Royal Site Adminness
- Posts: 5371
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Essex, UK
Re: Encoding scripts: Contrary to the spirit of open source
No, you are going to be able to read the last chapter as the author intended, not a last chapter re-written by some other person and the whole book published under their name.phpPete wrote:Am I going to buy the latest best-seller, only to find I need a decoder to read the final chapter?
Good point...but as I have purchased the script/book, I am now the owner of the contents, if I want to change the behavior I have every right to open the script and modify it to my liking. Script encoding says: you can buy the behavior, but I, the author, am going to obfuscate the workings. I don't agree with that.No, you are going to be able to read the last chapter as the author intended, not a last chapter re-written by some other person and the whole book published under their name
Put another way, if I want to modify the engine of my shiny new car, I have every right to do so. The manufacturer cannot sell me a car where they have secured the engine compartment from prying eyes.
Yes you can modify a cars engine, but you cannot then market that car on as say 'The all new Ford Focus', I'm sure Ford would have something to say about that.phpPete wrote:Put another way, if I want to modify the engine of my shiny new car, I have every right to do so. The manufacturer cannot sell me a car where they have secured the engine compartment from prying eyes.
Once you purchase a script/book you don't own the contents, you own the right to use them for the purpose intended by the owner/author, this is what copyright law is all about. You cannot publish any quotes etc from a book without first obtaining the permission from the author, and probably paying a fee to do so, and you certainly can't change any part and market it as 'The new best seller from phpPete'.
Even without 'encoding' (I'm not taking open source) you still don't have the 'right' to change it, you are still bound to use it as the author intended without changing anything, doesn't stop you doing it but you are not allowed to, and you certainly cannot then sell it on.
If I open a script, significantly re-write a majority of the script and add functionality that previously was not present, theoretically the new version is an entirely different product.
Obviously re-marketing it as a better version of the same product is illegal, however, marketing it as a different product with better performance and functionality is not.
Getting back onto the OS theme here though, I just think that too many people take full advantage of the generous nature of OS without ever giving anything back, thus the reason I started this thread.
Obviously re-marketing it as a better version of the same product is illegal, however, marketing it as a different product with better performance and functionality is not.
Getting back onto the OS theme here though, I just think that too many people take full advantage of the generous nature of OS without ever giving anything back, thus the reason I started this thread.
Take a look at SourceGuardian, a very nice program that does obfuscation and encryption on PHP code. It doesn't need any addon's and the code it spits out for the files can be used as is. No server modifications needed.
Now, lets get to the meet of this discussion. Going against OS? Of course, Open Source is about opening the the source of a project to other developers for the purpose of development. Okay, it's not really going against OS, but merely offering another choice.
Does anyone have the right to say "You have to Open Source your product"? No, I don't think so. As much as I enjoy open source products, I don't want to feel obligated to do so. As an author, I would feel very much unhappy if someone used my work on their page without asking, and as such, I want to protect my works as much as possible from that.
The same thing goes with the source code to a program. Now, I believe the problem lies in 2 distinct areas: 1) Who the target audience is, and 2) the nature of the company behind the product.
Unfortunately, most people believe that proprietary products lead to insecure code. This is not true. The development model of open source generally leads to more secure code, but this is not always the case. I have seen just as many proprietary products that are secure as I have see open source products. Unfortunately, the biggest of the proprietary products are usually the most hole ridden code known to man.
I really wanted to say tripe, but hole ridden tripe doesn't sit well.
Anyways, back to the first point - Who the target audience is. It's absurd to think my father could benifit in having PowerPoint open sourced. Now this is where I could throw in the classic "he isn't going to mess with the code scenario" and you would throw back "He doens't have to, but others can, and that means he can upgrade, etc.". I don't use that line because of that reason. However, the fact that PowerPoint is proprietary doesn't mean much to my father. The fact that it works does, and that's it.
Imagine for a second, a proprietary piece of software that works like it should and is the best in the business. Do we abandon it because it's proprietary? No! Look at Photoshop and the open source GIMP. Now, anyone who has used Photoshop (And I am refering to those people who actually know how to use Photoshop, not those that got frustrated with it and went to Paint Shop Pro
) will tell you GIMP is simply not a replacement. Don't get me wrong, GIMP is great, it's very very good. Hell, much better than PSP, and it's free! And Open Source! But what benifits would Photoshop get from opening it's source? It's done an amazing job so far, and in the end, the users of the software simply want to use it. As programmers, we naturally want our source open, so we can muddle around with it and see what is going on.
And that is the crux: Most people who want everything to be open source are not the end users of the products that are open source, and most users who want everything to be open soruce are programmers or developers in some sense.
We like open source products because we feel that we can better trust the company behind the product, but if a company open's the source to it's product, is that any reason to trust them? No, definetly not. A company earns it's trust based on it's actions. If a company does well in supporting it's users, keeping the code secure, and providing necessary patches and fixed when needed, then does it really matter that the source is closed?
One point I will agree to is that companies who stop supporting a product, stop developing a product, or who go out of business, should open source the product. This is not only a smart thing to do, but merely a polite thing to do as well.
Anyways, enough of my hole ridden tripe (whee!), I have probably baited enough of you.
My end point: Enforcing open source is just as bad as what Microsoft does. When you take away my rights to decide what I want to do with my code, that goes against the ideals of a free market. It goes against the ideals of Open Source: choice.
Now, lets get to the meet of this discussion. Going against OS? Of course, Open Source is about opening the the source of a project to other developers for the purpose of development. Okay, it's not really going against OS, but merely offering another choice.
Does anyone have the right to say "You have to Open Source your product"? No, I don't think so. As much as I enjoy open source products, I don't want to feel obligated to do so. As an author, I would feel very much unhappy if someone used my work on their page without asking, and as such, I want to protect my works as much as possible from that.
The same thing goes with the source code to a program. Now, I believe the problem lies in 2 distinct areas: 1) Who the target audience is, and 2) the nature of the company behind the product.
Unfortunately, most people believe that proprietary products lead to insecure code. This is not true. The development model of open source generally leads to more secure code, but this is not always the case. I have seen just as many proprietary products that are secure as I have see open source products. Unfortunately, the biggest of the proprietary products are usually the most hole ridden code known to man.
Anyways, back to the first point - Who the target audience is. It's absurd to think my father could benifit in having PowerPoint open sourced. Now this is where I could throw in the classic "he isn't going to mess with the code scenario" and you would throw back "He doens't have to, but others can, and that means he can upgrade, etc.". I don't use that line because of that reason. However, the fact that PowerPoint is proprietary doesn't mean much to my father. The fact that it works does, and that's it.
Imagine for a second, a proprietary piece of software that works like it should and is the best in the business. Do we abandon it because it's proprietary? No! Look at Photoshop and the open source GIMP. Now, anyone who has used Photoshop (And I am refering to those people who actually know how to use Photoshop, not those that got frustrated with it and went to Paint Shop Pro
And that is the crux: Most people who want everything to be open source are not the end users of the products that are open source, and most users who want everything to be open soruce are programmers or developers in some sense.
We like open source products because we feel that we can better trust the company behind the product, but if a company open's the source to it's product, is that any reason to trust them? No, definetly not. A company earns it's trust based on it's actions. If a company does well in supporting it's users, keeping the code secure, and providing necessary patches and fixed when needed, then does it really matter that the source is closed?
One point I will agree to is that companies who stop supporting a product, stop developing a product, or who go out of business, should open source the product. This is not only a smart thing to do, but merely a polite thing to do as well.
Anyways, enough of my hole ridden tripe (whee!), I have probably baited enough of you.
My end point: Enforcing open source is just as bad as what Microsoft does. When you take away my rights to decide what I want to do with my code, that goes against the ideals of a free market. It goes against the ideals of Open Source: choice.
As a gamer when I by a game I don't care how it works I just want to play the game, if I don't like it I say "that was a bit disappointing" and carry on. If I install a script on my site I use it and say "that was a bit disappointing" and then start complaining at it's author for not letting me change it to make it better. Why is this 
I'm all in favor of the free market. If I can build a better proprietary coded program and get millions of people to buy it you can bet I'm going to do it. That may be the true legacy of bill Gates and Windows...he got people to buy it, though it's defintely not a better OS. ( I've been happy with XP though...so far...
).
I'll say it again though, if we programmers benefit from the free produxts out there like Apache, PHP, MySQL, GIMP etc...at some point we must each give something back to the OS idea.
I'll say it again though, if we programmers benefit from the free produxts out there like Apache, PHP, MySQL, GIMP etc...at some point we must each give something back to the OS idea.
-
JPlush76
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 5:42 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
I'll definately agree with thatphpPete wrote:
I'll say it again though, if we programmers benefit from the free produxts out there like Apache, PHP, MySQL, GIMP etc...at some point we must each give something back to the OS idea.
When I first got on this site I was an entry level php programmer asking a million questions and people took time to help me and now I'm more intermediate and I'm helping some questions out as a way of "paying back" the community for getting me to this level.
but I'll also agree that if I can write a great idea in php I'd sure like to be able to make a living at it and be able to have some kind of control. Open source doens't mean "open code"