|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
AFL protection - Protectionism vs Free distribution
We have seen many examples. Linix is a freely distributed
OS, and much of its growth is attributed free distribution of source
code. Linix's core developers didn't have the budget or man power to
grow its market without tapping into the overall community for
free contributions. Microsoft on the other hand, strongly believes
in its inhouse developed edge and tried to guard it as much as
possible, by keeping it as secret as the laws allow it.
Open source is always the fastest way to spread the use of a
software product. Take a look in the AFL library, I would argue that
most afls posted are small, rudimentary and often specific their its
purposes, their utility relies on the fact that they can be easily
customised, and the open source serves as documentation on what
needs to be done. They are completely open to the adopters
imagination. When AFL becomes encrypted, or protected, they
become canned, and has to be used as it is. For any canned product
to be out in the public, regardless whether it is free of charge or
not, it has to cater to all or most of its users need, and not just
the writers. There is a huge effort on the writers part to analyse
the needs of the type of users that he wants to target. They called
that system analysis in software development. Then he has to develop
it, and then carry out all sort of tests, more than ever. Because
now protected, no users can contributed to any debugging whatever.
After all that is done, the writer has to thoroughly document with
user guide, reference guide, etc. Because no one will know how to
use it otherwise. With the exception of the few who are selling
their ware, most will not want to go through that trouble and shy
away from contributing. By the way, any encrypted afl will be
cracked within day, if not hours. We have encrypted vbscript and
jscript today, they are neither secured or popular.
If answering a few question for curious users on how to modify
author's code is tieing up the author's time. Then canning AFL is a
sure way to killing all his time!
If someone really wants to protect their intellectual property and
has deemed it worth protecting, they should convert their ideas into
dlls or have them converted by someone. Dll fullfills the needs of
protection totally and is far more secured. without forcing a new
barrier onto the masses.
In my view, afl protectionsim is aiming at guarding the fortune of
the few, because there will be very few who will wants to use it.
the majority will be just happy to share the ideas, no matter how
small, freely and easily, or not at all.
If AFl protectionism becomes reality, Tim will soon be asking Why
are there so few AFLs. LOL! In another twisted way, I have answered
once more why there are so few dll.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bruce1r" <brucer@xxx> wrote:
>
> Progster -
>
> Your response addressed DLL's and made good points about
intellectual
> property, but IMO you might have missed a point and been a little
off
> the larger target.
>
> I think that the larger question is protection of AFL's. This is
> something that Howard Bandy and I discussed with Tomasz at the
> conference in Feb. I'm going to delve into it a little here
because I
> think that it is time to air it again, then I'll offer a quick
point
> about DLL's.
>
> Many have AFL's (trading systems, AND utilities) that they would
> release if they could protect them. There are two reasons for
> protecting the source - one obvious and one not so obvious -
>
> 1. To charge for the code and for the intellectual property. The
> market will decide if the price is reasonable or not.
>
> 2. To protect the source. Many times others will mod the source
and
> then tie up author's time with questions about how the original
> software worked OR why the modified software doesn't work. This
is a
> real problem. I have released a fair amount of AB code in another
> venue and can relate this problem firsthand.
>
> My impression is that Tomasz is reluctant to incorporate AFL
> protection for a couple of reasons. I won't try to speak for him,
but
> I think that one of his reasons is that he feels that protected
code
> that possibly had a charge would impede the sharing of code. To
that
> all that I can ask is - how much is not now being released because
> this facility doesn't exist. Howard and I and others have tried to
> emphasize this.
>
> Now to DLL's. Certainly code can be placed in a DLL to hide it.
It
> is also fairly easy to protect it. It is just a pain and a
> productivity hit to convert AFL to a DLL just to protect it. And
in
> the end, any protection can be broken by a determined hacker.
> Protection tends to fall into two categories -
>
> 1. Wrappers for EXE's and DLL's that implement keyed protection for
> existing binaries and require no changes. The protection may or
may
> not be machine unique. For example, ASPROTECT
>
> 2. Embedded protection calls that require changes to the app.
Several
> libraries available - some open such as ACTIVELOCK
>
> Anyway, I'd be interested in others thoughts on this issue.
>
> -- Bruce R
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "progster01" <progster@> wrote:
> >
> > The discussion so far on "Why so few?" DLLs seems pretty much
> > on-target to me.
> >
> > I would add:
> >
> > Ability to program a non-trivial DLL is a marketable skill that
takes
> > a long time to develop.
> >
> > There are certainly a number of fine examples of free
contribution to
> > the AB community in the DLL area (e.g. RMath, for one).
> >
> > One can only feel gratitude and appreciation for such "above and
> > beyond" contributions.
> >
> > However, capable DLL authors have the same 24/7/365 limitations
as
> > everyone else, and must confront a simple choice about how/where
to
> > spend their time and effort: getting paid, or not getting paid.
> >
> > Since DLL writing is (almost) platform agnostic, DLL writers in
the
> > trading area will have a tendency to code for platforms that
provide
> > built-in support for locking a DLL to a customer or software ID.
> >
> > I would predict that such "commercializing" integration features
would
> > result in a distinct increase in the number of commercial DLLs
> > available for AB.
> >
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
*********************
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
*********************
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
*********************************
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|