[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Is obfuscation meaningful way to protect proprietary Lua code ?
- From: William Ahern <william@...>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:37:37 -0700
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:13:28PM -0700, Coda Highland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Rob Kendrick <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Coda Highland wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM, William Ahern
> >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> > 2) Insert markers in the code to make sure I could easily prove copying,
> >> > like an extra space in a protocol response, etc.
> >> It's a fairly common misconception that this actually matters. It's
> >> akin to mapmakers intentionally inserting false landmarks. It might
> >> prove that someone LOOKED at your stuff, but looking isn't legally
> >> infringing in and of itself.
> > At least in the UK, fictitious entries in Ordnance Survey maps have been
> > used to successfully sue (although settled out-of-court). That seems to
> > suggest it works at least some of the time.
> > B.
> Fair enough, I suppose I shouldn't presume to speak for the laws of
> other countries. It doesn't work in the US, though.
Nothing just works--that's the myth. Another myth--that circumstantial
evidence is a thing. All evidence is in reality circumstantial, and notions
of direct and indirect evidence are misleading.
The fundamentals of copyright law is extremely similar in common law
jurisdictions. US judges will often cite caselaw in the UK, and vice-versa.
But my ultimate point is that, even if you disagree with copyright law (in
general or in the specifics), the whole _point_ of the copyright law (and
all law in general) is to ensure that you don't have to jump through
technical hoops with things like code obfuscators.
Use the best tool for the job. In the OP's case, the better tool as a general
matter isn't obfuscators, but legal recourse.