Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rpics!chassin From: chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.graphics,comp.misc Subject: Protecting AutoLISP Programs Message-ID: <1005@rpics.RPI.EDU> Date: Tue, 17-Mar-87 20:25:36 EST Article-I.D.: rpics.1005 Posted: Tue Mar 17 20:25:36 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Mar-87 04:43:22 EST Lines: 39 Keywords: Can it be done? Is it worth it? Xref: mnetor comp.lang.lisp:185 comp.graphics:405 comp.misc:363 We are in the process of developing a very lengthly program in AutoLISP. We are interested in marketing said program as a third party package for AutoCAD systems. The issue has been raised (inevitably) of protecting software. I'm against it in principle but many of the techniques we use are themselves copyrighted by some of the people working on the project. I know it may seem strange but I was wondering if this would work as a code protection system: Take every atom that is used and that is not an AutoLISP function and substitute it and all other occurences of it with a garbled atom. This assumes you don't do any wild symbolic stuff and all that. We are not so much interested in preventing proliferation as keepings the techniques, tricks, and ideas private. Now, since no system is hacker proof, how would you rate this trick on a scale of 0 (no protection) to 10 (NSA)? Dave Chassin PS: I don't like any kind of protection. My opinion is that ideas and rumors are very alike. They only get better with proliferation. However judging by the amount of debate on the subject nowadays I must be in the minority. Or am I? _____________________ David P. Chassin Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | School of Architecture __+__ Troy, NY 12181 / _ \ USA | | | | /=======/ = \=======\ (518) 266-6461 | _ | _ | _ | | | | | | | | | | | chassin@csv.rpi.edu | = | | | | = | =======================================================================