<snip>
>>>>2) MS do not offer encryption in VFP compiled apps. They offer encoding. There is a major difference.
>>>
>>>We have the option to encrypt. That is the name we use, not encoding.
>>
>>It is not encryption no matter what you want to call it. It is encoding. They are not the same.
>
>It is presented by MS as encryption, so it may be regarded as encryption, no matter what you call it.

Whatever you say - read up on the differences if you like, particularly read up on Bruce Schneier's definition of it. But whatever definition you like to accept it is irrelevant to the case in point, which is whether a program that can reverse the "encryption" back to source code is illegal as per your original claim.

Refox satisfies a legal requirement to retrieve source code in those situations where it has been lost. A not uncommon occurrence judging by the number of times someone requests that here on the UT alone. Let me add here that I do not own Refox and have never needed it myself.


>>>>3) Refox decompiles VFP p-code files to VFP source code. This is a tool that can be used for good or bad. That’s not really their problem. They offer a source code recovery tool.
>>>
>>>Indeed it can be used for bad also. What I want is a tool that prevents usage of Refox for the bad. What remains is usage for the good: a source code recovery tool. Let me make it clear: My published apps are not meant to be used to recover the source code.
>>
>>Refox offers the ability for Refox not to be able to decompile a Refox "protected" app. Your wish is granted.
>
>Not as long as I have to pay for it.

If you cannot be bothered to pay to protect your intellectual property in the world we live in than one has to wonder what it is really worth? Be practical. I am not advocating Refox, btw, as it is not a very good protection anyway.


>>>>4) Refox already contains a feature which will prevent it from decompiling a program which is "protected" by Refox itself - which is what you are asking for. But this feature can be circumvented by other decompilation tools and cracks.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's smart marketing: Create a problem and ask money for the solution. NO, we should get it for free. Not Refox, but the tool that prevents usage of Refox to decompile.
>>
>>No the problem is that VFP apps are inherently not protected. They compile to p-code which is relatively easy to reverse. Refox helps developers recover source code. There are often people in this forum in need of that recovery ability. Indeed there is a request for that facility currently running on the UT.
>
>It might be quite simple to break in in my house. Nevertheless, it is illegal to do so, made clear to anyone because there is a well visible lock on each outdoor and window. No matter how weak the locks are, it is an illegal, criminal act to break in in my house.

Refox does not break into your house anymore than the crowbar breaks your locks. The user of the crowbar breaks your locks and the user of Refox *might* steal your source code. Must we therefore outlaw crowbars?


>
>I am not pleaing to take Refox off the streets. I am pleaing for a free utility that enables us to compile certain apps in a way that will prevent such recovery. Refox created the problem, now they should also create the solution, for free.
>
>>>>5) Refox is certainly not illegal software. Possibly not very effective in protecting your app but that was not its original intention anyway.
>>>
>>>You cannot, or should not, say 'certainly' here.
>>
>>It is certainly not illegal software. No more so than a car can be used as a deadly weapon.
>
>This metaphore is simply wrong. It suggests that ALL decompiler/crack software is legal. Is that really your point of view? I can't imagine...

Try to read a bit deeper Peter. Cracking software is not, or should not, be imo by and in of itself illegal. Many hacking/cracking tools can be dual purpose depending on the person who uses it. Must we outlaw all tools that can be used for malicious purposes? Must we outlaw password crackers, network sniffers, decompilers, keyboard loggers, etc, because they can be used against us? If so then we should outlaw VFP itself because it can be used to develop applications with malicious purposes.