>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I understand and Agree with you and Peter.
>>>
>>>With you Jos because ReFox is a tool that can be really useful and seem to do a good job out of recovering source code.
>>>
>>>I agree with Peter because I, like Peter (if I understood correctly), don't want to have to buy ReFox to protect my application against being decompiled by ReFox. To me there seems to be a gimmick in there <g>
>>>
>>>So I have a solution to propose. In the main program of my application if the string "ReFox is not welcome in here" is there then ReFox won't recover the source code for that application.
>>>
>>>If I ever lose my source code and that string was there then I'll have to live with the consequences <g>
>>>
>>>Does that make sense to you guys?
>>
>>My first impression, a very neat solution. However, there is one drawback. The current and older versions of Refox already decompile my apps and do not pay attention to such a string.
>
>The only solution I see to that problem is that we'll have to have MS and ReFox creator work in sync.
>
>First MS will have to create something that protects apps from the latest version of ReFox. Then ReFox will create a new version that will be able to decompile VFP apps only when my proposed string is not there.

Actually, I do feel tempted to ask MS to reconsider the issue. They should implement a new encryption scheme and also explicitly make clear in the EULA that reverse engineering is also forbidden for encrypted applications. But I think that such a request only makes a chance if a lot of us sign such a 'petition'.

About the string: A simple hex-edit of that string should not lead to a situation where Refox thinks that it can be decompiled.

>So from that point on we'll only have to recompile our apps to be really protected about the ReFox gimmick.
>
>By the way I never said that my solution would be easy to implement ;-)
>
>But when honest people meet there's always a solution to every problem.