OK, fair enough - point taken :)

>I would agree with Bruce Schneier also, except that it doesn't match the definition of encryption - which was my point. Not which is better (undeniable). Encoding is considered encryption simply by its definition. That is until the definition of encryption changes...
>
>
>>:) Bruce Schneier would argue that if there is no key involved then its encoding rather than encryption. A key taken from the total keyspace provides the random factor (crypto-variable) which is used in an algorithm to produce the cipher text. The same algorithm but with a different key produces a different cipher text for any given plain text. Encoding always produces the same cipher text for any given plain text because there is no key involved.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Encoding is encryption. Encryption is simply the translation of data into a code typically by using an algorithm to scramble data. There are many types of encryption though (ciphers, asymmetric public-key, symmetric public-key, etc) and some are more effective than others.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>VFP doc:
>>>>>
>>>>>ENCRYPT
>>>>>
>>>>>... ENCRYPT prevents access to the original source programs. For additional source code protection, always include this option when compiling programs intended for distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes Fabio, I understand the help file :) But that is not encryption. Encryption without the use of a key, like a password, is not encryption. It is simply encoding.
>>>>
>>>>And the help file is obviously wrong since it does not prevent access to the original source code either. It at best hinders access, but does not prevent it :)