>>>I understand your point. But you and I both know that such a freeware utility will be useless against any serious cracker threat.
>>
>>Well...this is true, but also true with any utility that isn't freeware - really I think this is irrelavent here.
>
>It is relevant because it goes to the usefullness of such a utility. Why bother with something that will not help you in a material way? I am not talking about the "free" part. I am talking about a utility which "marks" your application so that Refox can recognize that it should not decompile it. ie, a Refox specific protection solution which is what this issue is about.

Yes, this is the issue.

>Such a marking can be circumvented in many ways. So this option is useless and possibly worse because it will give developers a false sense of security. You would only be protected against Refox if no one hacks Refox to remove the mark test, no one hacks your exe to remove the mark, and no one uses any other decompilation product or technique. All of which a cracker would presumably explore.

Of course, it's Jan's responsibility to mark or scramble in such a smart way that it is not really easy to crack it. I'm sure Jan can do this. He already has the technology built in the newest version.

Other decompilation products are not the issue here.

>Unless of course you are suggesting that Refox should build a complete product protecting against decompilation in general and give that away for free. But then why would they do that when many other companies are offering protection systems for money?

No, that's not the issue here.