>>Peter, we use Refox solely to encrypt/compress any exes we need to distribute. Not perfect, but better than sending unprotected sourcecode into the wild.
>
>I use Molebox Pro. Its main purpose is to encrypt. It is cheaper than Refox and I think it does a better job in encrypting. I know that Jos Pols is of opinion that other products are far better and that products like Molebox and Refox can be cracked, but for me there is a tradeoff. The encryprion tool must not be thousands of dollars. That is simply too much for me.

Here we go again Peter. First of all we own copies of Molebox and Refox (and various others). I think Molebox and Refox are great. The various protection systems offer varying degrees of protection and we use them depending on what we wish to achieve.

In terms of what can be cracked - it is not just Molebox and Refox, they can all be cracked. It depends on the skills of the attacker. Its not a matter of whether it can be done but rather who can do it and how long it will take.

To say that Refox are immoral is ridiculous but I can't be bothered to argue it again.

If you say you cannot spend thousands of dollars but you can spend hundreds of dollars then your source code is worth hundreds of dollars and not thousands. Why the fuss over a few hundreds dollars worth of source code?