I think you approach this from only a negative standpoint. You see only thieves out there trying to steal your code. Maybe it's a big problem, maybe not, but you should encrypt your code to thwart them (though this is not a guaranteed solution). I think you already do this with Molebox. Then you should realize that decompiling via ReFox can be very valuable. I have decompiled a client's code where the programmer died and the source was unavailable. Quiet handy. Why would you deny people that option? Other than that, I have used ReFox to encrypt certain apps. Again, not guaranteed, but better than nothing. The person who started this thread would be much better off buying ReFox and just getting it done. The time and effort to decompile the code will most likely be far more money than the cost of ReFox.


>I too realize we have discussed this all in the past. However, you react, so I react and there are so many discussions we do over and over here again. Having said that, I do not think we should rediscuss it all again as extensively as we did.
>
>The only remark I feel urged to make here is about the argument that the focus should be on the perpetrator, not the builder of the tool. I'm of opinion that we should not only focus on the persons who use guns, but also on the firms who sell guns. And the argument that there are many gun builders, in the upperworld and in the underworld, should not be used to argue that this one gun builder is not to blame.
>
>The only argument I can currently think of that frees Refox from blame is that the fox community has not stood up, not when it was published and not afterwards, not even today. So, in the end it is the fox community who should feel shame.
>
>I suppose there were too many of us, including the gurus, who mumbled 'wow!' and cheered up when they saw Refox do its job the first time.