Bob,
I've got a developer evaluation version from HASP. I've been experimenting with it for one week. It has two level of protection (more but basically two). One uses API calls from within the application and easily implemented. This part is of course open to decompiled code. The second protection (I hope works with VFP exe not tested yet) adds an envelope to exe. Scrambles the exe code, adds HASP key detection code and antidebugging code all about 160K. I didn't test this one yet and have little hope works with VFP exe (FP DOS were resistant to LZEXE compression and things such as Novel X flag, but this not a compression so might work). HASP claims unique developer code and passwords are burnt into a 2500 gate, 1.5 micron ASIC which can't be reverse engineered and virtually impossible to crack (?). I, as a developer hope it's true and more hope envelope works with VFP :) If all is true, NetHasp has extra features too :) (can be connected to any WS in net, access to app count at the same time may be limited to n users, one key could control up to 112 different apps, keys could be daisychained, keys work transparently, keys has additional 496 bytes of RW memory where you could store extra info, keeps a log table that you can monitor and all interface with the key requires password etc).
Just the API part works seamlessly (Win95, WinNT and VFP5). If the envelope also works (I'll try it ASAP in a few days) I think it will be my choice in addition to my own software protection (yeah still I won't drop them :)
BTW if you have refox would you try decompiling just this one line code :

? (1+2)/2*(5+3)

Cetin
>Cetin,
>
>I would be most appreciative if you let me know how the HASP key
>works out for you. We have been trying to get the Rainbow key
>to work through WIndows 95 and VFP 6.0 without much luck..
>
>Thanx!
>Bob :-)
>
>>>Hi ALL !
>>>The large commercial project has approached to completion. Many corporations have addressed behind the demonstration version of the program. But how to protect the program from decompiling if REFOX produces all initial text of the program (In Russia it is very urgent) :((((
>>>Prompt possible ways of protection.
>>>I in a shock...
>>>Thanks
>>Denis,
>>When code is decompiled the real problem is not changing protection code but setting environment what protection waits. A hardware key such as Hasp seem to be a necessity to prevent that besides software protection. Decompiled code (by Refox) is fortunately has many logical errors :) I say that because for an old app I lost the source code and requested it to be refoxed. The refoxed code (while I know what I was doing in code), wasted my one week to correct the parts in wrongly decompiled code (recompilation after decompilation seem to give same size compiled code but only the size is same :). If I didn't know the logic, I think I would prefer writing it from scratch.
>>I'm trying the Hasp key, it has a secondary protection for the exe and I think it will be good. Besides hardware protection, I have included many traps and software protection in addition. Yet it doesn't mean they can't be passed I know. A contract with the buyer would be another level of protection I think.
>>Since I know there are very good crackers in Russia like here in Turkey, I can understand you. Hope one day we will be lucky to thrust to law in protection :)
>>Cetin