>>><snip>
>>>>>Like I said, the discussion of souce code and copy protection is about (a) what do you want to protect, (b) for how long, and (c) from who?
>>>>
>>>>You said: No, it is not. Inclining that it's better to use a product like Konxise.
>>>>I say: Someone is either hacking or not hacking at all. The hacker for sure will use tools to hack and the non-hacker will not hack, so the native 'encryption' is enough protection.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like I said, the discussion of souce code and copy protection is about (a) what do you want to protect, (b) for how long, and (c) from who?
>>
>>Okay, it appears we are now in a LOOP. There is one thing that bothers me here. You seem to think that I don't understand you or don't want to understand you. You seem to think that I don't have a point here. However, I think that I do have a point here.
>>
>>You are implicitly telling all readers: Hey, buy that external product!
>>I am telling readers: Don't underestimate the efficiency of the native 'encryption' and don't overestimate the efficiency of those external
>
>I am not telling anyone to buy anything. I have made my point clear with the three points mentioned previously.
>
>
>>To focus on your (c) of your abc: In my view there are only two kinds of users..
>>1) Those who hack. Nothing really will stop them from succeeding.
>>2) Those who don't hack. The external products are not more efficient here.
>
>If you have nothing to protect then no protection at all is required. This is part (a). Part (b) is that no matter what you use for protection, it will eventualy be broken given enough time and desire. Part (c) is that if you are only worried about stopping honest end-users from copying something then only a basic protection is required.
>
>I dont think it's a matter of whether one hacks or not. It is whether you want to protect something or not that is the question you need to answer. You need to apply the appropiate level of protection required to statisfy the answers one gives iro the three points above.
>
>You can apply a level of protection that will stop all but the most determined and best crackers. Or you can apply a middle of the road protection. Or low to no protection at all. What level to use is determined by what you want to protect, from who, and for how long.
>
>The only point I was making iro your post was that the VFP "encryption" setting and switching debug off is in the "low" security category iro protecting your source code.

I propose we agree that there indeed is a third kind of user. See my reply to Denis: Message #973313