>I agree with you that it's not in most cases. Does it mean that the other cases should'nt be taken care of?

Maybe. But as I said that are tools that can help you with that.

>>Unless you have truly proprietary algorithms (which very few apps have) I doubt that this is really an issue, just the typical paranoia of companies that think the only advantage they have is in their code (in which case they shouldn't be in business).
>
>So you decided that they should'nt be in business? PLEASE be serious for a minute. I'll use a phrase made popular by another UT user "You have to think outside the box" <g>.

If you have a business that's purely based around the premise that their code is unique that business won't be around long. Reverse engineering doesn't require source code. What matters more than an algorithm is concept. Once you publish your software the concept and process is out and you are open game for the competition. Your advantage at this point is that you came up with it first and probably have a better idea than anybody else on how this should work while your competition is playing catch up.

If your company is based pure on the advantage of a proprietary algorithm chances are they won't be around long as others catch up.

>Just an example: Let's suppose many professionals got together and developed over many years a software that would be able to detect cancer in advance. You give the software numbers from different analysis (blood, urine...) and the software tells you if you will have cancer and if it's the case what needs to be done to reverse it. If you were a professional in that group would'nt you like to protect the source code? In that case don't you consider that the only advantage here is in the code?

No it's the concept of putting all these things together. How much of that code is going to be something that's never been done or documented before? Not much... it's the dynamic of all those people that is unique.

Besides getting source code (which BTW from compiled code is often less than useless if you're trying to reverse engineer) doesn't guarantee that you can figure out a problem.

>>Further you can obfuscate code both in VFP and .NET. Yeah you have to pay for this, but if you have a need for this a few hundred bucks should hardly be a deterrent?
>
>Any name you can share (VFP and .Net)?


There dozens for .NET - use Google.

You can find information on decompilers and protection against them here:
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~DecompilingVFPExes~VFP


>Why do you think there are major improvements in .Net? Don't you think it's because there are worthy competitors? The only time you'll see innovation for anything is when there's competition. Remove that competition and you have a monopoly. That is not always a bad thing. But it becomes a bad thing where there is an abuse of that monopoly.

Right and your point is? Software is driven by competition and improvements. If you have a unique algorithm it won't be good enough to sit on your laurels, but as a developer/company you have to keep improving. Faster, cheaper, better - isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Look, I'm not saying that it's right that anybody should get at your source code, but in most situations I argue people are paranoid for the wrong reasons. If you need to protect code there are ways to do it and you'll pay for it.

What you're saying is that you want something for nothing something that 95% of applications don't need. So this is at best considered a specialty case and one that goes against much of the open movement that software development is going through were algorithms and approaches are widely available for all to use.

>>There's no free ride - you're the one who's in charge and the tool is just that: a tool to help you in the process.
>
>So you're the one in charge?
>
>How is it going with your app using voice recognition (no keyboard and no mouse necessary anymore)? You never wrote one because the tools are not totally there yet? Are'nt you the one in charge?

If you really want it you can do it yourself. It's not up to a company like Microsoft to provide your every whim. You can't expect other people to do all the work for you... Sure we can all think of a 1000 features that would be nice to have, but you have to be realistic. If something you really need is not there, there's an opportunity right: If you need it badly others are likely to need it too.

>We're not the ones in charge. Makers of the development tools are in charge. Then we have to work with what they give us.

Obviously you lack in imagination, Denis... You say it with such conviction too - "it's their responsibility to give us what I need"!

Look around you at what people ARE doing with the tools and see how many things that "can't be done" out of the box, are being done. It happens everyday.