|
|
|
Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot |
|
| PerlMonks |
Obfuscation is not an answerby BMaximus (Chaplain) |
| on Jul 20, 2001 at 01:44 UTC ( [id://98304]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors. Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.
I wasn't given a chance to realy answer his question to mine. He basicaly ran off in a virtual sense since the conversation was on ICQ. I don't feel that giving obfuscated code is a viable answer. Doing such a thing could make me liable if anything goes wrong. Not to mention I'd have to fix it if it breaks. I'd like to be able to read my own code. It's a moral issue and its just the not right thing to do. I was thinking of creating a license to use the software. But in reading some information on the net (A Software Copyright Primer) on what is considered "Work for Hire" has put a very big question on my hands. And to answer this I think I need a lawyer since the answer to it can be on a very fine line. As far as verbal contracts are concerned. California has a dislike for them and doesn't view them as binding. I will have to verify this with a lawyer friend of mine though. I'm just trying to defend myself and not to left with the short end of the rope here. That's all. BMaximus
In Section
Meditations
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||