Blogs

Closed-source developer forced open-source

Posted by Paul Mather on November 11, 2010 at 7:30am
For those who are just now joining this thread already in progress... I recently learned how easy it is to disassemble .NET programs. I belived my source code was being posted without my consent and have since been in contact with the user in question and all is good...

That said, please, if you're a .NET developer who's considering creating and selling a commercial program there are programs out there like .NET Reflector (FREE) which can easily disassemble and display your code in seconds.... Do yourself a favor and look into obfuscation software for .NET which will atleast make it harder to disassemble and will, for the most part, stop the casual hacker from viewing your code.

I appreciate all of the positive feedback I've gotten from everyone here and I'm moving forward with the GCS program...in .NET. I am going to release it as open source but I'd like to get more of the development out of the way before I start getting other people involved. I haven't had much success with multi-developer situations and I'd like to get my "big ideas" done before letting everyone else have at it.

Thanks!
E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Paul Mather November 11, 2010 at 1:12pm
    I suppose. The best defense I've seen so far is to stay relevant and keep developing. If I'm always adding new features, there's no benefit to splitting off and trying to do your own thing. What would really annoy me is if someone created a commercial project with my source... but then I guess they'd have some money for me to try and recover.... ..
  • brakar November 11, 2010 at 1:11pm
    I am really sad to read about your experiences Happy. But like others have allready written, also I think the best way forward will be to learn from what has happened and to continue developing. This, because the best way to have success in software-business seemes to continue developing and to keep stay up front anyway.

    I can't however understand how Microsoft can live with this kind of WIDE OPEN HOLES AND FLAWS in their dev. plattforms. Contributing to making industrial espionage and hacking into software systems a game for kids.
  • caid November 11, 2010 at 1:05pm
    I agree that i shouldn't be so easy, but many people think it is a bigger problem than it really is..
    All software can be reversed, native code just takes longer time.
    So if you want to protect some secret licensing algorithms and keys, the you can write theme in native libraries, and invoke the methods. But it is still not a problem to crack it, for someone with the right skills.

    On the other side, it is easy to find out if someone is using your code in their projects without your permission.
    http://time.So/
    See related links to what you are looking for.
  • Paul Mather November 11, 2010 at 12:46pm
    caid, I read it...and I get it. But how can Microsoft think that this is acceptable? If my compiled executable can be converted into assembler... great. I would take years to sort through the assembler code to figure out what's going on. I'm not saying my software is earth-shattering in any way. There aren't any licensing routines in it. But what is in there is my time and efforts. It should be my decision to share the software not someone else's. As far as I'm concerned, VB6 was "safe." ,NET is not.... I guess the obfuscators go through and rename all your variables and function calls to make things less human readable....but why in the world would MS include all that information in the compile?
  • caid November 11, 2010 at 12:38pm
    Here is some more relevant and sensible reading:
    http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/obfuscation.html
  • Paul Mather November 11, 2010 at 11:36am
    I appreciate all of your comments guys. I wasn't looking for you to stroke my ego.... I do enjoy this hobby and I enjoy the people in it as well. My niche seems to be behind the keyboard more so than behind the sticks. I am going to go ahead and release it as open-source. Be looking for APM and AttoPilot support in the near future :)
  • Logan Greenlee November 11, 2010 at 11:32am
    I'd recommend a DCMA take down. Keep in mind that your code is ever evolving and that unless someone really takes it up and continues to work it - it probably will be less interesting that what you have to offer in the future. The way you stay relevant is to keep developing. Make sure you do not ship PDB files with .net as they provide debugging symbols.

    Only unless you link GPL software do you need to publish it. It's your IP, and no one but you is allowed to decided what to do with it.

    Keep up the good work.
  • Ritchie November 11, 2010 at 11:17am
    You took it hard because rather than being a good person and contacting you about your code with improvements to help you and your development as a programmer, his arrogance weighed in. He then belittled your work in front of all your forum friends and people that respect you.
    Rather than us feel the sting of his tongue about you though, we as mature human beings have rallied with you against this atrocious behaviour and wish to spur you on to develop your program, love and passion.
    Knowledge is a gift for the world to share.
  • Admin
    Morli November 11, 2010 at 11:07am
    don't give up. Don't know what else can I say that others haven't .. i love and enjoy the fruits of your labor ..
  • Simon Wood November 11, 2010 at 10:47am
    As a bystander I would say that posting dissambled code is still a copyright violation, and they were definately in the wrong.

    However I hope that your descision to go open source will prove fruitful for you project, many eyes on the code will help it grow.
This reply was deleted.