02-24-2008, 11:20 AM
I think the intensions were to make LVP 2.x open source and keep LVP 3.00 closed source indefinitely (wait until a time such as when MTA
M dies). However with the situation between LVP and SA-MP I don't think it's as mandatory to give something back to the SA-MP community?
Anyway, back on-topic. I think the callback names are pretty misleading, and could in fact confuse ourselves more than prevent others. The obfuscation looks extremely complicated, which is great as I doubt anyone will bother with messing around with that code.
That on top of compiling the code, messing around with callbacks' names and maybe hiding the files from being browsed to regularly in Windows Explorer might prevent them for a very long time?
I guess that we could even discuss with the MTAM development team if they're planning to protect people's code from thieves by implementing their own security measures in the future.
M dies). However with the situation between LVP and SA-MP I don't think it's as mandatory to give something back to the SA-MP community?Anyway, back on-topic. I think the callback names are pretty misleading, and could in fact confuse ourselves more than prevent others. The obfuscation looks extremely complicated, which is great as I doubt anyone will bother with messing around with that code.
That on top of compiling the code, messing around with callbacks' names and maybe hiding the files from being browsed to regularly in Windows Explorer might prevent them for a very long time?
I guess that we could even discuss with the MTA
M development team if they're planning to protect people's code from thieves by implementing their own security measures in the future.