topic Re: Hiding GDL code? in Libraries & objects

Hiding GDL code?

TomWaltz — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:45:30 GMT

I know a lot of the objects on Objectsonline.com have most of their scripts hidden.

How is this actually done? Are they just saved as binary?

Re: Hiding GDL code?

tsturm — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:50:07 GMT

Some of the parts may be Binary, but I doubt it as they would loose the parametric features of AC.

There is a way to lock the GDL code from prying eyes. Some people do this to prevent others from "lifting" their code. I do not know the process, but I do know it cannot be reversed. So, if you do learn the process, make sure to do it to a copy of your parts.

Your only recourse with those parts is to contact the vendor to have them make a change or addition to the part and send you the update.

I understand why they want to do it, but I feel you should let the end user have the chance to better the object for their own use.

Example would be cabinets. Your office standard is Full Inset with Shaker door with round knobs. The cabinet part is set for Revealed overlay, with raised panel and D rings. You simply want to add the option to call a round knob and save the settings to default to your prefered style of cabinet.

Advice. Contact any part vendor before you purchase to see if they "lock" their parts.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

TomWaltz — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:09:36 GMT

that's why I'm asking: I want to sell my objects and not have my code lifted.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Fabrizio Diodati — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:05:31 GMT

Unfortunately it isn’t so simple… if you know how you can hide them you know how you can show them! For this reason, probably, everybody keep it secret!
Other info: from what I know, some software for GDL scripting let you open this locked object and save them by showing/unlocking again the script...

Friendly
Fabrizio

Re: Hiding GDL code?

TomWaltz — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:31:29 GMT

so in other words, Graphisoft needs to improve their GDl security enough to be able lock your own code without being able to unlock everyone else's!

I can understand that 😉

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:14:45 GMT

I recommend against hiding scripts to prevent theft. For one thing it doesn't work, and for another it is unlikely that anyone will want to steal your script.

ONE: The library parts can be opened in a text editor, whether the scripts are hidden or not, giving open access to the GDL code.

ANOTHER: Using someone else's code is generally more of a pain than writing one's own. There can be advantages to looking at how something was done, but it is rare if ever that anybody would swipe more than a handy fragment for further editing.

I know many of the most advanced GDL writers, and not only have we all pretty much run across most of the same ways of doing things, but I have also found everyone to be very open about sharing tips and tricks. This is not a business where you are going to make a fortune (nor even a modest income) on some secret, clever algorithm that no one else can copy. I have found that most of the clever GDL ideas I have had have also occurred to someone else and often that their way of doing it was better.

There is greater risk of theft from people copying your stuff whole and not paying for it. The only realistic way to minimize this is by establishing and maintaining a good reputation and relationship with your users and the community as a whole. Hiding scripts does not really serve that end.

I believe that GDL development should be treated as open source, where everyone contributes to the overall improvement of practices and methods, and that those contributions will be compensated based on the value of the work and how one chooses to market it.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Fabrizio Diodati — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:34:08 GMT

I fully agree with you Matthew, very wise words!

friendly
Fabrizio

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Dwight — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:18:34 GMT

"I believe that GDL development should be treated as open source, where
everyone contributes to the overall improvement of practices and
methods, and that those contributions will be compensated based on
the value of the work and how one chooses to market it."

Further, anyone who does GDL work for a living knows that the "work" in making a GDL object professionally is not in the code. That is the easy part. Once you have the object working, then you have to make it idiot-proof. Then they make a dumber idiot.

I find that the time it takes [once you are nominally skilled in GDL] to make straight-forward objects is mostly in the interface and object design - I mean establishing how it is to work and what it is to do - not the coding. And you can't really "steal" that.

Then there are the adaptable hotspots and other niceties that are specific to the object regardless of where you stole your code - how to solve the stretching..... make it professional.

Not so long ago, I made a parametric log wall end for a builder who had a guy who was fancy with a chain saw. The object needed to cope with all the log wall variations and have the wood grain map correctly. There was more work in gathering the 3D data about what shapes the client needed and then de-bugging the stacking than writing the code.

And so it goes. Hiding code is small-minded.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:26:41 GMT

I think the issue is not preventing the theft, but to be able to prove that the source is yours if it is stolen. For this purpose hiding or encrypting is usefull.

There has to be solution since GDL plugin is using an encryption.
It would be nice a to have a technical note of this topic from Graphisoft.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Richard Morrison — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:44:21 GMT

I would like to add something from a user's standpoint. When an object doesn't work properly, often I can go in and fix it. Also, I can slightly tweak it for my own use. When I discover the object's code has been compiled or othewise hidden, forcing me to live with a buggy or "almost usable" object, the ill-will this generates makes it the last object I will buy from that developer.

In some cases, I can't even find the developer to request a fix.

I don't think hiding scripts is worth the problems it creates for the end user and I doubt there's a huge "black market" for stolen scripts. The number of actual GDL developers isn't that large, and word of flagrant abuses is likely to get around in such a small community.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:18:50 GMT

I agree with Richard. It is hard to imagine a situation where the cost of enforcing a copyright would not be greater than the settlement (or even the amount of the judgment). I strongly believe that it is more important to contribute what we can than to worry about being under-compensated.

It reminds me of a comment by the inventor of Terra-dome earth sheltered houses made regarding some of his customers' preference for composting toilets over conventional septic systems: "People think that their s__t is worth too much."

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Karl Ottenstein — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:33:05 GMT

Richard wrote:
I would like to add something from a user's standpoint. When an object doesn't work properly, often I can go in and fix it. Also, I can slightly tweak it for my own use. When I discover the object's code has been compiled or othewise hidden, forcing me to live with a buggy or "almost usable" object, the ill-will this generates makes it the last object I will buy from that developer.

Of course, as a programmer, I've said the same thing about Graphisoft, Microsoft, Intuit, Macromedia and others for years ... why don't they give me the source code so I can fix the bug instead of waiting for them?!? Answer is obvious I think? And how is it so different with GDL?

What I think is being missed in this discussion, and which I tried to raise early on, is that one might see surprisingly complex objects if there was encryption because developers could protect their investment in 'base' objects in order to distribute their development costs across a range of end-user objects. Building software is a process made more efficient by creating building blocks of code that enable the more efficient and robust production of larger and larger things. Sure, perhaps aspects of the final object might and should be open source so that we all can tweak them... but developers might be willing to put the thousands of dollars of effort into making more sophisticated objects if they knew that their proprietary 'building block' objects and macros were encrypted and protected.

I don't understand the conflict ... if some people or firms need encryption to protect their investment, they can use it ... if others want to be open source, let them... And, market forces will say what sells.

Cheers,
Karl

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:04:18 GMT

Good points Karl.

I have also used "hide scripts" to enforce office standards. The CAD manager keeps the open versions for future revisions, but the operators are prevented from making their own "standards" on the fly.

I agree that there are definitely good reasons for wanting the ability to encrypt parts and/or hide scripts. (I would also like the capability to compile the GDL to reduce the reliance on separate macro objects while retaining the modular code base.) But I also feel that people are often too protective of their ideas and that we should err on the side of sharing the knowledge.

For encrypted parts to remain useful over the long run means that the publisher has to maintain a long term commitment to their development and maintenance. This is always everyone's intention to start with but "'tis many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Richard Morrison — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:57:25 GMT

Karl wrote:
Of course, as a programmer, I've said the same thing about Graphisoft, Microsoft, Intuit, Macromedia and others for years ... why don't they give me the source code so I can fix the bug instead of waiting for them?!? Answer is obvious I think? And how is it so different with GDL?

What I think is being missed in this discussion, and which I tried to raise early on, is that one might see surprisingly complex objects if there was encryption because developers could protect their investment in 'base' objects in order to distribute their development costs across a range of end-user objects. (snip)

Well, Karl, I notice you didn't include Linux in your list of "annoying" software. Fact is, the software you cited sells IN SPITE of its being encrypted, but that doesn't prove that it should be a model to be emulated.

I think the difference is one of scale. For GDL objects, we're not typically talking about "person-years" worth of time investment. And for those folks who DO want to make the significant and protected programming investment, there is the SDK, isn't there?

Buying encrypted GDL objects is like buying a car that has been welded shut so that if it breaks down on the freeway, you have to send it back to the manufacturer for repairs. And in some cases, not even being able to FIND the manufacturer.

The whole point of GDL, I thought, was this wonderful exciting world of relatively easy-to-create powerful objects that users could develop on their own, builidng on the advances of others. Taking the most basic building blocks into the world of proprietary, protected software sort of sabotages an atmosphere of collaboration and participation, involving users all over the globe, doesn't it? Wasn't that one of the core values of the culture that Graphisoft is trying to promote? Maybe I've got this all wrong, and Graphisoft is really hoping to create a platform to foster little cottage industries of object developers.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:15:25 GMT

I can see both sides of this.

Trus Joist hides the scripts in our libraries so people do not use them to specify products from a competitor. The reality is a quick note on the plans can change all (Trus Joist TJI or equivalent) that but that isn’t a reason to make it easier. I try to test the objects vigorously before releasing them so they'll work for the intended purpose.

If I were making objects for my own amusement and on my own time, I wouldn’t hide the scripts. I don’t really believe I'm doing anything ground breaking as far as scripting goes but if some one wants to play around with it more power to them.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

LiHigh — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:06:26 GMT

Put aside the pros and cons, if we still want to hide script, how can we do it?
ps--I don't think I can find HIDESCRIPT for v9.0.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:34:55 GMT

I think this discussion is funny.

You can say that the white is a good's symbol
or is simply white!!

Dwight said : "Hiding code is small-minded"

I think this:
- GS, in his kit, has inserted a "hidescript".
- Is GS small-minded to furnish such tool ?!!?

- Free code and hidden code is simply a choice
(not a crusade).

CU mirco
www.cad3d.it

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:52:36 GMT

Matthew wrote:

There is greater risk of theft from people copying your stuff whole and not paying for it.

This is more the issue. If someone has paid for the work I have done they can do what they want to it, if they can figure it out. I read a lot of scripts when I first started but I soon discovered that starting from scratch was faster than copying. It would be nice if you could tie objects do a dongle number or something like that.

I have seen various versions of using macros that disable scripts after a time period, works well until you get someone who knows abit about GDL.

Re: Hiding GDL code?

LiHigh — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:42:22 GMT

Julia wrote:
Matthew wrote:

There is greater risk of theft from people copying your stuff whole and not paying for it.

This is more the issue. If someone has paid for the work I have done they can do what they want to it, if they can figure it out. I read a lot of scripts when I first started but I soon discovered that starting from scratch was faster than copying. It would be nice if you could tie objects do a dongle number or something like that.

I have seen various versions of using macros that disable scripts after a time period, works well until you get someone who knows abit about GDL.

Indeed, but only if you know what you are doing!
Let try to write scripts for an object similar to Door/Window Builder and see.......

Re: Hiding GDL code?

Anonymous — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:40:54 GMT

Skipping the writer's choice
I think the matter is other,

Nobody can hide the gdl's script
to the experts (less too).

but, to consult a hidden script implicates:
- the author doesn't want changes his writing
and his object
- he goes against the writer's wishes.

An "open" object doesn't mean the contrary one.

In fact many writers don't expressly write
"you can use, change or other, to this code".

CU mirco
www.cad3d.it