Hiding GDL code?

[TomWaltz]

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?

[tsturm]

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.

[TomWaltz]

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

[Fabrizio Diodati]

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

[TomWaltz]

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 😉

[Anonymous]

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.

[Fabrizio Diodati]

I fully agree with you Matthew, very wise words!

friendly
Fabrizio

[Dwight]

"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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Richard Morrison]

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.