Sorry your browser is not supported!

Paul, I know I could have asked this question on the IRC channel or by e-mail, but I think it's better here so everyone that may have the same doubt will know the answer.

While developing LightEngine I will make same samples so that people will know how to use it. My question is, should I make them publicly available authenticated or not? The thing is: Authenticated people can just download, unzip and run, while not authenticated apps will add some "work" for people to do before running the examples.

That's it about now, just wanted to know that. =)

Best regards,
Thiago

In order to build your test apps they would need auth'ing in the code anyway or they wont run/build etc.

As far as distro you could make one version that has the installer piece, which would be ignored by machines already having the dgdk.net, or you could make two versions, one with the installer and one without (for authed users). Iirc, an unauthed user cant do much with a version of an exe and/or source if they dont have the dgdk.net to begin with, but I would wait to see what Apex says

As an end user with the DGDK.NET I would much prefer to have the option to download a "non-installer" version, as opposed to running an install thats unnecessary in my particular case.

Hi CR, how are you? Long time no see =)

Actually, what I'm talking about are not the "final product", what I meant was distributing sample projects in the forums and in my website (primarily LightEngine sample projects).

One thing I'm doing right now is to convert the samples that came with DGDK.NET to work using LightEngine, and then I would share the source code so people can get a "taste" of how to use the classes (just like the samples in DGDK.NET).

The ones that come with DGDK.NET are already authenticated, so people can just open it on VS and press F5. If they were not, people would have to open the authenticator and authenticate the project before trying it. Maybe it's just me (and my lazyness), but I think people would like to download a sample and compile/run by only opening it on VS, right?

I once heard Paul say that there was no problem in distributing the .dgdk along with an application because it was designed to be a public key (along with the authentication key), because not obfuscated .NET applications can easily decompiled and the keys taken.

Well, I think we'd have to wait for Paul's opinion. =)

Thiago

kBessa, situation is this... As long as your source code has been fully documented with version information that clearly states that you are the Author, and it states the name of the program/project, then distributing the source with the key and authentication file, binds the information to that program. Even if the key and Authentication file was ripped from your source, it cannot be used. I spent a considerable amount of time with the DGDK.NET development process to ensure that this procedure was as full proof as I could implement it.

The reason for all this is because .NET applications can also be disassembled unless they are properly obfuscated. Clearly alot of people will not even bother to obfuscate their code, so I have to protect these users also.

Paul.

Yep, I'm stating in every single sample that it is a "LightEngine Sample project that show how to....", and every single copyright information goes to LightOrb and every program name has a "le" prefix (stating it is a LightEngine Sample).

Actually it looks like this in all samples, just changes the title and descriptions are identical, always something like LightEngine Example, LightEngine Showcase or LightEngine Sample:

[assembly: AssemblyTitle("leWinForms")]
[assembly: AssemblyDescription("LightEngine WinForms Showcase")]
[assembly: AssemblyCompany("LightOrb")]
[assembly: AssemblyProduct("leWinForms")]
[assembly: AssemblyCopyright("Copyright © LightOrb 2007")]

So, there isn't any problem giving an authenticated file and key with the sample? Because you're right, if anybody tries to use it we will all know. Pirates not welcome here!
But if there's any kind of problem, tell me before I do any kind of release, I don't want to get in trouble.

Thiago

Distributing the auth file and key has the same value of protection as an unobfuscated .NET EXE program. I.e. whether you're distributing the things in source, or giving out an EXE file, makes no difference. People could disassemble your EXE and extract the auth and key anyway. Hence this is why authentication and keys, must be closely observed against your versioning information. There are several factors I use when generating these keys, and they are very large keys at that.

My point is this, you can distro your source if you wish, just ensure that you use clear and concise versioning.

Paul.