absolutely agree. How can I trust the author of the script without seeing the code?
You can ask me about using c++ plug-ins? I’m not using free 3rd party plug-ins as well for the same reason. Commercial plug-ins or encrypted scripts (polyboost for example) is a different story. Taking my money assumes full responsibility of developers for their tool.
Although I understand your sentiment, I really wonder whether this logic isn’t just a little flawed. If it’s free, it should be open source, and you will look at every line of code to see if it can be trusted? But if it isn’t free, you trust it so it can be closed-source?
If someone had malicious intentions, in the case of a non-free tool you’re worse off actually, they’ve messed something up and taken your money
You should read some EULAs :argh:
For the record, if it is about posting to different sections then i can agree. With the exception of things like Tyson’s Building Generator. He is basically doing a public beta tester and is looking for tech savy people to give feedback. I’d consider that exception valid.
I thought you meant encrpyted scripts should not be shared at all, and i don’t see the point. While we hardly use anything closed source free out there in our pipeline either it is a whole different thing for personal use.
Regards,
Thorsten
give me a break.
i’m not talking about an accidental damage or low performance. i’m taking about any deliberate deception
As with anything you install or use you should only use software from trusted sources. I haven’t seen any scripts from scriptspot or other well known sources to contain any kind of “deliberate deception”…
I wish he had never un-encrypted his script.
well after i got that i stopped sharing my source code even though that was a long time ago… and even though i’m not really a maxscript dude… i just maxscript so i can customize my max and work the way i want
I can imagine if you RELEASE a finished script, you might not want it to be posted in here (even though it is a script). however if its a work in progress, even if you have posted it so people can use it and its working, I really don’t see any reason for not encrypting it and posting it here.
This place is not only to share code, but also to get help with problems, and getting help shouldn’t mean you have to share all your code, but might as well post parts, which has the problem. And you would post in here, so people can come with suggestions, report bugs ect.
If I see someone having a problem with something, I don’t demand that they should give me the whole script so I can help them, I would just ask how that part look like, get them to post the section/line that has the problem.
Shouldn’t you instead complain about commercial scripts getting posted here and encrypted, then free stuff that is encrypted? I would think that people who make free stuff but still encrypt it, would be more likely to answer questions about “How did you …?” regarding a script, and would be just as useful in the forum as someone who shares everything.
I also find it a bad development to see more and more encrypted scripts – and I almost never use them, unless they have some exceptional feature. We cannot fix them, we cannot improve them, we cannot verify they don’t mess up our system (intentional or unintentional). It is not hard to write a virus in MAXScript that will infect all your .max files, so I want to see what’s in the script before I run it.
I have just sent an email to Chris Grant from Scriptspot suggesting him to clearly identify encrypted scripts, such that we can see this at a glance and don’t have to bother with them any further.
– MartinB
I agree. How dare people spend their spare time developing useful functionality then releasing it for free without also providing ample documentation on exactly how it was made? And now that I think of it, aren’t we essentially testing their software for free? In fact, they should pay us.
Let no good deed go unpunished.
And this would probably be a good use for the google code project setup by Autodesk for Maxscript and the SDK. Since it is meant to be open source, then there should be no encrypted projects posted there.
-Eric
In my defense I was being sarcastic…
i’m playing around this idea for last years. honestly i didn’t find any solution. is it theoretically possible?
the best that i got is the uglyfier. that’s the tool that i made to make a script almost unreadable.
- one line script
- encrypted variables, structure and function names, etc.
- cross definition
- redeclaration
etc.
it doesn’t really effect the performance of the script. but it makes my own code absolutely unintelligible for myself and hopefully for anyone else.
if someone would be able to decode my uglyfied scriptthere were no reason to hide it from him. he is qualified enough to make his own.
that gives me an idea for a beautifier tool, something that will organize a script into correct lines, indentation, etc. I hate reading other people’s messy code, I always end up indenting it properly before reading it.