Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to (0, 0)? -Jonathan
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:00 AM, Mario Mey <mariomey@gmail.com> wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
but why?
2016-05-12 3:03 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list pd-list@lists.iem.at :
What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to (0, 0)?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:00 AM, Mario Mey mariomey@gmail.com wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
i agree - kinda antithetical to the ethos of Pure Data, really. i think you could use Heavy to turn a patch into rather voluminous C++ code. i remember from the devs that they said the code output wasn't supposed to be edited or analyzed by humans, but rather existed to be wrapped to work in a number of environments as sort of a black box or code blob. but obfuscating a PD patch itself seems stupid. i'm sure you could name subpatches and abstractions randomly and maybe even rearrange the physical placement using the method Jonathan refers to, though i believe that could affect signal flow and execution order, wouldn't it?
best, scott
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
but why?
2016-05-12 3:03 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < pd-list@lists.iem.at>:
What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to (0, 0)?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:00 AM, Mario Mey mariomey@gmail.com wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 12/05/2016 05:57, Mario Mey wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Why would you want to do something like that?
Lorenzo.
On 2016-05-12 12:09, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:57, Mario Mey wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
yes, iirc multiple times.
- [parazit] (used to be shipped with Pd-extended)
- i remember a few patches from the local pd~graz gang around 2004 that
would go into that direction (including self-destruction)
- personally i have used self-replicating, self-renaming and moving
objects in a number of performances [sinusoiddreams] (much of the iemguts development was driven to implement those systems).
Why would you want to do something like that?
among other reasons, http://www.ioccc.org/
and why would anybody want to use a ring modulator, a 6/8 metrum or Pd?
fgmsdr IOhannes
[parazit] https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2005-05/028458.html [sinusoiddreams] e.g. https://vimeo.com/56004131
On 12/05/2016 13:46, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2016-05-12 12:09, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:57, Mario Mey wrote:
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
[...]
Why would you want to do something like that?
among other reasons, http://www.ioccc.org/
Ok in that sense, sure... Maybe I was biased by the other thread about "commercial" Pd projects...
Still the OP hasn't revealed their real intentions, maybe in an attempt to obfuscate them :)
Lorenzo.
Thanks everybody.
Why would you want to do something like that?
I live in Argentina and I'm going to work with an agent in Spain. I developed and I offer the service of "Digital Puppeteers". So, this agent will offer the same service and he will contact me when he find a client. So, I prepare "the files" and I send him... and he pay to me.
Now, "the files" are the important thing here. They are Blender, Python, JSON and PureData files. Somehow, no-one of that formats can be compiled to send him the binary. Also, I can't afford contracting a hardware key system... or pay a programmer to make some online validation code.
If I send the files as they are in my computer (clean code, documentation, etc), in the worst case, he could never call me back... and start using the files for him, changing a few graphic files, audio files, code lines, patches, etc.
So, the only thing I can do... is to obfuscate as much I can.
Python: strings, keys, values, functions, classes, etc Blender: objects, bones, scenes, materials and textures names, inserting extra scenes, textures, etc JSON: everything. PureData: send/receive names, messages from/to Blender, moving boxes, adding extra objects, etc.
And, of course, all that obfuscated names have to be the same between the files.
What about simply changing all object coords other than inlet/outlet to (0, 0)?
Good one.
yes, iirc multiple times.
- [parazit] (used to be shipped with Pd-extended)
- i remember a few patches from the local pd~graz gang around 2004 that
would go into that direction (including self-destruction)
- personally i have used self-replicating, self-renaming and moving
objects in a number of performances [sinusoiddreams] (much of the iemguts development was driven to implement those systems).
I'll look at them!
kinda antithetical to the ethos of Pure Data
I posted my biggest PureData project in PatchStorage (and the old one, too). This patch is very specific.
among other reasons, http://www.ioccc.org/
When I saw inside the code files... it made sense to me. They made me laught.
I am an external patch obfuscator; nobody can understand the things that I write in PD.
I will hire you! :D
I am an external patch obfuscator; nobody can understand the things that I write in PD.
To: pd-list@lists.iem.at From: mariomey@gmail.com Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 00:57:10 -0300 Subject: [PD] Obfuscate patch?
Is already done any external/abstract/external-program that obfuscate a Pd patch? I mean, by changing the place of every object, changing names of send/receive objects to random generated names, adding more objects to make very hard to understand, etc...?
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Liam Goodacre -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Mario Mey -
Max -
Scott R. Looney