[erlang-questions] Stand Alone Erlang or Equivalent

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
Thu Sep 6 08:37:46 CEST 2007


On 9/6/07, Benjamin Tolputt <bjt@REDACTED> wrote:
> The primary reason I suggested having the beam files "compiled into" the
> executable is that the game publishing industry is quite strict about
> having copyright protection mechanisms embedded into the deployment. I
> am recommending Erlang as the "primary" development language rather than
> just the "scripting" language (as this would make best use of Erlang's
> superior concurrency) and, as such, being able to protect (if only
> marginally) the beam files that actually relate to how Erlang loads
> modules, executes, etc (i.e. the kernel, stdlib, etc) is somoewhat of a
> commercial (as opposed to "technical") necessity.

Why would beam files more securely protected if packed in a zip archive as
compared to unpacked in a directory?

There is already a mechanism to encrypt the debug_info data that might be
included in the beam files. I suppose it would be relatively easy to do the
same with the actual beam code and decrypt at load time.

best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20070906/ae6e101f/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list