Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
Hi,
I was looking for information about this package, but after BTS updated the bug report, I've found
the package was previously included in Debian and was removed.
Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:58, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:17 +0100
> "Dario Minnucci (midget)" <debian@midworld.net> wrote:
> > * Package name : shc
>
> > shc's main purpose is to protect your shell scripts from
> > modification or inspection. You can use it if you wish to
> > distribute your scripts but don't want them to be easily
> > readable by other people.
> Does this mean its a tool to make software no longer DFSG compatible?
> seems a bit odd to include in Debian.
Then gcc (and other compilers) are at the odd with DFSG because they
produce unreadable code for most people. (some can read machine code)
--
Kind regards, Milan
12-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Manoj Srivastava
Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
On Wed, Dec 02 2009, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:58, Karl Goetz wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:17 +0100
>> "Dario Minnucci (midget)" <debian@midworld.net> wrote:
>> > * Package name : shc
>>
>> > shc's main purpose is to protect your shell scripts from
>> > modification or inspection. You can use it if you wish to
>> > distribute your scripts but don't want them to be easily
>> > readable by other people.
>> Does this mean its a tool to make software no longer DFSG compatible?
>> seems a bit odd to include in Debian.
>
> Then gcc (and other compilers) are at the odd with DFSG because they
> produce unreadable code for most people. (some can read machine code)
What this argument is missing is the point that the primary (and
stated) goal of gcc and the ilk is not obfuscation.
And the goal of obfuscation is not preventing tampering (since
one may still modify obfuscated code, just not as easily (access
control mechanisms do the non tampering bit)).
The goal of obfuscation seems to be to prevent people from
gaining knowledge; and obfuscation is pointless when the sources are
available, so it is facile to argue that the issues are orthogonal. So
there is some merit to the argument that this package is against the
spirit free software.
Having said that, I am not advocating blocking this package (nor
am I advocating accepting it), I am just commenting on the arguments
being presented here.
manoj
--
No matter how many reporters share a cab, and no matter who pays, each
puts the full fare on his own expense account. -- Edward P. O'Doyle
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-02-2009, 03:50 PM
Peter Samuelson
Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
[Manoj Srivastava]
> Having said that, I am not advocating blocking this package (nor
> am I advocating accepting it), I am just commenting on the arguments
> being presented here.
Indeed, the thing to do would probably be to provide both shc and an
equivalent decompiler - assuming of course that shc is largely a set of
reversible transforms, as I imagine it is. That way nobody can be
deceived into thinking, when they use shc, that they are actually
hiding very much.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-02-2009, 08:42 PM
"Milan P. Stanic"
Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02 2009, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:58, Karl Goetz wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:58:17 +0100
> >> "Dario Minnucci (midget)" <debian@midworld.net> wrote:
> >> > * Package name : shc
> >>
> >> > shc's main purpose is to protect your shell scripts from
> >> > modification or inspection. You can use it if you wish to
> >> > distribute your scripts but don't want them to be easily
> >> > readable by other people.
> >> Does this mean its a tool to make software no longer DFSG compatible?
> >> seems a bit odd to include in Debian.
> >
> > Then gcc (and other compilers) are at the odd with DFSG because they
> > produce unreadable code for most people. (some can read machine code)
>
> What this argument is missing is the point that the primary (and
> stated) goal of gcc and the ilk is not obfuscation.
>
> And the goal of obfuscation is not preventing tampering (since
> one may still modify obfuscated code, just not as easily (access
> control mechanisms do the non tampering bit)).
>
> The goal of obfuscation seems to be to prevent people from
> gaining knowledge; and obfuscation is pointless when the sources are
> available, so it is facile to argue that the issues are orthogonal. So
> there is some merit to the argument that this package is against the
> spirit free software.
I absolutely agree with you here, but if some user of Debian want to use
such tools (libfilter-perl is in repos for long time, I think) and some
maintainer is ready to maintain it, I can't see any valid argument
against it.
Debian does not segregate usage of its packages by any means, IIRC.
> Having said that, I am not advocating blocking this package (nor
> am I advocating accepting it), I am just commenting on the arguments
> being presented here.
I also don't want to advocate for this package because it is
uninteresting for me.
--
Kind regards, Milan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Bug#559134: ITP: shc -- a generic shell script compiler
