Thanks for your reply. That was actually my intention. Anyway, I gave away the password because the guy threatened to sue me over that.
As for fills, pens and materials, I agree with you on that. That’s why I code my objects in such a way that there’s a level of customization that can be done by the end user. The object creator should make those parameter values available for edit by the end user.
I just use password protect to keep the Mastescript, 3D Script and 2D Script is hidden from end user.
Anyway, I still hope some long time developers shed some light with regards of legalities on sharing objects but not the scripts involved in creating the object.
Is there anyone here familiar with legalities involving creating a specific set of objects but password protecting the code?
I’ve been recently engaged to create parametric objects and I password protect so nobody can edit or copy the scripts. Now they’re asking for the password so they can modify (or copy). Anyway, I’ve always assumed that people normally respects the reason why you password protect so I guess I was wrong and learned that the hard way.
Anyway, for independent gdl developers, is there a proper way of explicitly stating in a contract that gdl scripts are not for sale? I’m not familiar with licensing and all that and it would be nice to know whats the current practice with regards to developing objects and libraries.