Either you don't understand what the software does or we are using different definitions of "encryption".. I will look to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption

As a further example, considered the *far* weaker encryption done by Rot13 (a subset of the encryption I use). If we again look to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rot13

We will see:

"ROT13..is often cited as a canonical example of weak encryption...ROT13 is an example of the encryption algorithm known as a Caesar cipher" And so on and so forth...

If ROT13 is encryption, which the rest of the world seems to agree with me on, then my encoding is encryption even more so, as ROT13 is essentially my encryption with a constant key.

So.... It is encryption, whether you want it to be or not.

Who is misleading who? We have to get all the way down to Re^9 and I am still presenting only facts, and I'm still being called misleading.

Very frustrating.

Please check your facts sir, I have checked mine, many times.

Over the course of this thread and What happened to perlcc?, much has been said. The simple fact with the 'encryption' you claim to offer, the source can be determined fairly easily, without knowing the 'encrpytion' algorithm or the salt used. See Re^15: What happened to perlcc? and subsequent posts explaining how this can be achieved with access to the binary only or the .c file produced.

http://marginalhacks.com/Hacks/perlc/

simple encoding with an optionally defined key. The script is decoded at runtime

http://marginalhacks.com/bin/perlc

-key <str> Specify key for encode/decode of embedded script

void decode(char *block, char *key, int len) {

:P

And?

If I give you an executable, can you extract the source? I'd love to see that.